six pages
Ladylucy
learning_guide_tgp_assessment.pdf
400764 - Transition to Graduate Practice
Learning Guide – Spring 2014
©School of Nursing and Midwifery Page 15 of 33
University of Western Sydney
Assessment 4: Written Assessment—Case Study 2
Weighting: 60%
Word count: 1500 words
Submission details: Electronic submission. Refer to Submission Requirements (p. 20)
Marking criteria and standards: See pages 17 - 19.
Aim of assessment
The aim of this assessment is provide students with an opportunity for prioritising care through
ongoing consolidation of nursing theory to clinical practice.
Details
As a new graduate nurse on your last rotation, you are working on a busy acute combined medical /
surgical ward. You have arrived for an evening shift and receive handover from the staff from the
previous shift.
You have been allocated to care for the following five patients.
1. Steven is a 27 year old who presented with acute appendicitis via the Emergency Department
that required emergency appendectomy overnight. He is currently NBM and has IV 0.9%
Sodium Chloride infusing at 100mls per hour. Steven is complaining of abdominal pain and
has a temperature of 39.2. He has been reviewed by the surgical team and has been ordered
intravenous Metronidazole 500mg TDS.
2. Peter is a 55 year old male who had an ERCP today (endoscopic retrograde
cholangiopancreatograghy) and removal of gall stones x 3 after persistent epigastric pain for
2 days. He is currently complaining of nausea and mild right shoulder tip pain.
3. Phillip is a 68 year old male who has been admitted for infective exacerbation of his COPD.
He is currently on nasal prongs at 2 litres a minute and is due for his IV hydrocortisone
(100mg BD) and Piperacillin with Tazobactam (Tazocin) IV (4.5G TDS). His oxygen saturation
is 94%.
4. John is 75 year old male who was admitted with chest pain via the Emergency Department
earlier on in the day. He has a background history of angina and coronary heart disease. He
has been commenced on an intravenous heparin infusion and aspirin 100mg daily. The APTT
is to be kept between 50 to 75 seconds.
5. Melinda is a 42 year old female who presented with sudden onset of severe headache. She
has been admitted under neurosurgery. Her CT scan revealed a small (Grade 1)
subarachnoid haemorrhage from a cerebral artery aneurysm which was successfully coiled in
the interventional radiology suite 5 days ago. She is currently prescribed Nimodipine 60mg
oral tablets. She has
400764 - Transition to Graduate Practice
Learning Guide – Spring 2014
©School of Nursing and Midwifery Page 16 of 33
University of Western Sydney
Q1. Discuss how you will initially prioritise your care according to your patient’s conditions and
treatment (250 words).
Q2. When reviewing Peter in bed 2, he states that his nausea is becoming worse. You review the
medication chart and no antiemetic is ordered. Discuss what your actions would be in this
situation (250 words).
Q3: While assessing John in bed 4, you review his last coagulation profile and note that his APTT
is > 150 seconds. What is the significance of this result? Referring to the ward protocol
below, rationalise your actions. (250 words)
Q4. When reviewing Melinda in bed 5, she complains of feeling faint when she gets out of bed to
mobilise to the bathroom. You assess her blood pressure and it is 80/40. What is the
significance of this result and what could be contributing to the hypotension? What would
be your response?
Resources
Prescribed textbooks and reading resources in Library list in 400764 vUWS site.
Review week 3 tutorial content and resources.
On line resources (links on vUWS site)
P a g e 1
7 o
f 3 3
Marking criteria and standards: Written Assessment 4—Case Study on essential skills for transitioning from student to RN
Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail
Q1: Prioritises and justifies initial assessment and care of patients.
Outstanding, clear, concise and expert identification and critical discussion of the prioritisation and initial assessment and care of the four patients.
Interesting, complex, original, cogent, excellent critical discussion related to prioritisation and initial assessment and care of the four patients.
Comprehensive, varied, clear, cogent and effective critical analysis of the prioritisation and initial assessment and care of the four patients.
Evidence and arguments are cogently presented, and very well supported with literature, a very good grasp of current knowledge related to prioritisation and initial assessment and care of the four patients
Good description and critical discussion of Good explanation of the prioritisation and initial assessment and care of the four patients.
Evidence and arguments are cogently presented, and well supported with literature, a good grasp of current knowledge related to prioritisation and initial assessment and care of the four patients.
Adequate explanation and discussion of the prioritisation and initial assessment and care of the four patients.
Some attempt at critical discussion noted, but arguments, evidence and discussion points may not be consistently and clearly presented in relation to the initial assessment and care of the four patients.
Inadequate identification and critical discussion of the prioritisation and initial assessment and care of the four patients.
Poor or inadequate substantiation from current, research and evidence-based literature noted.
The work fails to adequately address discussion topic and criteria as set.
Mark /15 13-15 11.5-12.5 10-11 7.5-9.5 ≤7.0
Q2. Rationalises action for additional medication order
Outstanding, clear, concise and expert identification and critical discussion of the significance of the medication and rational for intervention.
Interesting, complex, original, cogent, excellent critical discussion related to the significance of the medication order and rational for intervention.
Comprehensive, varied, clear, cogent and effective critical analysis of the significance of the medication and rational for intervention.
Evidence and arguments are cogently presented, and very well supported with literature, a very good grasp of current knowledge related to the significance of the medication and rational for intervention.
Good description and critical discussion of the significance of the medication and rational for intervention.
