NRS72007 Human Response to Health breakdown Assessment Answer
NRS72007 Assessment 1 Descriptor On-line Quiz
NRS72007 Human Response to Health Breakdown
Assessment 1 Descriptor On-line Quiz
Weighting: 15%
Length: 30 minutes
A. RATIONALE
Providing a low weighted assessment early in the teaching session gives students an opportunity to focus their study on developing their knowledge and understanding of the aetiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations and pharmacological therapy of selected chronic health conditions. In turn students can reflect and refocus their study approach in order deepen their learning and improve their outcomes in this unit as the session progresses.
B. AIMS
This on-line quiz will enable you to:
- demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of the aetiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, pharmacological therapy and related nursing considerations of chronic health conditions covered in weeks 1 to 4;
- receive early feedback on your academic progress with unit learning resources from weeks 1 to 4;
- reflect on and, where needed adjust your study approach to maximize your learning in the remaining teaching weeks of this unit.
C. INSTRUCTIONS
- The quiz includes twenty-five multiple choice and True / False style questions based on lectures, tutorials, readings and worksheets from weeks 1 to 4 inclusive covering the following topics:
- pathophysiology terms and definitions;
- inflammatory processes and wound healing;
- the aetiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, pharmacological therapy and related nursing considerations of respiratory and cardiovascular conditions.
- Once you open the quiz, you will have thirty minutes to complete it.
- You will get one chance to complete the quiz.
D. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
- Students are expected to complete this on-line quiz on their own as this is an individual assessment. Working with another person to complete it is a breach of academic integrity as it constitutes Collusion.
- For further guidelines on academic misconduct, please refer to the Rules- Student Academic and Non-Academic Misconduct Rules.
E. SUBMISSION
Your on-line quiz must be completed on-line in the submission point indicated on the NRS72007 Unit site by the due date and time.
Re-sits: No opportunities are provided for students to complete a re-sit of this on-line quiz.
Extensions and / or Late submissions will not be accepted: Students will not have access to the On-line quiz after 7.00pm QLD time (which is 8.00pm NSW time) on the due date.
Special Consideration
- Requests for special consideration for the On-line quiz need to meet the rules for special consideration as outlined in the Southern Cross University policies available on the NRS72007 blackboard site under the Assessment Policy & Procedures tab down the left side of unit site. Application does not necessarily mean approval will be granted.
**You must submit this assessment to be eligible for a passing grade in this Assignment**
NRS72007 Assessment 2 Case Assignment
NRS72007: Human Response to Health Breakdown
Assessment 2: Case Assignment Help
Aims of the Case study assignment.
This case study will enable you to:
- understand the aetiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations and medication management required when nursing a patient with a chronic illness, Diabetes Mellitus, type 2;
- critically review the evidence that informs and underpins nursing management of a patient with a chronic illness, Diabetes Mellitus, type 2; and
- demonstrate proficiency in skills of academic writing, including literature searching, paraphrasing, summarizing, critical analysis, evaluation and referencing.
For this assignment you are required to write a Case Assignment based on the following patient case scenario….
Patient profile.
Mrs Dharma Dharma Rao is a 68 year old female, of Indian heritage, who was admitted to the medical ward, via the Emergency Department with complications from her existing Diabetes Mellitus, type 2 following a bout of gastroenteritis contracted while she was visiting family in India. She has no known allergies. You are the primary Registered Nurse providing care for Mrs Rao.
Health History & current co-morbidities
- Gestational diabetes during her 3rd pregnancy (with Indira)
- Hypertension
- Hypertension
- Uni-polar depressive disorder.
Social history.
- Emigrated to Australia with her parents aged 12 years. Australian Citizen.
- Married to Kala Rao, aged 72 years, a retired farmer who had a CVA 18 months ago and has limited mobility.
- Speaks fluent Hindi and English.
- Retired primary school teacher.
- Adult children:
- Daughter, Arya who is married with three children and who lives in Sydney and sees her parents 3 times per year;
- Son, Ganesh who lives with his wife and two children in Auckland, New Zealand and sees his parents once a year;
- Daughter, Indira who lives locally with her female partner, Lakshmi and is under treatment for generalised anxiety disorder. Indira and Lakshmi are actively involved in supporting Dharma to care for their father Kala and when Dharma is not well.
