Soap Note Nurse Practitioner Otitis Externa
6/10/2021 Rubric Assessment - NSG6420-Practicum I: Family Health - Adults & Gerontology CP06 - South University
https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=78101&evalObjectId=392888&evalObjectType… 1/3
NSG6320 Soap Rubric (20 points) Course: NSG6420-Practicum I: Family Health - Adults & Gerontology CP06
/ 4
/ 4
Criteria NOT ACCEPTABLE 0 points
NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2.5 points
COMPETENT 3.5 points
EXCELLENT 4 points
Criterion Score
Subjective
Information:
“CC”, HPI
:OPQRST IF
f/u: health
status since
last visit,
response to
therapies.
PMH, PSH,
FH, ROS
complete
Objective
Information:
Complete
physical exam
with critical
elements
related to
subjective
data
Less than 50% of
pertinent
information is
addressed; or is
grossly
incomplete
and/or
inaccurate.
Poorly organized
and/or limited
summary of
pertinent
information
(50%-80%);
information
other than “S”
provided
Well organized;
partial but
accurate
summary of
pertinent
information
(>80%).
Complete and
concise summary
of pertinent
information.
Less than 50% of
pertinent
information is
addressed; or is
grossly
incomplete
and/or
inaccurate.
Poorly organized
and/or limited
summary of
pertinent
information
(50%-80%);
information
other than “O”
provided.
Partial but
accurate
summary of
pertinent
information
(>80%).
Complete and
concise summary
of pertinent
information.
6/10/2021 Rubric Assessment - NSG6420-Practicum I: Family Health - Adults & Gerontology CP06 - South University
https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=78101&evalObjectId=392888&evalObjectType… 2/3
/ 4
/ 4
Criteria NOT ACCEPTABLE 0 points
NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2.5 points
COMPETENT 3.5 points
EXCELLENT 4 points
Criterion Score
Assessment:
Minimum of 3
differentials
supported by
S + O data
Final diagnosis
noted and
optimal and
thorough
subjective and
objective
assessment is
presented for
final
diagnosis.
Plan:
Diagnostic
tests/therapie
s/follow-up,
Patient
education,
health
promotion.
Medications
listed with
dosage/SE/Ed
ucation/
Less than 50% of
diagnoses are
listed; or main
diagnosis missed;
or differential
diagnosis not
prioritized
and/or identified
nonexistent
problems
Some diagnoses
are identified
(50%-80%);
incomplete or
inappropriate
diagnosis
prioritization;
includes
nonexistent
diagnosis or
extraneous
information
included.
Most diagnosis
are identified
and rationally
prioritized,
including the
“main” diagnosis
for the case
(>80%).
Complete
differential
diagnosis
generated and
rationally
prioritized; no
extraneous
information or
issues listed.
Less than 50% of
diagnosis have
an appropriate
and complete
treatment plan.
Less than 50% of
diagnosis include
appropriate
counseling,
monitoring,
referral and/or
follow-up plan.
Partially
complete and/or
inappropriate for
a few identified
diagnosis
(50%-80%);
information
other than “P”
provided.
Patient
education points,
monitoring
parameters,
follow-up plan
and referral plan
(where
applicable) for a
few identified
problems
(50%-80%).
Mostly complete
and appropriate
for each
identified
problem (>80%).
Patient
education points,
monitoring
parameters,
follow-up plan
and referral plan
(where
applicable) for
>80% of
identified
problems.
Specific,
appropriate and
justified
recommendation
s (including drug
name, strength,
route, frequency,
and duration of
therapy) for each
identified
problem. Specific patient
education points,
monitoring
parameters,
follow-up plan
and (where
applicable)
referral plan for
each identified
problem.
6/10/2021 Rubric Assessment - NSG6420-Practicum I: Family Health - Adults & Gerontology CP06 - South University
https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=78101&evalObjectId=392888&evalObjectType… 3/3
Total / 20
Overall Score
/ 4
Criteria NOT ACCEPTABLE 0 points
NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2.5 points
COMPETENT 3.5 points
EXCELLENT 4 points
Criterion Score
Analyze
quality and
relevance of S
+ O data and
the evidence
for diagnosis.
Use of clinical
evidence
based
reasoning &
literature in
designing plan
of care,
compare to
plan of care
implemented.
Did not analyze
data gathered.
Did not use
clinical
evidenced based
reasoning.
Did not identify
literature or
treatment
guidelines to
guide plan of
care.
Partially
complete and/or
inappropriate
use of data in
assessment data.
Partially
identified clinical
evidenced based
reasoning.
Partially
identified
literature or
treatment
guidelines to
guide plan of
care.
Mostly complete
and appropriate
analysis of data
in assessment.
General use of
clinical based
reasoning.
Identified
literature in most
part and clinical
guidelines in plan
of care
development
identified.
Analyze quality
and relevance of
S + O data—
supported by
evidence and
clinical
guidelines.
Identify needed
but missing S +
O data. Describe
what you would
do differently
and why.
Use of clinical
evidence based
reasoning &
literature in
designing plan of
care, compare to
the actual plan of
care
implemented
NOT ACCEPTABLE 0 points minimum
NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 12.5 points minimum
COMPETENT 17.5 points minimum
EXCELLENT 20 points minimum