Evidence and arguments are cogently presented, and well supported with literature, a good grasp of current knowledge related to the significance of the medication and rational for intervention.
Adequate explanation and discussion of the significance of the medication and rational for intervention.
Some attempt at critical discussion noted, but arguments, evidence and discussion points may not be consistently and clearly presented in relation to the significance of the medication and rational for intervention.
Inadequate identification and critical discussion of the significance of the medication and rational for intervention.
Poor or inadequate substantiation from current, research and evidence-based literature noted.
The work fails to adequately address discussion topic and criteria as set.
Mark /15 13-15 11.5-12.5 10-11 7.5-9.5 ≤7.0
P a g e 1
8 o
f 3 3
Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail
Q3. Relates significance of Heparin with APTT result and rationalises intervention.
Outstanding, clear, concise and expert identification and critical discussion of the significance of the medication and rational for intervention.
Interesting, complex, original, cogent, excellent critical discussion related to the significance of the medication order and rational for intervention.
Comprehensive, varied, clear, cogent and effective critical analysis of the significance of the medication and rational for intervention.
Evidence and arguments are cogently presented, and very well supported with literature, a very good grasp of current knowledge related to the significance of the medication and rational for intervention.
Good description and critical discussion of the significance of the medication and rational for intervention.
Evidence and arguments are cogently presented, and well supported with literature, a good grasp of current knowledge related to the significance of the medication and rational for intervention.
Adequate explanation and discussion of the significance of the medication and rational for intervention.
Some attempt at critical discussion noted, but arguments, evidence and discussion points may not be consistently and clearly presented in relation to the significance of the medication and rational for intervention.
Inadequate identification and critical discussion of the significance of the medication and rational for intervention.
Poor or inadequate substantiation from current, research and evidence-based literature noted.
The work fails to adequately address discussion topic and criteria as set.
Mark /15 13-15 11.5-12.5 10-11 7.5-9.5 ≤7.0
Q4. Evaluates clinical situation and prioritises patient intervention and calls for assistance
Outstanding, clear, concise and expert identification and critical discussion on the prioritisation of care and calling for assistance.
Interesting, complex, original, cogent, excellent critical discussion related to prioritisation of care and calling for assistance.
Comprehensive, varied, clear, cogent and effective critical analysis on the prioritisation of care and calling for assistance.
Evidence and arguments are cogently presented, and very well supported with literature, a very good grasp of current knowledge related to prioritisation of care and calling for assistance.
Good description and critical discussion on the prioritisation of care and calling for assistance.
Evidence and arguments are cogently presented, and well supported with literature, a good grasp of current knowledge related to prioritisation of care and calling for assistance.
Adequate explanation and discussion on the prioritisation of care and calling for assistance.
Some attempt at critical discussion noted, but arguments, evidence and discussion points may not be consistently and clearly presented in relation to prioritisation of care and calling for assistance.
Inadequate identification and critical discussion on prioritisation of care and calling for assistance.
Poor or inadequate substantiation from current, research and evidence-based literature noted.
The work fails to adequately address discussion topic and criteria as set.
Mark /10 8.5-10 7.5-8 6.5-7 5-6 ≤4.5
P a g e 1
9 o
f 3 3
Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail
Presentation and Referencing
Flawless referencing, with all references adequately and correctly given, both in text and in final reference list according to designated APA style.
Outstanding, publishable level of writing style and use of language evidenced.
Publishable or outstanding level of clarity of expression and scholarly writing style, with no evidence of any discriminatory use of language noted in the work.
Expert, coherent, logical organised sequencing.
Very good referencing, with adequate and correct references given both in text and in final reference list according to designated APA style.
Excellent writing style and use of language. No errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation or writing style
Very good, concise, clear, academic writing style, with no ambiguity issues and no evidence of discriminatory language noted in the work.
Very good, cogent, focused, structured sequencing with logically ordered flow of ideas. Concise and orderly
Good, adequate referencing, using a reasonable range of current academic reference.
Very few minor referencing style errors and following designated APA conventions both in text and in final reference list.
Effective expression and writing style. Minimal errors in grammar, punctuation, sentence construction, paragraph construction or spelling.
Clear concise clarity of expression and scholarly writing style, with no use of discriminatory language throughout.
Effective, structured sequencing with logically ordered flow of ideas.
Some minor referencing style errors, but following designated APA conventions both in text and in final reference list.
Adequate, sound writing style. Limited vocabulary, with minor errors in grammar, or spelling, or sentence structure, or paragraph structure that do not impede meaning.
Satisfactory clarity of expression and academic writing style, but there may be evidence of limited use of language or areas of the work which could have been more clearly or better expressed. No use of discriminatory language throughout.
Adequate organisation and logical sequencing of material and major points.
Absent or unsatisfactory, incorrect or inadequate referencing.
More than 10% of the work involves direct quotes.
Incorrect referencing style used.
Poor writing style with errors in expression, sentence structure, paragraph structure, spelling and punctuation that impede meaning and discussion.
Poor clarity, with ambiguity issues noted. The writing style impedes clarity of meaning and adequate communication of ideas and discussion. There may be evidence of discriminatory language in the work.
Inadequate organisation and logical sequencing, illogical flow to presentation of ideas and arguments.
Mark /5 5 4–4.5 3–3.5 2.5 ≤2
Comments:
Lecturer’s Signature: Date:
Weighting: /60 Grade:
