|
PRAC_6568_Week8_Assignment1_Rubric
|
|
Criteria
|
Ratings
|
Pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCreate documentation in the Comprehensive SOAP Note Template about the patient you selected. In the Subjective section, provide: • Chief complaint • History of present illness (HPI) • Current medications • Allergies • Patient medical history (PMHx), including immunization status, social and substance history, family history, past surgical procedures, mental health, safety concerns, reproductive history • Review of systems
|
|
10 to >8.0 pts
Excellent
The response throughly and accurately describes the patient's subjective complaint, history of present illness, current medications, allergies, medical history, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis.
|
8 to >7.0 pts
Good
The response accurately describes the patient's subjective complaint, history of present illness, current medications, allergies, medical history, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis.
|
7 to >6.0 pts
Fair
The response describes the patient's subjective complaint, history of present illness, current medications, allergies, medical history, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis, but is somewhat vague or contains minor innacuracies.
|
6 to >0 pts
Poor
The response provides an incomplete or inaccurate description of the patient's subjective complaint, history of present illness, current medications, allergies, medical history, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Or, subjective documentation is missing.
|
|
10 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn the Objective section, provide: • Physical exam documentation of systems pertinent to the chief complaint, HPI, and history • Diagnostic results, including any labs, imaging, or other assessments needed to develop the differential diagnoses
|
|
10 to >8.0 pts
Excellent
The response thoroughly and accurately documents the patient's physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are thoroughly and accurately documented.
|
8 to >7.0 pts
Good
The response accurately documents the patient's physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are accurately documented.
|
7 to >6.0 pts
Fair
Documentation of the patient's physical exam is somewhat vague or contains minor innacuracies. Diagnostic tests and their results are documented but contain minor innacuracies.
|
6 to >0 pts
Poor
The response provides incomplete or inaccurate documentation of the patient's physical exam. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed, or, objective documentation is missing.
|
|
10 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn the Assessment section, provide: • At least 3 differentials with supporting evidence. Explain what rules each differential in or out and justify your primary diagnosis selection. Include pertinent positives and pertinent negatives for the specific patient case.
|
|
25 to >22.0 pts
Excellent
The response lists at least three distinctly different and detailed possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, and provides a thorough, accurate, and detailed justification for each of the conditions selected.
|
22 to >19.0 pts
Good
The response lists at least three different possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study and provides an accurate justification for each of the conditions selected.
|
19 to >17.0 pts
Fair
The response lists three possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, with some vagueness and/or inaccuracy in the conditions and/or justification for each.
|
17 to >0 pts
Poor
The response lists two or fewer, or is missing, possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, with inaccurate or missing justification for each condition selected.
|
|
25 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn the Plan section, provide: • A detailed treatment plan for the patient that addresses each diagnosis, as applicable. Includes documentation of diagnostic studies that will be obtained, referrals to other health care providers, therapeutic interventions, education, disposition of the patient, and any planned follow up visits. • Reflections on the case describing insights or lessons learned. • A discussion related to health promotion and disease prevention taking into consideration patient factors, PMH, and other risk factors.
|
|
30 to >26.0 pts
Excellent
The response thoroughly and accurately outlines a treatment plan for the patient that addresses each diagnosis and includes diagnostic studies neeed, referrals, therapeutic interventions, patient education and disposition, and planned follow-up visits. Reflections on the case demonstrate strong critical thinking and synthesis of ideas. A thorough and accurate disucssion of health promotion and disease prevention related to the case is provided.
|
26 to >23.0 pts
Good
The response accurately outlines a treatment plan for the patient that addresses each diagnosis and includes diagnostic studies neeed, referrals, therapeutic interventions, patient education and disposition, and planned follow-up visits. Reflections on the case demonstrate critical thinking. An accurate disucssion of health promotion and disease prevention related to the case is provided.
|
23 to >20.0 pts
Fair
The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately outlines a treatment plan for the patient. Reflections on the case demonstrate adequate understanding of course topics. The discussion on health promotion and disease prevention related to the case is somewhat vague or contains innaccuracies.
|
20 to >0 pts
Poor
The response does not address all diagnoses or is missing elements of the treatment plan. Reflections on the case are vague or missing. The discussion on health promotion and disease prevention related to the case is vague, innaccurate, or missing.
|
|
30 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProvide at least three evidence-based peer-reviewed journal articles or evidenced based guidelines which relates to this case to support your diagnostics and differentials diagnoses. Be sure they are current (no more than five years old) and support the treatment plan in following current standards of care.
|
|
10 to >8.0 pts
Excellent
The response provides at least three current, evidence-based resources from the literature to support the treatment plan for the patient in the assigned case study. Each resource represents the latest in standards of care and provides strong justification for treatment decisions.
|
8 to >7.0 pts
Good
The response provides at least three current, evidence-based resources from the literature to support the treatment plan for the patient in the assigned case study. Each resource represents current standards of care and supports treatment decisions.
|
7 to >6.0 pts
Fair
Three evidence-based resources are provided to support treatment decisions, but may not represent the latest in standards of care or may only provide vague or weak justification for the treatment plan.
|
6 to >0 pts
Poor
Two or fewer resources are provided to support treatment decisions. The resources may not be current or evidence-based, or do not support the treatment plan.
|
|
10 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting - Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused--neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria.
|
|
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria.
|
4 to >3.5 pts
Good
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet are brief and not descriptive.
|
3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.
|
3 to >0 pts
Poor
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided.
|
|
5 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting - English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation
|
|
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
|
4 to >3.5 pts
Good
Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
|
3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
|
3 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
|
|
5 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting - The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running heads, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.
|
|
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
|
4 to >3.5 pts
Good
Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.
|
3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.
|
3 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
|
|
5 pts
|
|
Total Points: 100
|