- Dharma currently lives in her own home with Kala utilising community nursing services 5 times per week. Kala has assistance with showering and they receive assistance with domestic chores.
- Strong ties to the local Hindi community with weekly contact.
- Dharma:
- enjoys cooking;
- has a vegetarian diet (no meat, fish or eggs);
- fasts every Thursday; o has no formal exercise;
- likes to pray each morning before breakfast and meditate regularly; o is overweight with a BMI of 28, and;
- uses medicines both prescribed by her Doctor and Ayuveda medicines including Momordica Charantia (Bitter gourd), Gymnema Sylvestre (Gurmar) and Morus Indica (Mulberry) – dosages unknown
Current medications.
- Metformin hydrochloride (Diaformin 500mg mane; 1000mg with evening meal
- Repaglinide (NovonormTM) 1mg before meals
- Captopril (Capoten) 12.5mg BD
- Simvastatin (Zocor) 40mgnocte
- Trimipramine (Surmontil) 100mg 2 hours before bedtime.
Which medications are associated with
Health assessment on admission to the ward.
Objective Assessment
- Vital signs
- Temp: 36.8OC (tympanic)
- HR: 94 b/min
- BP: 170/96 mmHg
- R: 16 b/min
- Sp02: 95%
- Pain: 4 related to headache
- BGL = 23mmol/L
- Glycosuria
- Blood results: TC = 6.8 mmol/l; TG = 3.0
mmol/l; HDLC-C= 1.2 mmol/l; LDL-C= 4.7mmol/l; HbA1c = 86mmol/mol (10%).
- Acetone breath
What exactly do you need to do?
Prepare a case study based on the information in the patient scenario for Mrs Dharma Rao, to include the following:
- Introduction to your case study;
- A one page mind-map summarizing aetiology, risk factors, pathophysiology, current clinical manifestations that the patient is experiencing, medication management including nursing considerations and the role of the nurse in caring for the patient including immediate, evidence based nursing care that is culturally safe care;
- A written description of your mind-map with support from the wider literature ensuring that you briefly outline the pharmacodynamics & pharmacokinetics of DM-2 medications that the patient is prescribed;
- Conclusion to your case study;
- Reference list using APA 6th edition referencing style.
How do I write a good introduction?
(approx. 200 words)
- Your first sentence inspires the reader and re-states the topic (paraphrase in your own words to create interest)
- Identifies the aim of the case-study
- Provides a brief outline of the main areas covered in the case-study
What do I need to include in my mind-map?
(approx. 500 words)
- Aetiology of diabetes mellitus, type 2 (DM-2)
- Risk factors for DM-2: Modifiable & non-modifiable risk factors for Dharma
- Pathophysiology of DM-2
- Current clinical manifestations of DM-2 experienced by Dharma
- Medication management emphasizing nursing considerations in administering all medications prescribed for Dharma
- Role of the nurse in caring for Dharma Rao: immediate, evidence based nursing care with consideration of cultural safety.
What do need to cover in the description of my mind-map?
(approx. 900 words)
- Using the sub-headings (underlined on the previous slide) provide a clear description your mind-map with support from the wider literature. This means that you need to either paraphrase the ideas of published author’s and or use brief direct quotes, making sure that you correctly cite your references using APA 6th edition style.
- When discussing medication management make sure that you:
- clearly describe the nursing considerations related to Dharma’s medications, and
- briefly and accurately outline the pharmacodynamics & pharmacokinetics of DM-2 medications.
How do I write a good conclusion?
(approx. 200 words)
- Summarize the key points that you discussed and established in your case study, i.e conclusion reinforces the main points identified in the main body of your case study.
- Do not introduce any new information, quotes or references in your conclusion.
What do I need to consider when referencing in-text and at the end of my case study?
- In-text citations: Use the SCU APA 6th edition on-line referencing guide to reference all literature used within the case-study whether paraphrased or directly quoted.
- NB. Do not use too many direct quotes and do remember the SCU relules related to Academic integrity
- Reference list: Use the SCU APA 6th edition on-line referencing guide to reference all literature in the reference list on a separate page at the end of the case-study with a sub-heading.
