Lab Assignment: Assessing the Genitalia and Rectum
Catherine2
NURS6512Week10AssignmentRubricDetails.htmlRubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6512_Week_10_Assignment_Rubric
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| With regard to the SOAP note case study provided and using evidence-based resources from your search, answer the following questions and support your answers using current evidence from the literature: · Analyze the subjective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation. | Points: Points Range: 10 (10%) - 12 (12%) The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly analyzes the subjective portion of the SOAP note and lists detailed additional information to be included in the documentation. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 7 (7%) - 9 (9%) The response accurately analyzes the subjective portion of the SOAP note and lists additional information to be included in the documentation. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) - 6 (6%) The response vaguely analyzes the subjective portion of the SOAP note and vaguely and/or inaccurately lists additional information to be included in the documentation. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 3 (3%) The response inaccurately analyzes the subjective portion of the SOAP note, with inaccurate and/or missing additional information included in the documentation. Feedback: |
| · Analyze the objective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation. | Points: Points Range: 10 (10%) - 12 (12%) The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly analyzes the objective portion of the SOAP note and lists detailed additional information to be included in the documentation. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 7 (7%) - 9 (9%) The response accurately analyzes the objective portion of the SOAP note and lists additional information to be included in the documentation. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) - 6 (6%) The response vaguely analyzes the objective portion of the SOAP note and vaguely and/or inaccurately lists additional information to be included in the documentation. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 3 (3%) The response inaccurately analyzes the objective portion of the SOAP note, with inaccurate and/or missing additional information included in the documentation. Feedback: |
| · Is the assessment supported by the subjective and objective information? Why or why not? | Points: Points Range: 14 (14%) - 16 (16%) The response clearly and accurately identifies whether or not the assessment is supported by the subjective and/or objective information, with a thorough and detailed explanation. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 11 (11%) - 13 (13%) The response accurately identifies whether or not the assessment is supported by the subjective and/or objective information, with a clear explanation. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 8 (8%) - 10 (10%) The response vaguely identifies whether or not the assessment is supported by the subjective and/or objective information, with a vague explanation. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 7 (7%) The response inaccurately identifies whether or not the assessment is supported by the subjective and/or objective information, with an inaccurate or missing explanation. Feedback: |
| · What diagnostic tests would be appropriate for this case, and how would the results be used to make a diagnosis? | Points: Points Range: 18 (18%) - 20 (20%) The response thoroughly and accurately describes appropriate diagnostic tests for the case and explains clearly, thoroughly, and accurately how the test results would be used to make a diagnosis. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 15 (15%) - 17 (17%) The response accurately describes appropriate diagnostic tests for the case and explains how the test results would be used to make a diagnosis. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 12 (12%) - 14 (14%) The response vaguely and/or with some inaccuracy describes appropriate diagnostic tests for the case and vaguely and/or with some inaccuracy explains how the test results would be used to make a diagnosis. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 11 (11%) The response inaccurately describes appropriate diagnostic tests for the case, with an inaccurate or missing explanation of how the test results would be used to make a diagnosis. Feedback: |
| · Would you reject or accept the current diagnosis? Why or why not? · Identify three possible conditions that may be considered as a differenial diagnosis for this patient. Explain your reasoning using at least three different references from current evidence-based literature. | Points: Points Range: 23 (23%) - 25 (25%) The response states clearly whether to accept or reject the current diagnosis, with a thorough, accurate, and detailed explanation of sound reasoning. The response clearly, thoroughly, and accurately identifies three conditions as a differential diagnosis, with reasoning that is explained clearly, accurately, and thoroughly using three or more different references from current evidence-based literature. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 20 (20%) - 22 (22%) The response states whether to accept or reject the current diagnosis, with an accurate explanation of sound reasoning. The response accurately identifies three conditions as a differential diagnosis, with reasoning that is explained using three different references from current evidence-based literature. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 17 (17%) - 19 (19%) The response states whether to accept or reject the current diagnosis, with a vague explanation of the reasoning. The response identifies two to three conditions as a differential diagnosis, with reasoning that is explained vaguely and/or inaccurately using three or fewer references from current evidence-based literature. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 16 (16%) The response inaccurately states or is missing a statement of whether to accept or reject the current diagnosis, with an explanation that is inaccurate and/or missing. The response identifies three or fewer conditions as a differential diagnosis, with reasoning that is missing or explained inaccurately using two or fewer references from current evidence-based literature. Feedback: |
| Written 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. | Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) 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. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) 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. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 3 (3%) - 3 (3%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are vague or off topic. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 2 (2%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided. Feedback: |
| Written Expression and Formatting - English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation | Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 3 (3%) - 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. Feedback: |
