CNA253/255 Clinical reasoning case-study rubric
Assessment Criteria HD DN CR PP NN
Explains relevant underlying physiology/ pathophysiology related to the health status of the individual and demonstrates understanding of the relationship between the health issues presented.
40%
Demonstrates a high- level of application of knowledge to the case, that accurately and comprehensively explains the students’ understanding of the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms related to the patient’s condition.
Accurate application of knowledge that indicates a high-level understanding of relevant pathophysiological mechanisms related to the patient’s condition.
Mostly accurate application of knowledge that indicates a reasonable level of understanding of relevant pathophysiological mechanisms related to the patient’s condition. Some scope to detail additional relationships within the case study.
Demonstrates a satisfactory application of mostly accurate knowledge regarding some of the relevant pathophysiological mechanisms. Scope for additional depth and analysis.
Provides insufficient and/or confused knowledge that does not clearly demonstrate an understanding of relevant pathophysiological mechanisms.
Demonstrates ability to appropriately apply the clinical reasoning cycle to inform and evaluate nursing care
40%
Demonstrates an exceptional understanding and application of all components of the clinical reasoning cycle to the case that indicates an emerging capacity to think like a registered nurse. The plan of care detailed provides evidence of high-level thinking around relevant course of actions and impact/s on future nursing practice.
Demonstrates a strong understanding of the application of most components of the clinical reasoning cycle to the case that indicates an emerging capacity to think like a registered nurse. Details an appropriate, relevant course of actions and impact/s on future nursing practice.
Demonstrates a clear but sometimes limited understanding of the application of clinical reasoning with some capacity to think like a registered nurse, but scope for more depth.
Demonstrates a satisfactory approach to application of some elements of the clinical reasoning with some capacity to think like a registered nurse, but scope for more depth.
Paper is not aligned with the clinical reasoning cycle and/or demonstrates poor understanding of its application and does not clearly address and/or acknowledge the patient problem.
Uses appropriate scholarly literature to substantiate findings throughout. Uses Harvard referencing style.
10%
Accurately references all sources using the Harvard style. Outstanding use of appropriate academic literature that substantiates thinking and arguments that considers evidence- based practice relevant to the case.
Accurately references the majority of sources using the Harvard style. Uses scholarly literature and expands upon key points of discussion that include evidence-based practice.
Accurately references the majority of sources using the Harvard style. Uses some relevant scholarly literature, but scope to expand further.
Draws upon some scholarly literature to substantiate discussion, but scope to consider additional evidence. Errors evident in referencing style.
Inaccurate and/or inconsistent referencing style. No or minimal use of appropriate scholarly literature to substantiate findings.
Writes in a clear and concise academic style that is succinct, logical and coherent.
10%
Communicates with a highly evolved academic writing style with strong evidence of planning. The paper is exceptionally logical, insightful and balanced and is consistently expressed in a clear and fluent manner with minimal or no spelling/grammar errors.
Communicates with a strong academic writing style with clear evidence of planning, and presented in a logical and fluent manner.
Minimal spelling/grammar errors.
Communicates with a mostly academic writing style with some evidence of planning. Generally expressed in a clear and fluent manner.
Evidence of spelling/grammar errors that impact on flow of paper.
Communicates with a basic writing style that is reasonably coherent and clear but has scope for improvement in line with academic convention. Errors in spelling/grammar impact on flow of paper.
Not presented in an academic manner. Multiple spelling/grammar errors which significantly impact on readability.