- Include a minimum of five (5) reputable references.
- References must be no more than five (5) years old unless they are seminal works.
Tips
- Start early
- Read around the topic
- Use TABLE 1: SUGGESTED SUB-HEADINGS, WORD COUNT & SCU GUIDES in the Assessment 2 Descriptor
- Make sure that you comply with the PRESENTATION and FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS for your Case study as outlined in the Assessment 2: Case study descriptor
- Review the Rubric available on the BB site.
- Do your best and remember that you are 2nd year nursing students, rather than experienced proficient RNs
NRS72007 Assessment 2 Case Assignment Marking Criterion
NRS72007 Human Response to Health breakdown
Assessment 2: Case Assignment
|
Marking Criterion |
High Distinction + |
High Distinction |
Distinction |
Credit |
High Pass |
Low Pass |
High Fail |
Low Fail |
Complete Fail |
|
Introduction 2.5 marks The introduction is clear and interesting, outlining the contents of the case study to the reader. First sentence inspires the reader and restates the topic. Identifies the aim of the casestudy. |
Exceptional 2.5 Outstanding opening sentence that completely contextualises the case study. Meticulously identifies the aim of the case study in a meaningful & concise way and with logical flow. Succinctly outlines the scope, content and sequence of the case study.
|
Excellent 2.25 Remarkable opening sentence that provides relevant context to the case study. Precisely identifies the aim of the case study in a meaningful & clear way and with logical flow. Concisely outlines the scope, content and sequence of the case study. |
Very good 2 Really good opening sentence that provides clear context to the case study. Thoroughly identifies the aim of the case study in a meaningful way and with logical flow. Clearly outlines the scope, content and sequence of the case study. |
Good 1.75 Suitable opening sentence that creates context for the case study. Identifies the aim of the case study in a meaningful way and with logical flow. Outlines the scope and content to be covered in an appropriate sequence. |
Satisfactory 1.5 Opening sentence of interest yet relevance to the case study and/or linkages unclear. Aim of the case study stated yet lacks meaning with links to case study unclear. Outlines the scope of the case study yet more clarity is required and limited sequencing of case study noted. |
Limited 1.25 Opening sentence of limited relevance as does not clearly set the scene for what is to follow. Aim of case study stated although vague. The scope and order of what is covered within the case study requires further clarification and arrangement. |
Incomplete 0.75 Poor opening sentence with minimal context provided for the case study. Aim of the case study absent or lacks meaning and relevance. Mentions the context of the case study but key information missing and lacks logical flow and clarity. |
Unsatisfactory 0.25 Very poor opening sentence that does not provide relevant context for the case study. Aim of the case study not stated. Does not outline case study in a logical sequence / lacks meaning. |
Totally unsatisfactory 0 No introduction provided for this case study. |
|
Mind-map Diabetes mellitus type- 2 10 marks Mind-map accurately summarises: aetiology of, risk factors for, pathophysiology of, current clinical |
Exceptional 10 Extraordinary mind-map that is colourful, creative, is concise & flows in a logical sequence and perfectly précises all components requested. Outstanding summary of |
Excellent 9 Remarkable mind-map that is creative, concise, flows in a logical sequence and thoroughly précises all components requested. Excellent summary of nursing |
Very good 8 Great mind-map that shows creativity, flows in a logical sequence and accurately précises all components requested. Comprehensive summary of nursing considerations |
Good 7 Sound mindmap with some evidence of creativity, that flows in a mostly coherent sequence and clearly précises most components requested. Accurate summary of |
Satisfactory 6 Adequate mindmap with minimal creativity, that flows in a generally reasonable sequence and accurately précises most components requested. |
Limited 5 Mind-map attempts to summarise components requested however key information is missing in some components and sequence lacks consistency. Minimal |
Incomplete 3.5 Mind-map inadequately summarises components requested. Creativity not evident. Logical sequence lacking. Incomplete summary of nursing considerations |
Unsatisfactory 2 Mind-map fails to summarise components requested in a meaningful sequence. Poor / no evidence of creativity. Unsatisfactory summary of nursing considerations |
Totally unsatisfactory 0 Mind-map not included. |
|
Marking Criterion |
High Distinction + |
High Distinction |
Distinction |
Credit |
High Pass |
Low Pass |
High Fail |
Low Fail |
Complete Fail |
|
manifestations experienced by Mrs Rao, medication management with a focus on nursing considerations, and role of the nurse in caring for Mrs Rao.
