|
PRAC_6635_Week9_Assignment2_Rubric
|
|
Criteria
|
Ratings
|
Pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe case summary is clear, complete, and includes all relevant information. It covers the patient's history, assessment findings, medications, any pertinent testing, presenting symptoms, and the final diagnosis.
|
|
10 to >8.0 pts
Excellent
The response thoroughly and accurately describes the patient's subjective complaint, history, current medications, allergies, and review of diagnosis.
|
8 to >4.0 pts
Good
The response accurately describes the patient's subjective complaint, history, current medications, allergies, and review of diagnosis.
|
4 to >2.0 pts
Fair
The response describes the patient's subjective complaint, history, current medications, allergies, and review of diagnosis, but is somewhat vague or contains minor inaccuracies.
|
2 to >0 pts
Poor
The response provides an incomplete or inaccurate description of the patient's subjective complaint, history, current medications, allergies, and review of diagnosis.
|
|
10 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProvide a thorough, insightful comparison between the alternative plan and the preceptor’s approach, analyzing key differences in clinical experience, knowledge, and patient-centered care. Thoughtfully discuss how evidence-based practice influenced decision-making in both plans, demonstrating an understanding of its role in patient care.
|
|
25 to >21.0 pts
Excellent
The response provides a thorough, insightful comparison between the alternative plan and the preceptor’s approach, analyzing key differences in clinical experience, knowledge, and patient-centered care.
|
21 to >16.0 pts
Good
The response compares the two approaches with reasonable detail but may miss some key differences or lack depth in analysis.
|
16 to >10.0 pts
Fair
The response provides a limited comparison, without fully exploring the differences in clinical experience or decision-making processes.
|
10 to >0 pts
Poor
The response fails to provide a meaningful comparison between the plans, or the analysis is overly simplistic or inaccurate.
|
|
25 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReflect on the differences between alternative treatment plan and preceptor’s plan. Critically analyze the rationale behind each approach and identify how these differences inform clinical decision-making and professional growth in patient care.
|
|
25 to >21.0 pts
Excellent
The response demonstrates a thorough, insightful reflection on the alternative plan and the preceptor’s approach, analyzing key differences in clinical experience, knowledge, and patient-centered care.
|
21 to >16.0 pts
Good
The response demonstrates reflection on the two approaches with reasonable detail but may miss some key differences or lack depth in analysis.
|
16 to >10.0 pts
Fair
The response demonstrates a limited reflection, without fully exploring the differences in clinical experience or decision-making processes.
|
10 to >0 pts
Poor
The response fails to demonstrate a meaningful reflection on the plans, or the analysis is overly simplistic or inaccurate. Reflections on the case are vague or missing.
|
|
25 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReflect on the lessons learned from comparing treatment plan approaches, assessing how the experience has influenced clinical decision-making and identify how these insights will guide approach to future patient care and collaboration with other healthcare providers.
|
|
25 to >21.0 pts
Excellent
The response offers a thorough reflection on how the experience has influenced clinical practice and treatment planning, showing growth in clinical reasoning, decision-making, and patient care. It clearly explains how lessons learned will guide future patient care, with specific examples. It also provides a thoughtful approach to handling differing treatment plans, emphasizing respectful, evidence-based communication and collaboration.
|
21 to >16.0 pts
Good
The response offers a solid reflection on how the experience has influenced clinical practice and treatment planning, though some areas lack depth. It shows growth in clinical reasoning, decision-making, and patient care, but examples may be underdeveloped. It explains how lessons can be applied to future care with relevant examples and provides a reasonable approach to handling differing treatment plans, though not all aspects of collaboration are fully explored.
|
16 to >10.0 pts
Fair
The response provides a basic reflection on how the experience influenced clinical practice and treatment planning but lacks detail. Shows limited growth in reasoning and decision-making. Mentions applying lessons to future care, but examples are vague. Offers a minimal approach to handling differing treatment plans, with limited focus on professionalism or evidence-based communication.
|
10 to >0 pts
Poor
The response offers little to no reflection on how the experience influenced clinical practice or treatment planning, showing no growth in reasoning or decision-making. It fails to explain how lessons will be applied to future care and provides no meaningful approach to handling differing treatment plans, lacking professionalism or evidence-based focus.
|
|
25 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting - English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation
|
|
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
|
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
|
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
|
2 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
|
|
5 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten 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.
|
|
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
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.
|
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
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.
|
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.
|
2 to >0 pts
Poor
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided.
|
|
5 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten 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. Support the alternative plan with at least three evidence-based guidelines or peer-reviewed journal articles. All sources must be current (no more than five years old), credible, and clearly aligned with the patient’s case.
|
|
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct APA format with no errors. The response provides at least three current, evidence-based resources from the literature to support the alternative treatment plan for the patient. Each resource represents the latest in standards of care and provides strong justification for treatment decisions.
|
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. The response provides at least three current, evidence-based resources from the literature to support the alternative treatment plan for the patient. Each resource represents current standards of care and supports treatment decisions. Missing justification discussion.
|
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. Two evidence-based resources are provided to support alternative treatment decisions; may not represent the latest in standards of care or may only provide vague or weak justification for the treatment plan.
|
2 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. One or no resources are provided to support alternative treatment decisions. The resources may not be current or evidence-based or do not support the treatment plan.
|
|
5 pts
|
|
Total Points: 100
|
doglover28
wk9rubric.docx
