NSB336: Integrated Nursing Practice Capstone
ASSESSMENT TASK 1
| Assessment name: | Case Study: Failure to recognise and respond to clinical deterioration |
| Task description: | For this essay you are required to review the case study located on Blackboard The assessment task requires you to write an academic essay that addresses the following tasks: Analyse the Coroner’s case to identify the issues (what happened and why it happened) in care delivery that contributed to a failure to recognise and respond to clinical deterioration. Discuss how the issues identified, in conjunction with the patient presentation, medical history, and underlying pathophysiological processes led to the clinical deterioration.Based on contemporary evidence analyse the clinical actions that the registered nurse(s) implemented, how this contributed to the patient’s clinical deterioration, and discuss what action should have been undertaken to potentially prevent the clinical deterioration.Based on issues identified in the Coroner’s report apply contemporary research to discuss the communication barriers in the escalation of care and how these may be addressed to improve future care. References:The reference list is to be presented in accordance with QUT APA 7th edition requirements.References are to be contemporary (i.e. no older than 7 years). Only peer reviewed evidence-based literature is to be cited for this assessment. |
| What you need to do: | In order to undertake this essay, you will need to research the case using current and relevant peer reviewed literature, in conjunction with reviewing: The lecture, tutorial and support materials associated with the relevant topic located on blackboard.Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care; Recognising and Responding to Acute Deterioration Standard (https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/standards/nsqhs- standards/recognising-and-responding-acute-deterioration- standard)Registered nurses’ standards for practice (https://www.nursingmidwiferyboard.gov.au/codes-guidelines- statements/professional-standards/registered-nurse-standards- for-practice.aspx)Your knowledge and understanding related to:Anatomy, physiology and pathophysiology of the primary diagnosis, medical history and associated clinical data identified within the coroner’s report.The physiological assessments relevant to the features within the case study. This assessment task is an individual assessment item and should be reflective of your own independent work. |
| Length: | 1500 words +/-10% (word length includes in-text referencing and excludes your reference list) |
| Estimated time to complete task: | Approximately 40 hours |
| Weighting: | 50% |
| How will I be assessed: | +/- 7 point grading scale using the rubric attached within this document |
| Due date: | Group 2 (those in classes running weeks 1 to week 5 ) Week 5 Friday April 8th 2022: submitted via in Turnitin your NSB236 Blackboard site by 23:59 hours. More information about Turnitin is available on the FAQs about Turnitin page. Group 1 (those in classes running weeks 6 to week 10) Week 10 Friday May 20th 2022: submitted via Turnitin in your NSB236 Blackboard site by 23:59 hours. |
| Presentation requirements: | This assessment task must: Be a formal written academic essay containing an introduction, body and conclusion, addressing the task, specified requirements and adhering to the prescribed word limit.Use QUT CiteWrite APA 7th edition referencing for citing academic literature, inclusive of page numbers (see http://www.citewrite.qut.edu.au/).Assessment cover page should include, student name, ID number, tutorial day and time, tutorial leaders name, case study title, and word count.Be submitted in electronic form via Turnitin as a word document only. Submission made in any other form will not be accepted and a zero grade will be awarded.Integrate contemporary literature in the form of published articles within journals, no older than 7 years.Include a footer on each page with your name, student number, unit code and page number.3 cm margins on all sides, double-spaced textUse font, such as Times New Roman, Arial or Calibri; font size 12Anticipated references required is 1 per 100-150 words (e.g 10 -15 references for the assessment) Please note: If using web pages they must be current and evidence based. Sponsored sites and review sites such as StatPearls should be avoided. Your textbooks can be used but should not make up the majority of supporting evidence.The submitted essay should NOT contain tables, figures or appendices. |
| What you need to submit: | One (1) word document that contains the following items: A cover page with the items outlined in the presentation requirements provided.Where an extension has been formally granted – evidence of the granted extension must be submitted in the form of the approval email added to the beginning of the submitted document. In the absence of this information the submission will not be graded. All assessments must be submitted in electronic form via Turnitin by the due date. Emailed submissions will not be accepted. |
NSB336 ASSESSMENT TASK 1 RUBRIC
| Learning Outcomes Assessed: | 1,2,3 & 5 | Weighting: | 50% |
| Criteria | +/- 7 | +/- 6 | +/- 5 | +/- 4 | +/- 3 | +/- 2 – 1 |