|
nursing considerations in administering medications prescribed, and role of the nurse in provision of immediate nursing care that is culturally safe. |
considerations in administering medications prescribed, and role of the nurse in provision of immediate nursing care that is culturally safe. |
in administering medications prescribed, and role of the nurse in provision of immediate nursing care that is culturally safe. |
nursing considerations in administering medications prescribed, and role of the nurse in provision of immediate nursing care that is culturally safe. |
Mostly adequate summary of nursing considerations in administering medications prescribed, and role of the nurse in provision of immediate nursing care that is culturally safe |
creativity apparent. Limited summary of nursing considerations in administering medications prescribed, and role of the nurse in provision of immediate nursing care that is culturally safe. |
in administering medications prescribed, and role of the nurse in provision of immediate nursing care that is culturally safe with key information missing.
|
in administering medications prescribed, and role of the nurse in provision of immediate nursing care that is culturally safe. | |
|
Description of mind-map Diabetes mellitus type- 2 18 marks Describes all components (see Case study descriptor) requested & summarised in the mind-map with support from the wider literature. Medication management: in addition to describing the nursing |
Exceptional 18 Demonstrates an exceptional knowledge and understanding of all components requested & précised in the mind-map. Outstanding description of nursing considerations in administering medications prescribed, and accurate, succinct description of the pharmacodynam |
Excellent 16 Demonstrates an excellent understanding of all components requested & précised in the mind-map. Excellent description of nursing considerations in administering medications prescribed, and accurate, clear description of the pharmacodynam ics & pharmacokinetic |
Very good 14.5 Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the components requested & précised in the mind-map. Thorough description of nursing considerations in administering medications prescribed, and correct description of the pharmacodynam ics & pharmacokinetic |
Good 13 Demonstrates a sound understanding of most components requested & précised in the mind-map. Good quality description of nursing considerations in administering medications prescribed, and clear, mostly accurate description of the pharmacodynam ics & |
Satisfactory 11 Demonstrates a mostly adequate understanding of several components requested & précised in the mind-map. Satisfactory description of nursing considerations in administering medications prescribed, and basic description of the pharmacodynam ics & pharmacokinetic s of DM-2 |
Limited 9 Demonstrates a limited understanding of several components requested & précised in the mind-map. Narrow description of nursing considerations in administering medications prescribed, with an undeveloped description of the pharmacodynam ics & pharmacokinetic |
Incomplete 5.5 Demonstrates an inadequate understanding of components requested & précised in the mind-map. Limited description of nursing considerations in administering medications prescribed, and inaccurate / incomplete description of the pharmacodynam ics & pharmacokinetic |
Unsatisfactory 3 Demonstrates an unacceptable understanding of components requested & précised in the mind-map. Inadequate description of nursing considerations in administering medications prescribed, and inaccurate / incomplete description of the pharmacodynam ics & |
Totally unsatisfactory 0 Demonstrates an unacceptable understanding of case study. Inadequate description of nursing considerations in administering medications prescribed, and inaccurate / incomplete description of the pharmacodynam ics & pharmacokinetic |
|
Marking Criterion |
High Distinction + |
High Distinction |
Distinction |
Credit |
High Pass |
Low Pass |
High Fail |
Low Fail |
Complete Fail |
|
considerations related to Mrs Rao’s meds, briefly outlines the pharmacodynam ics & pharmacokinetic s of DM-2 medications. |
ics & pharmacokinetic s of DM-2 medications. Description of role of the nurse in immediate, evidence based nursing care that is culturally safe is accurate, succinct, meaningful & demonstrates an exceptional level of critical thinking. Utilises a wideranging and relevant range of quality evidence to support description.
