Acute Care Across the Lifespan | NUR2203 Assignment 1 | Marking Rubric <\/p>\n
CRITERIA Introduction <\/p>\n
Conclusion Highly relevant comprehensive introduction <\/p>\n
Defines topic and includes a comprehensive introduction to the essay<\/p>\n
Excellent synthesis of information from assignment that clearly ties highly relevant main points together.<\/p>\n
Well-structured, concise reflection on importance of findings. Well-developed introduction <\/p>\n
Defines the topic and includes an introduction to the essay<\/p>\n
Quality synthesis of information from assignment that clearly ties relevant main points together.<\/p>\n
Well-structured, concise reflection on importance of findings. Effective attempt of writing introduction that outlines essay<\/p>\n
Above average synthesis of information from assignment clearly ties main points together.<\/p>\n
Concise reflection demonstrates importance of findings. An attempt made to provide an introduction, however appeared unclear.<\/p>\n
The topic is simply defined. <\/p>\n
Demonstration of synthesis from assignment evident with some points from assignment discussed.<\/p>\n
Importance of findings indicated. Inadequate and\/or poor introduction. <\/p>\n
Minimal\/no evidence of an overview of the essay.<\/p>\n
Inappropriate or absent conclusion.<\/p>\n
Conclusion includes new material.<\/p>\n
Referenced material in conclusion.<\/p>\n
MARKS (15) 4.25-5 3-4 2.5 2 0-1<\/p>\n
Critical Skills: Prioritising of major concepts of care Excellent reasoning in prioritising of concepts arising from the case study<\/p>\n
Prioritised plan of care is highly synthesised and well-structured, with a very clear and coherent synthesis of the clinical data and supported with multiple literature sources<\/p>\n
Excellently justifies judgments and reasons for decisions \/ courses of action (e.g. related to pt. cues, goals \/ expected outcomes \/ evidence)<\/p>\n
Very logical \/ clear \/ succinct progression of concepts \/ ideas demonstrated \/ presents as a unified whole<\/p>\n
Excellent analysis, well prioritised care detailed and succinctly communicated<\/p>\n
Good reasoning in prioritising concepts arising from the case study with one omission <\/p>\n
Prioritised plan of care is well synthesised and structured, with a clear and coherent synthesis of the clinical data and supported with multiple literature sources<\/p>\n
Clearly justifies judgments and reasons for decisions \/ courses of action (e.g. related to pt. cues, goals \/ expected outcomes \/ evidence)<\/p>\n
Good logical \/ clear \/ succinct progression of concepts \/ ideas demonstrated \/ presents as a unified whole<\/p>\n
Good analysis, well prioritised care detailed and succinctly communicated<\/p>\n
Reasoning in prioritising concepts arising from the case study has been partially addressed with some major omissions <\/p>\n
Prioritised plan of care is synthesised and structured, with some demonstration of synthesis of the clinical data and supported with some literature sources<\/p>\n
Justifies judgments and reasons for decisions \/ courses of action (e.g. related to pt. cues, goals \/ expected outcomes \/ evidence) satisfactorily<\/p>\n
Some logical progression of concepts \/ ideas however further development \/ clarity needed.<\/p>\n
Analysis of the case evident with some prioritised care demonstrated and at times well communicated<\/p>\n
Reasoning in prioritising concepts arising from the case study has been attempted, but has omitted more relevant priorities <\/p>\n
Prioritised plan of care is provided but with minimal synthesis of the clinical data and an unclear structure with minimal reference to literature sources<\/p>\n
Judgments and reasons for decisions \/ courses of action (e.g. related to pt. cues, goals \/ expected outcomes \/ evidence) are inadequately justified<\/p>\n
Limited logical progression of concepts \/ ideas however further development \/ clarity needed.<\/p>\n
Minimal analysis of the case evident. Care is not well prioritised, or clearly communicated<\/p>\n
Clinical reasoning and synthesis of concepts arising from the case study is minimal or absent <\/p>\n
Prioritised plan of care is not synthesised or structured coherently. There is limited or no reference to literature sources<\/p>\n
No judgment and reasons for decisions \/ courses of action (e.g. related to pt. cues, goals \/ expected outcomes \/ evidence) demonstrated<\/p>\n
No \/ lack of logical progression of concepts underpinning case study.<\/p>\n
No analysis evident e.g. lack of priority development in actions\/ interventions \/ approach to dealing with deterioration<\/p>\n
MARKS (15) 13.25-15 10.5-13 7.5-10 4-7 0-3.5<\/p>\n
Content analysis:<\/p>\n
Knowledge and understanding, nursing interventions \/rationales Evaluation of the case demonstrates depth of understanding of pathophysiology and prioritisation of nursing interventions that could be actioned in practice <\/p>\n
Excellent breadth and depth of actions \/ clear \/ succinct in approach, priorities well define<\/p>\n
Highly articulate rationales succinctly related to the nursing interventions and nursing actions very well detailed<\/p>\n
The relationship between comorbidities and recovery from a GA\/ surgical procedure are critically discussed demonstrating excellent understanding with rationales fully explained. <\/p>\n
Excellent sources used to support actions \/ interventions quality (evidenced based) & demonstrate depth and breadth of reading. Quality research sources \u2013 contextual to the case study<\/p>\n
Discharge planning very clear \/ succinct, detailed Evaluation of the case demonstrates understanding of the pathophysiology and some prioritisation of nursing interventions that could be actioned in practice <\/p>\n