| Case analysis – identification of key issues that contributed to failure to recognise and respond to clinical deterioration Weighting 20% | You present an insightful analysis of the case study. Thorough analysis of patient history and critique of clinical care provided; you correctly identify all key indicators of, and reasons for, clinical deterioration that were not recognised and/or adequately explored by the team. Analysis is seamlessly justified throughout using evidence from a wide range of peer reviewed, current, and highly relevant literature. | You present an analysis of the case study. You have accurately identified key aspects of the patient history and clinical care that may have caused the signs or symptoms of clinical deterioration that were not recognised and/or adequately explored by the team. Occasional areas would benefit from more detail. Analysis is clearly justified using evidence from a range of peer reviewed, current and relevant literature. | You present some analysis of the case study though this may be descriptive in parts. You have identified most relevant patient history. You discuss clinical actions, and make some links between these and signs or symptoms of clinical deterioration relevant to the case study. Analysis is mostly correct though some points may need further explanation. Most assertions justified by evidence from peer reviewed, current and mostly relevant literature. | You present a key summary of the case study. You identify key patient history and draw mainly accurate conclusions in relation to the contributing factors that resulted in clinical deterioration. Majority of analysis /points are supported by peer reviewed, current and relevant evidence Some points needed further development. Some areas are descriptive and comparison with relevant evidence in these areas is lacking. | You present a description of the case study. Signs or symptoms of clinical deterioration and contributing factors are inaccurate and/or poorly discussed. Limited supporting evidence. Majority of submission is descriptive and comparison with relevant evidence is lacking in many areas. | You present a description of the case study that lacks cohesion for the reader. Limited understanding evident of contributing factors that contribute/suggest clinical deterioration is present. Limited/no or poor-quality supporting evidence applied. |
| Case analysis – analysis of clinical information/data and applied knowledge of anatomy, physiology and pathophysiology Weighting 20% | You accurately identify and analysed relevant historical and at-time-of- hospitalisation clinical information/data that supports your assessment. You have integrated underlying anatomy, physiology and pathophysiology to support your assertions, demonstrating in-depth clinical reasoning and analytical thinking. You have analysed and applied a wide range of peer reviewed, current and highly relevant evidence to | You have accurately identified relevant clinical information/data to support your assessment. You have integrated relevant concepts of anatomy, physiology, and pathophysiology to demonstrate a high level of clinical reasoning and analytical thinking to guide your interpretation. You have applied a range of peer reviewed, current and relevant evidence to build a convincing argument. Occasional areas would benefit from | You make relevant and important links underlying pathophysiology inclusive of physiology and anatomy to guide your initial assessment demonstrating a sound understanding of the clinical issues and contributing factors. You have applied peer reviewed, current and relevant evidence to build an argument. Some points needed further development. | You identified clinical information/data that supports your assessment. You use pathophysiology and endeavour to consider anatomy and physiology, to support the ideas and demonstrate a satisfactory understanding of the primary concepts. Some omissions of key points are present. The majority of points are supported by peer reviewed, current and relevant evidence although mainly descriptive. | You show some understanding of pathophysiology, anatomy and physiology however many points are not are not relevant clinical deterioration in the case/s. Limited supporting evidence. | You show little understanding of anatomy, physiology and pathophysiology. Limited/no or poor-quality supporting evidence applied. |
| support your argument. | more detail. | |||||
| Clinical actions – Analysis the clinical actions that may have mitigated clinical deterioration and improved the patient outcome. Weighting 25% | You present a well-thought out and logical analysis of the clinical assessments/interventions that could have been implemented to reduce the potential for clinical deterioration. This includes when and why suggested additional assessment/s and/or intervention/s should have occurred. You have analysed and applied contemporary literature to make a compelling justification for the clinical actions. | You present a logical and relevant discussion of the clinical assessments/interventions that could have been implemented to reduce the potential for clinical deterioration. You have applied contemporary literature with relevant connections to the case to make a convincing argument for clinical actions. | You present a clearly identified contributing assessments/interventions that may have been implemented to reduce the potential for clinical deterioration. You have made a good attempt to justify the approaches proposed through the use of contemporary literature and integrating links between the case and the research. | You identify relevant clinical assessments/intervention required in relation to the clinical case that may have aided in the earlier recognition