|
s of DM-2 medications. Description of role of the nurse in immediate, evidence based nursing care that is culturally safe is accurate, well written & demonstrates a very high level of critical thinking. Utilises a comprehensive range of relevant, quality evidence to support description.
|
s of DM-2 medications. Description of role of the nurse in immediate, evidence based nursing care that is culturally safe is accurate, clear & demonstrates a high level of critical thinking. Utilises a very good range of relevant, quality evidence to support description. |
pharmacokinetic s of DM-2 medications. Description of role of the nurse in immediate, evidence based nursing care that is culturally safe is accurate, clear & demonstrates a moderate level of critical thinking. Utilises a good range of relevant, quality evidence to support description. |
medications with some information missing. Description of role of the nurse in immediate, evidence based nursing care that is culturally safe is basic, lacks some key information & demonstrates a minimal level of critical thinking. Utilises some quality evidence to support description. |
s of DM-2 medications - key information missing. Description of role of the nurse in immediate, evidence based nursing care that is culturally safe requires further work, lacks some key information & demonstrates very poor critical thinking. Utilises minimal quality evidence to support description.
|
s of DM-2 medications. Description of role of the nurse in immediate, evidence based nursing care that is culturally safe is poor, lacks key information & demonstrates a lack of critical thinking. Utilises poor quality evidence to support description.
|
pharmacokinetic s of DM-2 medications. Description of role of the nurse in immediate, evidence based nursing care that is culturally safe is very poor, lacks key information & demonstrates a lack of critical thinking. Utilises very poor quality evidence to support description.
|
s of DM-2 medications. Description of role of the nurse in immediate, evidence based nursing care that is culturally safe is very poor, lacks key information & demonstrates no critical thinking. Utilises unacceptably poor quality evidence to support description. |
|
Conclusion 2.5 marks Concluding paragraph summarizes what student has discovered and concluded in the main body of the case study, i.e. |
Exceptional 2.5 Outstanding concluding paragraph that methodically summarises the key points identified in the case study in a meaningful yet succinct way. |
Excellent 2.25 Excellent concluding paragraph that clearly summarises the key points identified in the case study in a meaningful way. Does not introduce any |
Very good 2 Very well written concluding paragraph that summarises most of the key points identified in the case study in a meaningful and clear way. |
Good 1.75 Mostly well written concluding paragraph that summarises the key points identified in the case study in a logical manner. Could be clearer. |
Satisfactory 1.5 Adequately written concluding paragraph that attempts to summarise the key points identified in the case study. Mostly relevant. Could be more |
Limited 1.25 Limited concluding paragraph overall that summarises some of the key points identified in the case study. Could be clearer. |
Incomplete 0.75 Poorly written concluding paragraph overall that does not clarify or summarise the key points identified in the case study. New information |
Unsatisfactory 0.25 Very poorly written concluding paragraph that lacks relevance and/or fails to clarify or summarise the key points |
Totally unsatisfactory 0 No conclusion incorporated into case study |
|
Marking Criterion |
High Distinction + |
High Distinction |
Distinction |
Credit |
High Pass |
Low Pass |
High Fail |
Low Fail |
Complete Fail |
|
reinforces the main points. Does not introduce any new information or references. |
Does not introduce any new information or references. |
new information or references. |
Does not introduce any new information or references. |
Does not introduce any new information or references. |
succinct and clearer. Does not introduce any new information or references. |
May have limited relevance. Does not introduce any new information or references. |
may-be introduced. May contain (a) reference(s). |
identified in the case study. Reference(s) may-be included. | |
|
Quality of written expression & structure 5 marks The case study report is well structured as set out in Table 1 of the Assessment 2 descriptor. The writing style is of a high academic standard, clear, easy to read and free of error. |
Exceptional 5 The case study is exceptionally well structured, is easy to read with logical flow of ideas. Writing style is of an outstanding academic standard, with evidence of firstrate skills in academic writing, e.g. paraphrasing of ideas from the literature, critical analysis and summarising. Superb / creative use of language, including grammar, spelling, sentence and |
