USE OF AI IN EVIDENCE-BASED PLAN MANAGEMENT

NURS_6512_Module4_Assignment_Rubric

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDifferential Diagnoses (3–5): List and provide a rationale for each diagnosis, using subjective, objective, and pertinent history findings to rule out each differential diagnosis.

20 to >17.0 ptsExcellentLists 3–5 differential diagnoses; provides a fully developed rationale for each diagnosis, using subjective, objective, and pertinent history findings to rule out each differential diagnosis.

17 to >14.0 ptsGoodLists 3–5 differential diagnoses; provides an adequately developed rationale for each diagnosis, using subjective, objective, and pertinent history findings to rule out each differential diagnosis.

14 to >13.0 ptsFairLists 3–5 differential diagnoses; provides a minimally developed rationale for each diagnosis, using subjective, objective, and pertinent history findings to rule out each differential diagnosis.

13 to >0 ptsPoorDoes not list at least 3 differential diagnoses.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFinal Diagnosis: Identify the final diagnosis with a rationale supported by subjective, objective, and pertinent history findings that rule in the diagnosis according to evidence-based guidelines.

15 to >12.0 ptsExcellentIdentifies the correct final diagnosis with a fully supported rationale with subjective, objective, and pertinent history findings that rule in the diagnosis according to evidence-based guidelines.

12 to >9.0 ptsGoodIdentifies the correct final diagnosis with adequately supported rationale with subjective, objective, and pertinent history findings that rule in the diagnosis according to evidence-based guidelines.

9 to >6.0 ptsFairIdentifies the correct final diagnosis with minimally supported rationale with subjective, objective, and pertinent history findings that rule in the diagnosis according to evidence-based guidelines.

6 to >0 ptsPoorDoes not identify the correct diagnosis; lacks rationale with subjective, objective, and pertinent history findings that rule in the diagnosis according to evidence-based guidelines.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWrite a problem statement with positive, negative, subjective, and objective findings and pertinent history.

15 to >12.0 ptsExcellentProvides a fully developed problem statement with positive, negative, subjective, and objective findings and pertinent history.

12 to >9.0 ptsGoodProvides an adequately developed problem statement with positive, negative, subjective, and objective findings and pertinent history.

9 to >6.0 ptsFairProvides a minimally developed problem statement with positive, negative, subjective, and objective findings and pertinent history.

6 to >0 ptsPoorDoes not provide a problem statement with positive, negative, subjective, and objective findings and pertinent history.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeManagement Plan: Include diagnostics, medications, referrals/consults, patient education, and follow-up, verified against evidence-based clinical guidelines. Complete and appropriate first-line medication orders (dose, route, frequency, duration, quantity, refills); thorough patient education including diagnosis explanation, medication teaching, lifestyle guidance, and red-flag symptoms; appropriate referrals with clear justification; and specific follow-up instructions including time frame, purpose, and ED/urgent care precautions.)

20 to >17.0 ptsExcellentProvides a fully developed, evidence-based management plan that includes diagnostics, medications, referrals/consults, patient education, and follow-up, verified against evidence-based clinical guidelines.

17 to >14.0 ptsGoodProvides an adequately developed, evidence-based management plan that includes diagnostics, medications, referrals/consults, patient education, and follow-up, verified against evidence-based clinical guidelines.

14 to >13.0 ptsFairProvides a minimally developed management plan that includes some diagnostics, medications, referrals/consults, patient education, and follow-up, verified against evidence-based clinical guidelines. Lacks evidence-based approach in some or most sections.

13 to >0 ptsPoorDoes not provide a management plan; plan is vague, incomplete, inaccurate, and/or not sufficiently supported by evidence.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReflection: Write a brief paragraph discussing the accuracy (verified against evidence-based resources), usefulness, and limitations of AI in developing your management plan.

10 to >9.0 ptsExcellentProvides a fully developed reflection demonstrating strong critical analysis of the accuracy (verified against evidence-based resources), usefulness, and limitations of AI in developing their management plan.

9 to >8.0 ptsGoodProvides an adequately developed reflection demonstrating sufficient critical analysis of the accuracy (verified against evidence-based resources), usefulness, and limitations of AI in developing their management plan.

8 to >7.0 ptsFairProvides a minimally developed reflection demonstrating minimal critical analysis of the accuracy (not verified against evidence-based resources), usefulness, and limitations of AI in developing their management plan.

7 to >0 ptsPoorReflection lacks critical analysis; or reflection not provided.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeUse a minimum of 3–5 sources published within the last 5 years. Cite all sources used with in-text citations and a corresponding list of references.

10 to >9.0 ptsExcellentUses 3 peer-reviewed scholarly sources.

9 to >8.0 ptsGoodUses 2 peer-reviewed scholarly sources.

8 to >7.0 ptsFairUses 1 peer-reviewed scholarly source.

7 to >0 ptsPoorDoes not use peer-reviewed scholarly sources.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSource Attribution and APA Formatting

5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentAll sources are cited in APA format without any errors... Includes a complete AI template in the appendix... Student work is original-- no AI-generated text is presented as student’s own, independent work.

4 to >3.0 ptsGoodAll sources are cited in APA format with some minor errors... Includes a mostly complete AI template in the appendix... Student work is original-- no AI-generated text is presented as student’s own, independent work.

3 to >2.0 ptsFairAll sources are cited with frequent APA formatting errors... Includes an incomplete AI template in the appendix... Student work is original-- no AI-generated text is presented as student’s own, independent work.

2 to >0 ptsPoorMissing source citations and/or minimal adherence to APA formatting rules... AI template missing... Student work is not original-- AI-generated text is presented as student’s own, independent work.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar, Mechanics, and Punctuation

5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentUses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

4 to >3.0 ptsGoodUses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with few errors.

3 to >2.0 ptsFairUses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with frequent errors.

2 to >0 ptsPoorPost contains frequent errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation that interfere with comprehension.

5 pts