How do treatment strategies for chronic kidney disease vary based on the stage of the disease assesssment

Criteria

Proficient (100%)

Competent (80%)

Just competent (40%)

Poor (10%)

Overall Presentation (including formatting and grammar)

10%

Presentation of work is excellent, grammatically correct with highly commendable writing style.

Work is clearly presented with good use of English. Presentation meets the criteria.

Work is not clearly presented. Presentation meets some criteria.

Work is illegible, poor use of English. Presentation does not meet the criteria required.

Proper use of Literature

30%

Critical analysis of a wide range of relevant literature. 5-10 External sources of information included and well-integrated into report. Reference list complete and well formatted (according to latest APA guidelines).

Presents work that draws on relevant research/literature to support rational arguments and discussions. Accurate and coherent use of relevant research and literature. Small problems with formatting but able to identify sources used.

Adequate evidence of supportive reading without the use of argument and discussion. Some inaccuracies in citation of literature. External sources may be used but of low quality (wiki, web pages); attempt at referencing in text, attempt at constructing a reference list.

Failure to use appropriate citation or incomplete or inappropriate referencing.

Demonstration of comprehension, knowledge and analysis

30%

Analytical content demonstrates excellent critical thinking skills, knowledge and comprehension, able to synthesise learning and apply to field of study.

Demonstrates ability to

critically evaluate.

Content demonstrates relevance. Very good understanding/explanation of professional focus. Thorough understanding of facts and theories to support arguments. Demonstrates creative use of material. Evidence of critical thinking in a realistic logical manner.

Content demonstrates relevance. Adequate understanding/explanation of professional focus. Identifies and addresses key aspects of a minimum acceptable level. Limited evidence of analytical thinking.

Content lacks relevance. Professional focus is not understood or explained. Theoretical concepts and frameworks inappropriately selected.

Interpretation and application

30%

Able to critically evaluate and make judgments, which are realistic, creative and original.

Interpret brief correctly. Evidence of being able to examine and evaluate critically using appropriate theoretical frameworks. Points raised re applied and fully integrated into the discussion.

Interprets brief correctly. Evidence of being able to evaluate a situation in a logical way, identifying aspects of problem. Able to set own experiences within a wider context and take an objective stance.

Wrong interpretation of the assessment questions. No application of the learnt materials.