Criteria High Distinction

Criteria High Distinction

(85-100%) Distinction

(75-84%) Credit

(65-74%) Pass

(50-64%) Fail

(0-49%)

Ethical dilemma regarding withholding clinical information

Weight 30% A comprehensive analysis of the key ethical issues involved in withholding clinical information, demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of how withholding information may impact the patient. (30-25.4) Effective analysis of the key ethical issues demonstrates a good understanding of how withholding information may impact the patient. (25.3-22.4) Solid analysis of the key ethical issues demonstrating a sound understanding of how withholding information may impact the patient. (22.3-19.4)

Basic analysis of the key ethical issues, demonstrating a satisfactory understanding of how withholding information may impact the patient. (19.3-14.9) The ethical issue is unclear or non-evident. Vague or inaccurate link of the key ethical issues may impact the patient. (14.8-0)

Analysis of legal issues

Weight 40% An in-depth analysis of the legal issues involved in withholding clinical information, which includes a compelling and complete evaluation of the impact on patient outcomes. (40-33.8) A thorough analysis of the legal issues, which includes a convincing evaluation of the impact of withholding information on patient outcomes. (33.7-29.8) A sound analysis of the legal issues, which includes a sound evaluation of the impact of withholding information on patient outcomes. (29.7-25.8) A basic analysis of the legal issues, which includes a basic evaluation of the impact of withholding information on patient outcomes. (25.7-19.8) Insufficient analysis of the legal issues demonstrates an incomplete evaluation of the impact of withholding information on patient outcomes. (19.7-0)

Reflection on withholding clinical information

Weight 15% Insightful reflection regarding own views on whether nurses should withhold clinical information if it goes against their personal values. (15-12.7) Thoughtful reflection regarding own views on whether nurses should withhold clinical information if it goes against their personal values. (12.6-11.2) Sound reflection regarding own views on whether nurses should withhold clinical information if it goes against their personal values.(11.1-9.7) Cursory reflection regarding your views on whether nurses should withhold clinical information if it goes against their personal values. (9.6-7.4) Little or no reflection regarding your views on whether nurses should withhold clinical information if it goes against their personal values. (7.3-0)

Presentation style

(Spoken narration)

Weight 5% Highly commanding and engaging speaking voice evidenced by a sophisticated use of volume, pitch, and pace. Demonstrates expert understanding of the use of communication techniques to convey key messages. (5-4.2) Commanding and engaging speaking voice evidenced by a fluent use of volume, pitch, and pace. Demonstrates proficient understanding of the use of communication techniques to convey key messages. (4.1-3.7) Accomplished speaking voice evidenced by coherent use of volume, pitch, and pace. Demonstrates a solid understanding of the use of communication techniques to convey key messages. (3.6-3.2) Adequate speaking voice is evidenced by a basic use of volume, pitch and pace that could be strengthened to better engage the audience. Demonstrates a basic understanding of the use of most communication techniques to convey key messages. (3.1-2.5) Speaking voice difficult to understand/not available. Limited use of volume, pitch and/or pace, or distracting background noise. Demonstrates limited understanding of the use of communication techniques to convey key messages. (2.4-0)

Slide creation and mechanics

Weight 5% Presents highly effective and visually appealing slides. Student visible throughout. Correct number of slides. Highly effective, logical structure and sequence of ideas that is clear and easy to follow. Text is easy to read; layout and graphics enhance understanding of content. No spelling/grammatical errors. (5-4.2) Presents effective, visually appealing slides. Student visible throughout. Correct number of slides. Effective, logical structure and sequence of ideas that is easy to follow. Text is easy to read; layout and graphics enhance understanding of content. Very minor spelling/grammatical errors. (4.1-3.7) Presents appropriate slides with a coherent structure and sequence of ideas that are mostly easy to follow. Student visible throughout. Correct number of slides. Text is occasionally difficult to read due to overcrowding or too many ideas per slide. Graphics replicate content. Minor spelling/grammatical errors. (3.6-3.2). Presents basic slides with a simple structure and sequence of ideas, which are not always logical or easy to follow. Student visible throughout. May have incorrect number of slides. Layout, text, or slide inclusions occasionally detract from the content. Minor spelling/ grammatical errors. (3.1-2.5) Presents inadequate slides. Student not visible throughout Incorrect number of slides. The structure and sequence of ideas are confusing and difficult to follow. The layout, text, and slide inclusions are overcrowded and detract from the content. Numerous spelling/ grammatical errors. (2.4-0)

Use of evidence and referencing format as per APA 7th edition.

Weight 5%

Judiciously integrates an extensive range of relevant literature from scholarly sources to support the oral presentation; 10 relevant credible references. APA 7th edition referencing conventions have always been applied accurately and consistently. (5-4.2) Effectively integrates an in-depth range of relevant literature from scholarly sources to support the oral presentation. 9 relevant, credible references. APA 7th edition referencing conventions have been used almost always accurately and consistently. (4.1-3.7) Sound integration of a substantial range of literature from scholarly sources to support the oral presentation. 8 relevant, credible references. APA 7th edition referencing conventions are used with few errors or minor inconsistencies. (3.6-3.2) Satisfactory integration of a range of literature from varied sources, some of which are not credible or relevant, that has been used to support the oral presentation. 7 relevant, credible references. APA 7th edition referencing conventions have some errors and inconsistencies. (3.1-2.5) Literature from sources is irrelevant and/or not credible, or no literature is used to support the oral presentation. Fewer than 7 relevant, credible references. APA 7th edition referencing conventions are minimal or non-existent. (2.4-0)