Health and Social Care Provision

Module Code:

HSC4004-20

Module Title:

Collaborative Working in Health and Social Care Provision

Assignment:

Individual Reflective Account of team collaboration

Word Count:

2500 words

Contribution to Module Mark:

60%

Deadline:

28^thMay 2025

Before 5pm

Assessment outline (from the Module specification):

Reflective account of team collaboration including SWOT (2500 words)

Learning outcome assessed:

2.Describe how effective team working contributes to transforming and sustaining delivery of person-centred care.

3.Identify and explain skills, attributes and qualities needed to work with other professionals.

Assessment Brief

Reflective account of team collaboration including SWOT analysis (2500 words)

This will consist of the following parts:

1.Introduction (250 words)

2.What is effective team-working in health and social care and how does it contribute to the delivery of person-centred care? (600 words).

3.Complete the Belbin Self-Perception Inventory and reflect upon what you learnt from the exercise (600 words).

4.Complete your own personal SWOT analysisand reflect upon what you have learnt about yourself as a team member. If applicable, include your own experience as a team member in a health and social care setting (600 words).

5.Conclusion (250 words)

1.References (up to 6 and not included in word count)

*The Assessment (S2) will be marked according to the marking criteria below:

Elements of Criteria

Fail 0-39

Poor Quality

D. 40-49

Satisfactory Quality (Low Pass)

C. 50-59

Sound Quality

(High Pass)

B. 60-69

Good quality

(Low Merit)

A. 70-79

Excellent quality

(High Merit)

A. 80-100

Outstanding quality

(Distinction`)

Knowledge and Understanding

40%

Key concepts are misunderstood. Explanations are often confusing.

Little or no relevance to themes explored, i.e. no connection to any knowledge or skills of change management.

Mostly adequate explanations and coverage of the required elements.

Some occasional misunderstandings or confusing explanations.

Demonstrates a sound grasp of all (or nearly all) of the required elements.

Satisfactory understanding shown of relevant concepts and literature.

Clearly and convincingly covers the required elements. Very good understanding shown of relevant concepts and literature.

Authoritative and confident coverage of all the required elements. Excellent understanding shown of relevant concepts and literature, with a clear ability to digest and present complex ideas/arguments.

Outstanding understanding shown of relevant concepts and literature.

Presentation skills style/structure, how fluently content is expressed.

15%

The presentation is poorly organised. The structure is confusing. The presentation flows poorly.

The presentation is fairly clear. Flow of presentation quite poor.

The presentation is clear.

The work is well presented.

The presentation is very clear. Care and thought has gone into structure and flow of the presentation.

The presentation is of an excellent standard - very clearly and professionally delivered.

Outstanding integration of content throughout the presentation.

Reflection:

Quality of personal reflection

30%

No or very little reflection.

Some aspects of are described clearly but with limited engagement with own practice. Description focuses on basic steps. Limited reflection on relevant theories but some lessons learnt.

Clear description of activities with some evaluation of positives and negatives. Some deeper engagement interpersonal dimensions. Reflections on possible future strategies are presented and clear lessons learnt in own professional context.

Good reflection across a range of technical and interpersonal issues. Relevant aspects of theory are brought into the discussion. Clear lessons are learnt and evaluation of the process extends across the issues covered, especially in context of own professional practice.

Excellent reflection across a range of issues. Individual presentation shows deep insight into own practice context and reflects carefully on strategies for change management for the future.

Outstanding description of own experiences across a range of issues.

Referencing:

Accuracy and appropriateness of referencing throughout

15%

Major errors in referencing.

A number of errors in referencing.

Referencing is mostly accurate, assists arguments.

Referencing is very accurate and supports text well.

Referencing is very accurate and is skilfully and appropriately used.

Flawless referencing.