Good breadth of nursing actions: including assessment \/ monitoring \/ interventions included, evidence of prioritisation of actions appropriate to the case study<\/p>\n
Good rationale included \/ relates to the intervention \/ action chosen and well detailed<\/p>\n
The relationship between comorbidities and recovery from a GA \/ surgical procedure are well explored and logically presented with rationales that are satisfactorily explained. <\/p>\n
Very good sources used to demonstrate depth of understanding e.g. some use of evidenced based papers mostly contextual to the case scenario<\/p>\n
Discharge planning clear and succinct Evaluation of the case is sometimes clear and there is some understanding of pathophysiology with some interventions that could be actioned in practice<\/p>\n
Clear nursing actions: including assessment \/ monitoring \/ interventions included some prioritisation of actions mostly appropriate to the case study<\/p>\n
Rationales for the nursing interventions and the implications for practice are outlined however further rationales could be provided<\/p>\n
The relationship between comorbidities and recovery from a GA\/surgical procedure are explored with some depth and sometimes well explained<\/p>\n
Fair breadth of sources used demonstrate understanding e.g. some use of evidenced based research with some contextual to the case scenario<\/p>\n
Discharge planning included however broad and requires more detail <\/p>\n
Evaluation provides a narrative to the reader outlining minimal understanding of pathophysiology and or formulation of relevant nursing interventions that could be actioned in practice. <\/p>\n
Some nursing actions including: assessment \/ ongoing monitoring \/ interventions included however priorities are not well defined<\/p>\n
Rationales included however explanation not clear or not focused \/ specific enough to the action\/ intervention<\/p>\n
The relationship between comorbidities and recovery from a GA\/surgical procedure are minimally explored and some confusion evident. <\/p>\n
Minimal breadth of sources utilised \/ lacks depth e.g. mainly text \/ with minimal use of evidenced based journal articles<\/p>\n
Satisfactory discharge planning, could be more specific at times<\/p>\n
Evaluation of the case is not clear and concise to the reader with no or limited suggested nursing interventions that could be actioned in practice<\/p>\n
Nursing actions including: assessment \/monitoring \/ interventions minimal \/ not evident \/ inadequately prioritised<\/p>\n
Rationales are limited, vague or absent<\/p>\n
The relationship between comorbidities and recovery from a GA \/ surgical procedure is not dealt with and \/ or are confused and not clear. <\/p>\n
No \/ inadequate \/ limited literature sources used to support work presented e.g. over 7 years old and lack of evidenced based research e.g. uses mainly texts<\/p>\n
No \/ minimal discharge planning included, vague \/ too broad<\/p>\n
MARKS (5) 13.25-15 10.5-13 7.5-10 4-7 0-3.5<\/p>\n
Academic Writing: structure, APA referencing expression \/grammar Word limit: Adhered to word limit <\/p>\n
Expression <\/p>\n
High standard of academic presentation. Expressed ideas clearly, concisely & fluently <\/p>\n
Very few\/no spelling or grammatical errors <\/p>\n
Structure <\/p>\n
Well-constructed paragraphs <\/p>\n
Main points linked to the question<\/p>\n
Presentation is extremely appealing and engaging<\/p>\n
Referencing <\/p>\n
Correctly cited sources both within text & reference list. No\/limited mistakes in referencing format Word limit: Adhered to word limit +\/- 10% Expression <\/p>\n
Sound academic structure and presentation <\/p>\n
Expressed ideas clearly and concisely, thoughts expressed clearly<\/p>\n
Very few spelling or grammatical errors <\/p>\n
Structure <\/p>\n
Well-constructed paragraphs, clearly expressed & linked main points <\/p>\n
Presentation is appealing and engaging<\/p>\n
Referencing <\/p>\n
References to literature are good Word limit: Adhered to word limit +\/- 10% Expression <\/p>\n
Expressed ideas clearly, however not concisely & fluently, thoughts not clearly articulated<\/p>\n
Some spelling and grammatical errors <\/p>\n
Structure <\/p>\n
Provided paragraphs with main points however not clearly expressed <\/p>\n
Presentation is pleasing and mostly engaging <\/p>\n
Referencing <\/p>\n
References to literature are satisfactory Word limit: Adhered to word limit (+\/-10% <\/p>\n
Expression <\/p>\n
Limited clarity of expression, vague or narrative only<\/p>\n
Errors in spelling & grammar <\/p>\n
Structure <\/p>\n
Provided paragraphs but either main points were inappropriate or they were not linked key content areas. <\/p>\n
Presentation is somewhat pleasing and engaging<\/p>\n
Referencing <\/p>\n
Reference to literature is present but not strong Word limit: Not adhered to <\/p>\n
Expression <\/p>\n
Used incorrect terminology <\/p>\n
Numerous mistakes in spelling and\/or grammar <\/p>\n
Structure <\/p>\n
No or limited structure <\/p>\n
Presentation does not answer the question and is not engaging<\/p>\n
Referencing <\/p>\n
Literature not appropriate or insufficient <\/p>\n
Incorrect referencing <\/p>\n
4.25-5 3-4 2.5 2 0-1<\/p>\n
Marker Comments: <\/p>\n
FINAL MARK: <\/p>\n
\/40<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Acute Care Across the Lifespan | NUR2203 Assignment 1 | Marking Rubric CRITERIA Introduction Conclusion Highly relevant comprehensive introduction Defines<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-53288","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n