Case World Scenario Critical Reflection -Rubric Assessment Criteria Above expectations Satisfactory Below expectations Introduction 5% Excellent outline of aim and purpose of Aim and purpose of the paper introduced Topic not well introduced. Introduction is Purpose of this paper. Introduce the paper. Logical signposting of the however with some ambiguity and is not absent. May be unclear, lengthy, or too the patient, and the scenario. content discussed in the paper. clear. Some elements are missing. short, uninformative. No logical signposting Introduce what will be discussed of the content of the paper. in this paper. Demonstrate how the integration Objective and subjective data (Signs & Objective and subjective data (Signs & Objective and subjective data (Signs & of objective & subjective data symptoms and medications) identified symptoms and medications) identified symptoms and medications) identified impacts on the care provided correctly, discussed in-depth. correctly, discussed but lacks depth in places. incorrectly and/or discussion superficial (relevant sign & symptoms and with no consistent depth. medications as required) Identification of the elements of care Identification of the elements of care that are 15% that are based on current evidence is based on current evidence although some is Identification of the elements of care that highly relevant no longer current are based on old/no evidence is mostly not Identification of the elements of care Identification of the elements of care that may relevant that may need review is highly relevant need review is relevant but lacks depth in Identification of the elements of care that and in depth, demonstrated by an places, demonstrated by a basic critical may need review is not relevant/missing excellent critical analysis of the analysis of the scenario. and lacks depth, demonstrated by a scenario. poor/no-critical analysis of the scenario. Identify the elements of care Elements of care as related to Elements of care as related to simulation Elements of care as related to simulation that are needed because of the simulation scenario identified correctly, scenario discussed but lacks depth in places. scenario identified incorrectly and/or events in the simulation scenario, discussed in-depth. discussion superficial with no consistent use supporting evidence to Identification of the elements of care that are depth. explain the required care Identification of the elements of care based on current evidence although some is 15% that are based on current evidence, old Identification of the elements of care that highly relevant are based are based on old/no evidence is Identification of the elements of care that may mostly not relevant Identification of the elements of care need review is relevant but lacks depth in that may need review is highly relevant places, demonstrated by a basic critical Identification of the elements of care that analysis of the scenario. and in depth, demonstrated by an may need review is not relevant/missing excellent critical analysis of the and lacks depth, demonstrated by a poor/no-critical analysis of the scenario. scenario. Case World Scenario Critical Reflection -Rubric Discussing the role of inter Role of inter professional collaboration Role of inter professional collaboration in this Role of inter professional collaboration in professional collaboration in this in this case identified correctly and case identified correctly and discussed by this case identified incorrectly and/or case discussed in-depth using current lacks depth. discussion superficial with no consistent evidence, highly relevant depth. 15% Demonstrated a basic critical analysis of the Demonstrated an excellent critical scenario. Based on old/no evidence is mostly not analysis of the scenario. relevant Identification of the elements of care that may need review is not relevant/missing and lacks depth, demonstrated by a poor/no-critical analysis of the scenario. Highlight and discuss the specific Highlight and discuss the specific Highlight and discuss the specific psychosocial Highlight and discuss the specific psychosocial issues that arise in psychosocial issues that arise in this issues that arise in this case identified psychosocial issues that arise in this case this case case identified correctly and discussed correctly and discussed by lacks depth. identified incorrectly and/or discussion in-depth. based on current evidence although some is superficial with no consistent depth. based on current evidence is highly 15% no longer current based on old/no evidence is mostly not relevant relevant demonstrated by an excellent critical demonstrated by a basic critical analysis of the scenario. demonstrated by a poor/no-critical analysis analysis of the scenario. of the scenario. Recommendations & Recommendations & Conclusion Recommendations & Conclusion Recommendations & Conclusion unclear Conclusion 20% logically drawn from the body of satisfactory and contains most of the key or too short / not present the paper, clear demonstration points Does not demonstrate understanding of Succinct synopsis of the keys that key points discussed. key points points discussed in the paper Some key findings are missing/unclear. Synthesis of material is clear. Recommendation/Conclusion absent Presentation 5% Writing is presented clearly and The paper is satisfactorily presented The presentation is poor, frequent spelling logically with no spelling or The flow is lost at times errors and poor grammatical phrasing grammatical errors. detracts from the work. Writing is clear and concise – flow Some grammatical and spelling errors but Unclear writing style. is logical not significant enough to distract from the meaning. Excellent academic presentation Flow is difficult to follow of the work. Case World Scenario Critical Reflection -Rubric References 10% Sources indicate depth Sources are acceptable but some material Sources used are unacceptable or and breadth of research, with evidence is inadequate or not relevant to course inadequate. Cited sources are not of extended research. Cited sources activities. Cited sources are relevant to relevant to the Australian context, are not are relevant to the Australian context. the Australian context. References mainly peer-reviewed and/or not relevant to the References are from peer-reviewed conform to Harvard referencing style, topic. The reference list is not journals or reputable texts, well minor errors evident. Adequate sources appropriately formatted. Referencing utilised and integrated into the text. were used. does not comply with Harvard referencing There is a full reference list and style. Sources are either not referencing conforms to acknowledged or poorly acknowledged. Harvard referencing style. Comment Mark ____/100