Criteria High Distinction (80-100%) Distinction (70-79%) Credit(60-69%) Pass(50-59%) Unsatisfactory(30-49%) Fail(0-29%)
Criteria High Distinction (80-100%) Distinction (70-79%) Credit(60-69%) Pass(50-59%) Unsatisfactory(30-49%) Fail(0-29%)
Introduction, sequencing, and conclusion(5 marks) The content in the case study comprehensively matches the outline presented in the introductory paragraph. All steps of the clinical reasoning cycle are present and are appropriately sequenced.The case study concludes with a comprehensive summary that concisely captures the main points and key takeaways of the assessment.
(4-5 marks) The content in the case study thoroughly matches the outline presented in the introductory paragraph. All steps of the Clinical reasoning cycle are present and are mostly logically sequenced. The case study concludes with a thorough summary that effectively captures the main points and key takeaways of the assessment.
(3.5 marks) The content in the case study matches the outline presented in the introductory paragraph. Most steps of the Clinical reasoning cycle are present and are mostly appropriately sequenced.The case study concludes with an adequate summary that captures the main points though lacks some conciseness and clarity.
(3 marks) The content in the case study mostly matches the outline presented in the introductory paragraph.Not all steps of the clinical reasoning cycle are present and are not always logically sequenced.The case study concludes with an adequate summary that captures some of the main points and key takeaways and may lack some clarity.
(2.5 marks) There is a clear introduction, followed by the body of the case study, with a conclusion. Some steps of the Clinical reasoning cycle are present, and appropriately sequenced. The case study ends with an unclear or in concise summary that make it challenging to identify the key points.
(1.5-2 marks) There is no clear introduction or body and/or conclusion. Steps of the Clinical reasoning cycle are missing or are not logically sequenced. The case study has no discernible summary or an extremely vague and unclear attempt to capture the main points.
(0-1 marks)
Accurate content and use of the clinical reasoning cycle(40 marks) Comprehensively defines and discusses the provision of evidence-based, holistic person-centred care. Comprehensive discussion of the patient situation, collection of cues and processing. Includes the establishment of realistic and relevant goals using SMART format.Utilises the 2 given nursing issues.Comprehensive evaluation and reflection.
(32-40 marks)
Thoroughly defines and discusses the provision of evidence-based, holistic person-centred care,including thorough discussion of the patient situation, collection of cues and processing. Includes the establishment of realistic and relevant goals using SMART format.Utilises the 2 given nursing issues.Thorough evaluation and reflection.
(28-31 marks) Defines and describes the provision of evidence-based, holistic person-centred care,including discussion of the patient situation, collection of cues and processing. Includes the establishment of realistic and relevant goals Using SMART format.Utilises 1 2 of the given nursing issues.Evaluation and reflection present though lacks relevance or depth.
(24-27 marks)
Describes the provision of evidence-based, holistic person-centred care,including discussion of the patient situation, collection of cues and processing. Does not provide clear rationale for choices or the establishment of relevant goals or does not use SMART format.Utilises 1 of the given nursing issues.Minimal evaluation and/or reflection.
(20-23 marks)
No evidence of the consideration or provision of evidence-based, holistic person-centred care.Includes a discussion of the patient situation, collection of cues and processing. Does not provide establishment of goals, or goals not relevant, or does not use SMART format.Does not utilise the given nursing issues.No evidence of evaluation and/or reflection.
(12-19 marks) No evidence of the consideration or provision of evidence-based, holistic person-centred care.No discussion of the patient situation, collection of cues and processing.Does not provide establishment of relevant goals and does not use SMART format.Does not utilise the given nursing issues.No evidence of evaluation and/or reflection.
(0-11 marks)
Analysis: Critical thinking and clinical reasoning(40 marks) There is evidence of detailed depth and breadth of reading. A comprehensive, concise, and well supported analysis and justification of the 2 given nursing issues and nursing actions supported by adequate and appropriate evidence.
(32-40 marks) There is evidence of depth of reading. A concise and well supported analysis and justification of the 2 given nursing issues and nursing actions supported by adequate and appropriate evidence.
(28-31 marks) There is evidence of reading. A well supported analysis and justification of the 2 given nursing issues and nursing actions supported by adequate and appropriate evidence.
(24-27 marks) An analysis and justification of the given 2 nursing issues and nursing actions which is supported by minimal evidence.
(20-23 marks) Minimal analysis and justification are presented related to the given nursing issues and nursing actions.
(12-19 marks) No analysis or justification is presented related to the given nursing issues and nursing actions.
(0-11 marks)
Writing: Paragraph, structure/intelligibility(5 marks) The writing is organised into paragraphs that are structured well, and the information is impeccably organised appropriately within the paragraph. Each paragraph relates to a discrete idea.There are clear linking sentences that link each paragraph to the next consistently.Flawless spelling and grammar.
(4-5 marks) The writing is organised into paragraphs, and the information is consistently organised appropriately within the paragraph.Each paragraph relates to a discrete idea.There are clear linking sentences that link most paragraphs to the next.Spelling and grammar are almost always accurate.
