Assignment: Lab Assignment: Assessing the Genitalia and Rectum

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:

Total Points: 100