Excellent 4.5 The case study is very well structured with sound flow of ideas apparent. Writing style is of an excellent academic standard, with evidence of excellent skills in academic writing, e.g. paraphrasing of ideas from the literature, critical evaluation and summarising. Excellent / creative use of language, including grammar, spelling, sentence and paragraph structure with |
Very good 4 The case study is well structured with a valid sequence of ideas. Writing style is of a very good academic standard with evidence of very good skills in academic writing, e.g. paraphrasing of ideas from the literature, evaluation and summarising. Very good use of language, including grammar, spelling, sentence and paragraph structure. Only minor errors. |
Good 3.5 The case study follows the suggested structure in most places with clear ideas in a good sequence. Writing style is of a good academic standard with evidence of good skills in academic writing, e.g. paraphrasing many ideas from the literature and summarising clearly. Good use of language, including grammar, spelling, sentence and paragraph structure. |
Satisfactory 3 The case study follows the suggested structure some of the time. Writing style is of a satisfactory academic standard with evidence of some proficiency in the skills of academic writing. Mostly adequate use of language, including grammar, spelling, sentence and paragraph structure. Recurrent errors / omissions evident. |
Limited 2.5 The case study attempts to follows the suggested structure however the order of ideas does not always flow in a meaningful way. Writing style shows a limited application of academic writing skills requiring further development. Limited use of accepted grammar, spelling, sentence and paragraph structure apparent. Numerous errors / omissions evident. |
Incomplete 1.5 The case study does not follow the suggested structure in many places with poor logical flow of ideas making the meaning unclear in places. Writing style is of a poor academic standard with limited aptitude in of academic writing. Inaccuracies in spelling, grammar, sentence and paragraph structure with frequent errors / omissions evident. Limited evidence of proof reading. |
Unsatisfactory 1 The case study does not follow the suggested structure at all. Writing style is of an unsatisfactory academic standard. Unsatisfactory/ poor use of language, including grammar and spelling, sentence and paragraph structure. Multiple errors apparent with little evidence of proofreading. |
Totally unsatisfactory 0 The case study does not follow the suggested structure at all. Writing style is of an unacceptable academic standard. Unsatisfactory/ very poor use of language, including grammar and spelling, sentence and paragraph structure. Multiple errors apparent with no evidence of proofreading. |
|
Marking Criterion |
High Distinction + |
High Distinction |
Distinction |
Credit |
High Pass |
Low Pass |
High Fail |
Low Fail |
Complete Fail |
|
paragraph structure. |
minimal errors apparent. |
A few errors / omissions evident. | |||||||
|
Referencing 5 marks All academic literature is of a high quality. Referencing both In-text & in the reference list comply with Referencing requirements outlined in the Assessment 2 descriptor. |
Exceptional 5 An outstanding and comprehensive range of relevant literature used to support ideas within case study. No fewer than ten (10) different sources from the scholarly literature ≤ 5 years old (unless a seminal work). In-text citations and referencing is used as per APA Style 6th edition without error or omission. A separate page is used for the reference list. |
Excellent 4. 5 Uses relevant literature of extensive quality to support ideas within case study. No fewer than nine (9) different sources from the scholarly literature ≤ 5 years old (unless a seminal work). In-text citations and referencing is used as per APA Style 6th edition with1 or 2 minor errors or omissions. A separate page is used for the reference list. |
Very good 4 Uses relevant literature of very good quality to support ideas within case study. No fewer than eight (8) different sources from the scholarly literature ≤ 5 years old (unless a seminal work). In-text citations and referencing is used as per APA Style 6th edition with no more than 3 minor errors or omissions. A separate page is used for the reference list. |
Good 3.5 Uses mostly relevant literature, of good quality to support ideas within case study. No fewer than seven (7) different sources from the scholarly literature ≤ 5 years old (unless a seminal work). In-text citations and referencing is used as per APA Style 6th edition with no more than 4 minor errors or omissions. A separate page is used for the reference list. |
Satisfactory 3 Uses mostly relevant literature, of satisfactory quality to support ideas within case study. No fewer than six (6) different sources from the scholarly literature ≤ 5 years old (unless a seminal work). In-text citations and reference list follow the APA 6th edition referencing requirements, with no more than 5 errors A separate page is used for the reference list. |
