| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| NUR-635 | NUR-635-XO0103XB | Interview a Pharmacist | 120.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less than Satisfactory (80.00%) | Satisfactory (88.00%) | Good (92.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 70.0% |
| Experience and Learning | 25.0% | Explanation of the prescription filling process, reasons why pharmacists call providers, omissions on prescriptions, medication errors encountered, and explanation of PAR process is not given. | Explanation of the prescription filling process, reasons why pharmacists call providers, omissions on prescriptions, medication errors encountered, and explanation of PAR process is missing relevant information. | Explanation of the prescription filling process, reasons why pharmacists call providers, omissions on prescriptions, medication errors encountered, and explanation of PAR process is adequately developed. | Explanation of the prescription filling process, reasons why pharmacists call providers, omissions on prescriptions, medication errors encountered, and explanation of PAR process is developed in detail. | Explanation of the prescription filling process, reasons why pharmacists call providers, omissions on prescriptions, medication errors encountered, and explanation of PAR process is developed in detail with thoughtful reflection. |
| How Lessons Learned Will Help With Prescription Writing | 20.0% | Information gained from the pharmacist interview/shadow that will help prescription writing is not given. | Information gained from the pharmacist interview/shadow that will help prescription writing is missing relevant information. | Information gained from the pharmacist interview/shadow that will help prescription writing is adequately explained. | Information gained from the pharmacist interview/shadow that will help prescription writing is explained in detail. | Information gained from the pharmacist interview/shadow that will help prescription writing is explained in detail with thoughtful reflection. |
| Intercollaboration Between Pharmacists and Prescribers With Sources | 20.0% | A discussion of intercollaboration between pharmacists and providers is not presented. | An incomplete discussion of intercollaboration between pharmacists and providers is presented. | A general discussion of intercollaboration is presented. The basic collaboration process between pharmacists and providers is illustrated. | A discussion of intercollaboration is presented. The collaboration process between the pharmacists and providers is illustrated. | A thorough discussion of intercollaboration is presented. The collaboration process between pharmacists and providers is clearly described. The discussion demonstrates insight into the importance of intercollaboration. |
| Required Sources | 5.0% | Sources are not included. | Number of required sources is only partially met. | Number of required sources is met, but sources are outdated or inappropriate. | Number of required sources is met. Sources are current, but not all sources are appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content. | Number of required resources is met. Sources are current, and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content. |
| Organization and Effectiveness | 20.0% |
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 7.0% | Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. | Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. | Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. | Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. | Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
| Argument Logic and Construction | 8.0% | Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. | Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. | Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. | Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | 5.0% | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
| Format | 10.0% |
| Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | 5.0% | Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. | Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent. | Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. | Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style. | All format elements are correct. |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 5.0% | Sources are not documented. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
Xyz12
Rubric_Print_Format.xlsx
