Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6512_Week_6_Assignment_1_Rubric
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| With regard to the SOAP note case study provided, address the following: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 and/or with some inaccuracy analyzes the subjective portion of the SOAP note and vaguely and/or with some inaccuracy lists additional information to be included in the documentation. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) The response inaccurately analyzes or is missing analysis of 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 and/or with some inaccuracy 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 or is missing analysis of 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 an explanation. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 8 (8%) – 10 (10%) The response vaguely and/or inaccurately 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 clearly and accurately 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 at least three 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 accurately 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 or three conditions as a differential diagnosis, with reasoning that is explained vaguely and/or inaccurately using three references from current evidence-based literature. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 16 (16%) The response inaccurately 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 two or fewer conditions as a differential diagnosis, with reasoning that is missing or explained inaccurately using three 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: |
Show DescriptionsShow Feedback
With regard to the SOAP note case study provided, address the following:Analyze the subjective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation.–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 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. Good 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. Fair 4 (4%) – 6 (6%) The response vaguely and/or with some inaccuracy analyzes the subjective portion of the SOAP note and vaguely and/or with some inaccuracy lists additional information to be included in the documentation. Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) The response inaccurately analyzes or is missing analysis of 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.–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 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. Good 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. Fair 4 (4%) – 6 (6%) The response vaguely and/or with some inaccuracy analyzes the objective portion of the SOAP note and vaguely and/or inaccurately lists additional information to be included in the documentation. Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) The response inaccurately analyzes or is missing analysis of 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?–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 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. Good 11 (11%) – 13 (13%) The response accurately identifies whether or not the assessment is supported by the subjective and/or objective information, with an explanation. Fair 8 (8%) – 10 (10%) The response vaguely and/or inaccurately identifies whether or not the assessment is supported by the subjective and/or objective information, with a vague explanation. Poor 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?–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 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. Good 15 (15%) – 17 (17%) The response accurately describes appropriate diagnostic tests for the case and explains clearly and accurately how the test results would be used to make a diagnosis. Fair 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. Poor 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.–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 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 at least three different references from current evidence-based literature. Good 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 accurately using three different references from current evidence-based literature. Fair 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 or three conditions as a differential diagnosis, with reasoning that is explained vaguely and/or inaccurately using three references from current evidence-based literature. Poor 0 (0%) – 16 (16%) The response inaccurately 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 two or fewer conditions as a differential diagnosis, with reasoning that is missing or explained inaccurately using three 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.–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 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. Good 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. Fair 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. Poor 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–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Fair 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Poor 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.–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors. Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. Fair 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. Poor 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.Feedback:
| Total Points: 100 |
|---|