Limited 2.5 Uses some relevant literature, of limited quality to support ideas within case study. No fewer than five (5) different sources from the scholarly literature ≤ 5 years old (unless a seminal work). In-text citations and reference list follow the APA 6th edition referencing requirements, with frequent errors evident. A separate page is used for the reference list. |
Incomplete 1.5 Literature is inadequate in scope, depth or relevancy for the case study. Fewer than five (5) different sources of scholarly literature used one or two that are >5 years old. In-text citations and referencing is used as per APA Style 6th edition with numerous errors or omissions. A separate page is not used for the reference list. |
Unsatisfactory 1 Literature is very poor in scope, depth or relevancy for the topic. Fewer than four (4) different sources of scholarly literature used which may-be >5 years old. Inaccurate/incon sistent use of APA 6th edition throughout case study. A separate page is not used for the reference list |
Totally unsatisfactory 0
Unsuitable use of published literature. In-text citations, if any do not comply with APA 6th edition conventions. Reference list not included. |
|
Marking Criterion |
High Distinction + |
High Distinction |
Distinction |
Credit |
High Pass |
Low Pass |
High Fail |
Low Fail |
Complete Fail |
|
Presentation & formatting 2 marks Complies with Presentation and formatting requirements outlined in the Assessment 2 descriptor. Within stated word count 1800 words +/- 10%. |
Exceptional 2 All twelve (12) presentation & formatting standards set out in the Assessment 2 descriptor are met. Conforms to word count. |
Excellent 1.8 Almost all of the twelve (12) presentation & formatting standards set out in the Assessment 2 descriptor are met with 1 minor omission / error. Conforms to word count. |
Very good 1.6 Most of twelve (12) presentation & formatting standards set out in the Assessment 2 descriptor are met with 2 minor omissions / errors. Conforms to word count. |
Good 1.4 Many of the twelve (12) presentation & formatting standards set out in the Assessment 2 descriptor are met with 3 - 4 minor omissions / errors. Conforms to word count. |
Satisfactory 1.2 Presentation & formatting meets several standards set out in the Assessment 2 descriptor with no more than 5 small omissions / errors. Conforms to word count. |
Limited 1 Presentation & formatting meets some standards set out in the Assessment 2 descriptor with 6 -7 small omissions / errors. Conforms to word count. |
Limited 0.6 Presentation & formatting meets a few standards set out in the Assessment 2 descriptor with numerous omissions / errors. Does not conform to word count. |
Unsatisfactory 0.3 Presentation & formatting meets very few standards set out in the Assessment 2 descriptor with frequent omissions / errors. Does not conform to word count. |
Totally unsatisfactory 0 Presentation & formatting does not comply with standards set out in the Assessment 2 descriptor. Case study does not conform to word count. |
NRS72007 Assessment 3 Descriptor Final Examination
Assessment 3 Descriptor Final Examination
NRS72007 Human Response to Health breakdown
Assessment 3 – Final examination
Weighting: 40%
Length: 90 minutes + 10 minutes perusal time (closed book)
Individual assessment: Students are expected to comply with exam procedures in sitting this examination.
A. RATIONALE
This final examination is an individual assessment item designed to assess the student’s knowledge and understanding of core content covered in the second two-thirds of this unit.
Building on weekly lectures, tutorials, essential readings and worksheets in weeks 5 to 12 inclusive, this final examination will assess students' understanding of:
- The aetiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, pharmacological therapy and related nursing considerations of chronic health disorders of the endocrine, gastro-intestinal, renal, and central nervous systems including chronic pain;
- Mental illness as a co-morbidity; and
- Cognitive and physical disability as a co-morbidity.
B. AIM
This final examination will enable you to:
- demonstrate the depth of your knowledge and understanding of the aetiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, diagnostic procedures, pharmacological therapy and related nursing considerations of chronic health conditions covered in weeks 5 to 12 in session 1 2020.
C. INSTRUCTIONS
- The final examination will be scheduled during the final examination period as indicated on the Final Examination timetable for session 1, 2020. Students are expected to check details of the examination time, date and location when the Final examination timetable is published.
- The examination is closed book and includes multiple choice, True / False and short answer style questions based on lectures, tutorials, readings and worksheets from weeks 5 to 12 inclusive.