| Written 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. | Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 3 (3%) - 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. Feedback: |
With regard to the SOAP note case study provided and using evidence-based resources from your search, answer the following questions and support your answers using current evidence from the literature: · Analyze the subjective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation.--
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 10 (10%) - 12 (12%) The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly analyzes the subjective portion of the SOAP note and lists detailed additional information to be included in the documentation. Good 7 (7%) - 9 (9%) The response accurately analyzes the subjective portion of the SOAP note and lists additional information to be included in the documentation. Fair 4 (4%) - 6 (6%) The response vaguely analyzes the subjective portion of the SOAP note and vaguely and/or inaccurately lists additional information to be included in the documentation. Poor 0 (0%) - 3 (3%) The response inaccurately analyzes the subjective portion of the SOAP note, with inaccurate and/or missing additional information included in the documentation. Feedback:· Analyze the objective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation.--
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 10 (10%) - 12 (12%) The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly analyzes the objective portion of the SOAP note and lists detailed additional information to be included in the documentation. Good 7 (7%) - 9 (9%) The response accurately analyzes the objective portion of the SOAP note and lists additional information to be included in the documentation. Fair 4 (4%) - 6 (6%) The response vaguely analyzes the objective portion of the SOAP note and vaguely and/or inaccurately lists additional information to be included in the documentation. Poor 0 (0%) - 3 (3%) The response inaccurately analyzes the objective portion of the SOAP note, with inaccurate and/or missing additional information included in the documentation. Feedback:· Is the assessment supported by the subjective and objective information? Why or why not?--
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 14 (14%) - 16 (16%) The response clearly and accurately identifies whether or not the assessment is supported by the subjective and/or objective information, with a thorough and detailed explanation. Good 11 (11%) - 13 (13%) The response accurately identifies whether or not the assessment is supported by the subjective and/or objective information, with a clear explanation. Fair 8 (8%) - 10 (10%) The response vaguely identifies whether or not the assessment is supported by the subjective and/or objective information, with a vague explanation. Poor 0 (0%) - 7 (7%) The response inaccurately identifies whether or not the assessment is supported by the subjective and/or objective information, with an inaccurate or missing explanation. Feedback:· What diagnostic tests would be appropriate for this case, and how would the results be used to make a diagnosis?--
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 18 (18%) - 20 (20%) The response thoroughly and accurately describes appropriate diagnostic tests for the case and explains clearly, thoroughly, and accurately how the test results would be used to make a diagnosis. Good 15 (15%) - 17 (17%) The response accurately describes appropriate diagnostic tests for the case and explains how the test results would be used to make a diagnosis. Fair 12 (12%) - 14 (14%) The response vaguely and/or with some inaccuracy describes appropriate diagnostic tests for the case and vaguely and/or with some inaccuracy explains how the test results would be used to make a diagnosis. Poor 0 (0%) - 11 (11%) The response inaccurately describes appropriate diagnostic tests for the case, with an inaccurate or missing explanation of how the test results would be used to make a diagnosis. Feedback:· Would you reject or accept the current diagnosis? Why or why not? · Identify three possible conditions that may be considered as a differenial diagnosis for this patient. Explain your reasoning using at least three different references from current evidence-based literature.--
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 23 (23%) - 25 (25%) The response states clearly whether to accept or reject the current diagnosis, with a thorough, accurate, and detailed explanation of sound reasoning. The response clearly, thoroughly, and accurately identifies three conditions as a differential diagnosis, with reasoning that is explained clearly, accurately, and thoroughly using three or more different references from current evidence-based literature. Good 20 (20%) - 22 (22%) The response states whether to accept or reject the current diagnosis, with an accurate explanation of sound reasoning. The response accurately identifies three conditions as a differential diagnosis, with reasoning that is explained using three different references from current evidence-based literature. Fair 17 (17%) - 19 (19%) The response states whether to accept or reject the current diagnosis, with a vague explanation of the reasoning. The response identifies two to three conditions as a differential diagnosis, with reasoning that is explained vaguely and/or inaccurately using three or fewer references from current evidence-based literature. Poor 0 (0%) - 16 (16%) The response inaccurately states or is missing a statement of whether to accept or reject the current diagnosis, with an explanation that is inaccurate and/or missing. The response identifies three or fewer conditions as a differential diagnosis, with reasoning that is missing or explained inaccurately using two or fewer references from current evidence-based literature. Feedback:Written 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.--
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) 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. Good 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) 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. Fair 3 (3%) - 3 (3%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are vague or off topic. Poor 0 (0%) - 2 (2%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided. Feedback:Written Expression and Formatting - English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation--
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. Good 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Fair 3 (3%) - 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Poor 0 (0%) - 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. Feedback:Written 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.--
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors. Good 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. Fair 3 (3%) - 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. Poor 0 (0%) - 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. Feedback:| Total Points: 100 |
|---|
Name: NURS_6512_Week_10_Assignment_Rubric
