NURS2005 Assignment 5: Viva Voce analysis marking rubric

NURS2005 Assignment 5: Viva Voce analysis marking rubric
This academic paper requires students to discuss their viva vocepatient investigated inassignment 2.
Students need to utilise the feedback provided by their PEP Facilitator and their own personal reflection on their practice since presenting this patient in their viva voce.

Student Name: _______________               ________  ID:_________________________________
Performance Standard:
Assessment Criteria:    Weight:     Excellent    Good     Satisfactory    Unsatisfactory
Part 1: Introduction:
Introduction identifies details of patient.
5%    Comprehensive introduction to the patient.
Confidentiality maintained     Introduction to the patient and purpose of the paper clearly described.  Confidentiality maintained
Introduction to the patient and purpose of the paper described however, some areas / points confusing. Confidentiality maintained     No introduction to the patient and / or purpose of the paper.
Confidentiality not maintained.
Situation:
Describe events leading up to and reason/s for admission of patient. Rationale for admission with inclusion of patient risks.

5%    Comprehensive description of events leading to and reasons for admission of patient. Excellent, rationale linked topatient risks.     Description of events leading to and reasons for admission of patient are clear. Rationale good, with clear links to patient risks.    Broad description of events leading to and reasons for admission of patient– not always clear. Rationale, unclear, however, clear links topatient risks.     No or minimal description of events/ reasons leading to admission.
No or poor rationale, no linking to patient risks.
Background:
Display understanding oflinks between presenting signs and symptoms and pathophysiological/ pharmacological changesevident on admission.

30%    Displays comprehensive understanding of pathophysiological/ pharmacological changes linked explicitly to presenting signs and symptoms.
Presents good understanding of pathophysiological/ pharmacological changes linked to all presenting signs and symptoms.
General / broad understanding of pathophysiological/ pharmacological changes linked to most presenting signs and symptoms.
No more than two unclear links.     No or unsatisfactory understanding presented of pathophysiological/ pharmacological changes. No or discussion linking changes to signs and symptoms is incorrect.
Confusing, incorrect /poor understanding presented.
Assessment:
Display understanding of assessment (vital signs, history, physical etc) and diagnostic (Xray, bloods, ECG etc) activities/ tests through critical evaluation of collected data to show how these activities informed the patients plan for management of care.

20%    Comprehensive understanding of assessment and diagnostic activities/tests.
Comprehensive critical analysis of the collected data, supported with evidence.
Comprehensive discussion on how data informed plan for management of care.    Good understanding of assessment and diagnostic activities/tests presented.
Clear critical analysis of the collected data, supported with evidence.
Good discussion on how data informed plan for management of care.     Satisfactory understanding of assessment and diagnostic activities/tests. Sometimes unclear/ confusing/ not all aspects considered.
Limited but accurate critical analysis of the collected data. , supported with evidence.
Satisfactory discussion on how data informed plan for management of care.  Links not always evident.     No or unsatisfactory understanding of assessment and diagnostic activities/tests presented.
No/ unsatisfactory/ incorrect critical analysis of data collected.No evidence supporting discussion.
No or unsatisfactory discussion on how data informed plan for management of care.
Recommendations:
Propose a brief discharge plan addressing the most urgent issue for your patient (eg: diet, mobility, self- care) on discharge. Expected inclusion of other health disciplines which may support self-care on discharge

10%    Comprehensive justification of prioritised patient discharge need.
Comprehensive relationship presented between other health disciplines and patient need.     Good identification of prioritised patient discharge need.
Relationship presented between other health disciplines and patient need clearly addressed.     Satisfactory identification of prioritised patient discharge need. Some gaps in justification of need/ priority.
Satisfactory relationship presented between other health disciplines and patient need – lacks some clarity/ clear link.    No/ unsatisfactory or incorrect identification (justification) of prioritised patient discharge need.
No/ unsatisfactory relationship presented between other health disciplines and patient need.
Part 2: Reflection on feedback:
Reflect on the feedback provided to you by your PEP facilitator. Discusshow you have addressed these points during development of this paper.
Consider why this feedback is significant to your ongoing professional development in accordance with the NMBA National competency standards for RN’s.

20%    Comprehensive reflection on feedback provided.
Discussion clear and concise addressing how feedback has been addressed in this paper – substantial evidence provided.

Comprehensive rationale showing insightful for ongoing professional development in the role ofthe RN, clear concise links to NMBA competencies.
Good reflection on feedback presented clearly.

Clear discussion on how feedback has been addressed in this paper – relevant evidence provided.

Good rationale – shows clear link to ongoing professional development in the role of the RN, supported with NMBA competencies.
Broadreflection on feedback provided. Presents feedback with some insight – gaps evident.
Satisfactory discussion on how this feedback has been addressedinthis paper – some gaps evident.Evidence provided however limited in relevance or volume.

Rationale presented for how feedback influences ongoing development in the role of the RN; some gaps evident.  Supported with NMBA competencies    Nil or unsatisfactory reflection on feedback provided.

Nil or unsatisfactory discussion on how this feedback has been addressed in this paper./ Not addressed at all.
Nil or inappropriate evidence supporting application of feedback provided.

Nil or unsatisfactory/ incorrect rationale presented, no insight presented for how feedback influences ongoing professional development in the role of the RN. No link to NMBA competencies.
Academic requirements:
Meets all style and academic requirements.
Quality of evidence supporting discussion.
Accurate referencing (Harvard)

Word limit met
Clear, concise flow
Spelling, grammar and punctuation correct.
10%    All SoNM academic requirements met. No errors
Comprehensive body of evidence presented. All references highly relevant.
Word limit met
Clear, concise flow
All spelling, grammar and punctuation correct.     All SoNM academic requirements met. Minor errors / omissions.
Inclusion of further research/ evidence. All references relevant.
Word limit met +/- 10%
Clear, concise flow
All spelling, grammar and punctuation correct.    All SoNM academic requirements met. Some errors / omissions.
Topic evidence only presented.
Most references relevant.
Word limit met +/- 10%
Mostly clear, concise flow
Most spelling, grammar and punctuation correct.    Limited or omission of SoNM academic requirements.
No evidence presented.
References inappropriate.
Word limit exceeds  +/- 10%
Unclear, poor flow
Many spelling, grammar and punctuation issues.
Marker Name:         Grade:
Overall Comment:

Adapted from: Johns, C. (2000) Becoming a Reflective Practitioner: a reflective and holistic approach to clinical nursing, practice development and clinical supervision. Oxford: Blackwell Science