(3.5 marks) The writing is organised into paragraphs, and the information is mostly organised appropriately within the paragraph. Most paragraphs relate to a discrete idea.There are clear linking sentences that link most paragraphs to the next.Spelling and grammar are mostly accurate.
(3 marks) The writing is organised into paragraphs, and the information is mostly organised appropriately within the paragraph.Some paragraphs relate to a discrete idea.The paragraphs mostly link to one another. Many spelling and grammatical errors.
(2.5 marks) There is evidence of paragraphs, however paragraph structure is disorganised, with no clear ideas, and no links.Poor spelling and grammar.
(1.5-2 marks) Some evidence of paragraphs, however paragraph structure is disorganised, with no clear ideas, and no links.Spelling and grammar is unreadable.
(0-1 marks)
Sources and Referencing(10 marks) 10 credible and relevant references are used, including the NURBN2022 prescribed texts.Accurate use of APA referencing style in all instances.A broad range of in-text citations has been used, with an over reliance on direct quotations.
(8-10 marks) 8-10 credible and relevant references are used, including the NURBN2022 prescribed text.APA referencing style is almost always accurate.A range of in-text citations has been used minimal reliance of direct quotations.
(7-7.5 marks) 6-8 credible and relevant references are used including the NURBN2022 prescribed texts.APA referencing style is accurate on most occasions.There is limited use of a range of in-text citation formats with the over use of direct quotations.
(6-6.5 marks) Less than 5 credible and relevant references are used including the NURBN2022 prescribed texts.APA referencing style is demonstrated inconsistently.There is no variation of in-text citation format and significant use of direct quotations.
(5-5.5 marks) Not all references are credible and/or relevant including the NURBN2022 prescribed texts.There are inaccuracies with the APA referencing style.There may be an overuse of direct quotations.
(3-4.5 marks) Not all references are credible and/or relevant including the NURBN2022 prescribed texts.There are several inaccuracies with the APA referencing style.There is an overuse of direct quotations.
(0-2.5 marks)
Please use information below to structure your case report:
Word limit: 2000 words (+/- 10%)
Introduction (150 words):
Briefly detail what you are going to write about, briefly introducing the patient and the CRC
Patient situation (100 words):
Briefly identify what you know about the patient.
Consider Carols situation describing the person and their context.
Collect cues (350 words):
Reviewrelevantcurrent information.
Document what else you would like to know e.g., history, physical assessment, or other investigations.
Recall what you know about his current health condition (Brief pathophysiology linking Carols health to supporting literature).
Process (500 words):
Identify/Interpret cue to explain abnormal vital signs.
Cluster or group important cues, with patterns of health identified.
Develop inferences/hypotheses of cause of illness/potential problems.
Justify the following two issues:
Risk of recurrent exacerbation of COPD
Risk of falls at home
Relate all information to supporting literature.
Establish goals (100 words):
Identify goals of nursing care related to the nursing problem/issues detailed for Carol.
Remember SMART.
Take action (350 words):
Detail with supporting literature the nursing care for Carolrelated to your established goal.
Evaluate (150 words):
Evaluate your nursing care strategies with what you expect Carols response will be.
Reflect (150 words):
Reflect on the process of new learning.
What did you learn by completing this case report?
Where do you need to focus your efforts for wider understanding?
Conclusion (150 words):
Briefly describe what you wrote about, as well as a summarising statement.
CASE STUDY:
It is 0700 hours, and you are working on an acute respiratory ward in a large metropolitan hospital.
You are caring for Mrs. Carol Jansen, a 72-year-old woman, who was admitted 5 days ago, with an acute exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). She has been well managed with inhaled and Intravenous corticosteroids, inhaled bronchodilators, Intravenous antibiotics, and oxygen therapy. She has been reviewed by the admitting team, with the recommendation for discharge.
The team have changed her medications to include Fluticasone-vilanterol (Breo Ellipta) 100 25mcg INH daily, Salbutamol 2 puffs PRN, Rulide 150mg BD O, a reducing prednisolone regime 25mg O Daily.
Medical history:
COPD for last 5 years, oxygen dependant for the last 4 months.
Hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, peripheral vascular disease and obesity, no surgical history.
Ex smoker, 30 per day for 30 years, ceased 4 years ago.
Prior to admission her medications included: Salbutamol 2 puffs IHN 4 hourly PRN, Vitamin D3 1000us O daily, Olmesartan 40mg O daily, Atorvastatin 40mg O Nocte.
Nil known allergies.
Social History:
Mrs. Jansen is widowed and lives alone; she has a supportive son who lives close by.
Objective data:
Temp: 36.5 Celsius,
HR (Heart Rate): 88 beats per minute,
RR (Respiratory Rate): 22 breaths per minute, chest: Good bilateral air entry with fine crackles at bases.
BP (Blood Pressure): 135/85 mmHg,
SaO2 (Saturation): 96% on 2lpm of Intranasal oxygen
BSL: 6.3 mmol/l
GCS 15/15
Pain free
Bowels opened daily.
Subjective Data:
Mrs. Jansen is noted to be unsteady on her feet and sustained a near fall. No injuries occurred, though Mrs. Jansen is fearful, and fatigues quickly. She is forgetful; however, a cognitive screen was identified as normal, she admits to being worried about her new medication.