of clinical deterioration You have made a satisfactory attempt to justify your approaches using contemporary literature and integrating links between the suggested assessments/intervention and the research. | Your discussion of the case has limited application to safely and effectively intervene and reduce the potential for clinical deterioration. The justification for the actions required further development and integration of compelling evidence. Integrated literature is lacking to support the discussion. | Your discussion of the clinical action to prevent clinical deterioration and support early recognition of changes in the patient health status is poorly related to the case study and is underdeveloped in its justification. There is limited/absent discussion of evidence- based approach to assessment/interventions to support your approach. Integrated literature to support the discussion is inadequate or of a poorly scholarly source. |
| Communication – Based on issues identified in the case apply contemporary research to discuss the communication barriers in the escalation of care and how these may be addressed. Weighting 15% | You provide a proficient discussion of contemporary issues that may have contributed to poor communication and lack of escalation of care. Using an evidence-based approach, you suggest relevant ways to improve escalation of care and communication approaches to achieve safer practice in the future. You provide appropriate, clear and accurate recommendations for addressing the identified communication barriers and blocks for escalation of care that are fully justified and supported by peer-reviewed, current and highly relevant literature. | You identify critical points in the case study where clearer communication and escalation of care should have occurred. Discussion contains a well-considered and balanced overview of the communication and industry barriers in the context of clinical deterioration. Proposed improved practices are well supported and reflect contemporary evidence. You provide an effective approach to address communication and escalation of care deficits that are evidence-based and informed by best practice that addresses the priority problem. | You identify deficiencies in effective communication and escalation of care related to clinical deterioration in the case. and considered relevant clinical barriers. Supporting evidence is applied and has some links made to communication and escalation of care practices that inform future nursing. The discussion is justified using mainly peer reviewed, current and highly relevant evidence. | You have identified some key points where escalation of care should have occurred. You identify some communication errors/barriers in the case. Some basic links to failures in the case and how future practice may be improved are made. An attempt to justify the approaches has been made although limited peer reviewed, current and relevant evidence used. | You have not adequately identified key points where escalation of care and/or clearer communication should have occurred. Many key points missed. Limited or no discussion of how future practice could be improved and/or discussion is not supported by peer-reviewed literature. | You did not correctly identify key points where clearer communication and escalation of care should have occurred. If present communication approaches lack discussion to support impact on clinical practice and are inappropriate or ineffective. Limited or poorly quality literature applied to presented discussion. |
| Academic writing and integrity Weighting 20% | Logically and succinctly structured essay with a clear introduction, body and conclusion. Makes no significant grammatical, spelling or communication errors. Full adherence to task requirements including word limit (+/-10%). QUT APA guidelines are followed without error | Logically structured essay with a clear introduction, body and conclusion. Few grammatical, spelling or communication errors. Adherence to task requirements including word limit (+/-10%). QUT APA guidelines are followed with minor errors when applying convention. | Well-structured essay with an introduction, body and conclusion. Minor grammatical, spelling or communication errors. Consistent adherence to task requirements including word limit (+/-10%). QUT APA guidelines are followed with minor errors when applying convention. | Used some structure to provide some clarity to your response. Introduction, body and conclusion evident. Some problems with spelling, grammar, expression that do not detract from meaning. You have complied with many task requirements, including word limit (+/- 10%). QUT APA guidelines are followed. Some errors when applying convention. | Some essay structure present but meaning is often unclear. Spelling, grammar, expression are below an acceptable standard for an academic essay. Lacks adherence to task requirements, including word limit (+/-10%). Referencing is not compliant with QUT APA guidelines. | Lack of essay structure present e.g. no clear introduction, body, conclusion. Poor spelling, grammar, and expression that make meaning unclear. Little to no adherence to task requirements, including word limit (+/- 10%). Referencing is not compliant with QUT APA guidelines. |
Satisfactorily complied with the Academic Integrity standards outlined in the MOPP C/5.3 Academic Integrity.
Get expert help for NSB336: Integrated Nursing Practice Capstone and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!
