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