complex care

Criterion High Distinction (HD) 80-100

Distinction (DN) 70-80

Credit (CR) 60-70

Pass (PP) 50-60

Fail (NN) <50

Identify the highest level of evidence to support care plan actions

15%

The work clearly identifies the highest level of evidence to support care plan actions All relevant available information is included in initial examination and appropriate assessments are well chosen and justified to obtain new information.

12-15

The work ddentifies high level of evidence to support care plan actions, although there are some minor areas requiring further clarity Information is relevant and appropriate assessments have been chosen to obtain new information

10.5-11.5

The work provides some quality evidence to support care plan actions. Some areas would benefit from more rigorous evidence Information is mostly relevant to the scenario, but some important data is lacking. Correct assessments have been chosen to gather new information but further clarification required in some areas

9-10

Identifies low level evidence to support the care plan actions Some of the available information has been listed with. Some areas require more discussion

7.5-8.5

Incorrectly identtifies some elements of evidence to support the care plan actions or displays a base level or incorrect evidence to support the care plan Available information is not provided. Incorrect assessments chosen to obtain relevant information. Limited or no new information discussed

<7.5

Discuss the inter- relationship between research and quality care and identify the issues impacting translation of research into practice

30%

The work succintly and clearly discusses the inter-relationship between research and quality care and identifies the issues impacting translation of research into practice. All information is relevant and has been correctly interpreted and analysed. Ideas and concepts are well justified.

24-30

The work discusses the inter- relationship between research and quality care and identiies most issues impacting translation of research into practice The information is relevant but some concepts lack clarity Most ideas and concepts are appropriately supported.

21-23.5

The work discusses the inter- relationship between research and quality care and identifies issues impacting the translation of research into practice. A good attempt has been made to link to the case study however some areas could be explored further.

18-20.5

The work provides a basic discussion on the inter-relationship between research and quality care and raises some issues which may impact on the translation of research into practice. However some areas are unclear or lack relevance to the case study.

15-17.5

There is little meaningful discussion of the inter-relationship between research and quality care and/or does not accurately identify issues impacting translation of research into practice Or /the interpretation or analysis of the information is incorrect

<15

Relate the pathophysiology and pharmacology to your selected actions.

25%

The work clearly links the pathophysiology and pharmacology to your selected actions. The explanation expertly applies this knowledge of the pathophysiology and pharmacology to the case study

20-25

The work links the pathophysiology and pharmacology to actions, but there were some minor details lacking. The explanation incorporated pathophysiology and pharmacology to the case study some areas could have been explored in a little more depth.

17.5-19.5

The work demonstrates a sound understanding of the pathophysiology and pharmacology and makes a good attempt to link this knowledge to the case study.

15-17

The work provides a basic explanation of pathophysiology and pharmacology however it links poorly to the case study.

12.5-14.5

There is little or innaccurate linking of the pathophysiology and pharmacology to your selected action and/or there is a lack of relevance to the case study.

<12.5

Communicate plan of care in a cohesive and clear manner.

15%

The work clearly and concisely communicates a plan of care The plan succinctlyy addressesthe two key areas and justifies relevance to the case study. The plan draws on the most apropriate methods for evaluating actions and outcomes.

12-15

The plan of care is discussed in detail and clearly indentifes two key areas. Some sections could be explored a little furthe The plan discusses appropriate methods of evaluating actions and outcomes. Some aspect could be explored in a little more depth.

10.5-11.5

Communicates a plan of care with developing cohesion and detail. Plan identifies significant areas of focus, with at least one being key to the case study.

9-10

Communicates a basic plan of care but it lacks cohesion and/or some detail. The plan has identified some issues but they were not key areas on which to focus.

7.5-8.5

Has not communicated a plan of care in a cohesive or clear manner The plan has not clearly identify two viable key areas from the case study. The goals of care are unclear,and as such the actions and evaluation do not align well to the chosen case study.

<7.5

Adhere to presentation conventions: legibility, spelling, punctuation, grammar and referencing

15%

The work is concise, clearly written, using correct terminology, twith no spelling or grammatical errors. . The work is correctly formatted and information is presented in a logical, easy to follow fashion. Difficult concepts have been well explained and easy to understand. The work is well researched using high qualitycontemporary sources and adheres to UTAS SoN Harvard’s referencing guidelines.

12-15

Writing is clear and concise. Information is logically laid out and clearly expressed. There are minor grammatical errors. Resources used are current and relevant to the topic Adherence to Harvard’s referencing guidelines with minor errors

10.5-11.5

Work is clear and well written, however would benefit from further refinement. Minor instances where the work may contain grammatical errors or is unclear. Sections of the work may lack a logical format The majority of the evidence cited comes from relevant and scholarly s sources although some may show only minor relevance to the topic. Harvard’s referencing has been attempted but there are errors in in- text citations or in the reference list

9-10

Ability to communicate findings and knowledge at an acceptable standard. The work may contain instances of poor sentence structure, grammatical errors, lack of clarity or incorrect word usage The resources used have limited evidence-based research or are not scholarly Harvard’s referencing has been attempted but there are major errors. e.g. mismatch between in-text citations and reference list; incorrect citations used; incorrect formatting used

7.5-8.5

The work has not adhered to presentation conventions and/or there are many errors in legibility, spelling, punctuation, grammar and referencing Ability to communicate findings and knowledge below an acceptable level. Sentence structure is poor, the work shows little organisation or logical layout; there are major grammatical errors. The resources that have been chosen are inappropriate and failed to demonstrate an understanding of evidence-based research. Some literature is non-scholarly material. Harvard’s referencing guidelines have not been followed well

<7.5