NSB 231
Integrated Nursing Practice 2 – On Campus ASSESSMENT TASK 2
Assessment Task 2
| Assessment name: | Case Study: Nursing Priorities |
| Task description: | 1. For this essay you are required to select ONE (1) case option: Option 1: adolescent case orOption 2: adult case. Outlines for case options are available on the Blackboard site under Assessment 2 tab. Carefully review your chosen case and apply your knowledge of evidence-based nursing practice to plan person-centred care. Using the clinical reasoning cycle as a framework, you are required to assess, plan and evaluate your care for the chosen case during the episode of care. From the chosen case identify and discuss TWO (2) current problems which are directly impacting on the patients’ health.For each current problem, identify and discuss TWO (2) interventions (collaborative or independent). Note: One (1) intervention in the essay must be entirely nursing led and initiated. When discussing collaborative interventions, you must focus on the role of the nurse in that intervention. Discuss how you would evaluate the effectiveness for each intervention.Support and justify the essay using peer reviewed, current and relevant evidence from valid reference sources. |
| What you need to do: | The 1800 word essay should include the points below: Introduction (approximately 100 words): Give an overview of the chosen case’s condition and identify your TWO ( 2 ) current problems. Body (approximately 800 words for each problem): Establish how the assessment data led you to identify your TWO (2) current problems. In doing so you must demonstrate your understanding of the relevant pathophysiology that explains the link between each chosen problem and the case’s relevant assessment data. Support /justify the current problems using peer reviewed, current and relevant evidence (a minimum of 4 valid, contemporary references from 2014 onwards for each current problem). For each problem identify TWO (2) interventions aimed at resolving the problem.Justify the interventions you will implement (explain what is involved in implementing the intervention, why it is suitable, any special considerations relevant to the case or situation) and support /justify using peer reviewed, current and relevant evidence (a minimum of 4 valid, contemporary references from 2014 onwards for each intervention). |
| Outline the expected evaluation criteria/data and discuss how you would determine that each intervention is improving or resolving the identified problem. Support /justify using peer reviewed, current and relevant evidence (valid, contemporary references from 2014 onwards). Conclusion (approximately 100 words): Briefly restate the overall case and how your interventions can improve the patient’s current problems and benefit health. The following points must also be addressed in your work: You need to discuss at least ONE (1) independent nurse initiated intervention in your essay.For any collaborative interventions you must discuss the nursing responsibilities and actions in relation to this collaborative intervention.Prescribed therapies cannot be both of your chosen collaborative interventions for a problem. If a prescribed therapy is ONE ( 1 ) of your collaborative interventions, you must consider and discuss the relevant nursing responsibilities associated with the therapy i.e. action, dose, side effects (prevention and management of administration requirements and evaluation of effect). Note: Intravenous fluids and oxygen are both considered prescribed therapies. | |
| Length: | 1800 Words +/- 10% (including in text references and excluding reference list). Words in excess of this will not be marked. |
| Estimated time to complete task: | Approximately 30 hours |
| Weighting: | 45% |
| How will I be assessed: | 7-point grading scale using a rubric |
| Due date: | Friday 7th May 2021 submitted via Turnitin in your NSB231 Blackboard site by 23:59. More information about Turnitin is available on the FAQs about Turnitin page. |
| Presentation requirements: | Instructions for the assessment task: Submitted in electronic format as a Word document via Turnitin, formatted as below with a cover sheet that includes the following information:SubjectTitle of essayNameStudent numberWord countDue date o Do NOT use old coversheet templates. |
| Formatting needs to include the following:A ‘footer’ on each page with your name, student number, unit code and page number.3 cm margins (normal) on all sidesTimes new roman, font size 12Double spaced textDo not include headings in your work e.g. “Introduction”Use QUT APA ReferencingYou MUST include the page number or page range that indicates where you located the evidence or synthesized the evidence to support your key point in the citation. Failure to do this will result in a reduced grade in the rubric. Note: markers will be checking references to see that you have accurately represented the source.Contain a minimum of 16 peer reviewed, current and relevant evidence (valid, contemporary references from 2014 onwards) from journal articles with the addition of textbooks as appropriate. | |
| Learning outcomes assessed: | Apply and integrate knowledge of the key NMBA Registered Nurse Standards for Nursing Practice, National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards, and National Health Priorities to enable effective clinical decision making, planning and action in a range of situations that reflect the diversity of contemporary health care settings and challenges. Apply knowledge of anatomy, physiology and pathophysiology to support evidence-based decisions for planning and action in a range of clinical situations. Demonstrate clinical reasoning and clinical decision making in line with safe and quality person-centred care across the lifespan. Apply knowledge and skills to communicate and collaborate effectively with consumers and families. Reflect on the nurse role in care provision, using feedback from a range of sources, to identify opportunities to enhance individual practice. |
| What you need to submit: | You must submit ONE (1) Word document consisting of a coversheet, your essay and reference list. For students submitting work that has been granted an extension, you must include a copy of your approved extension at the start of your submission as part of the Word document. |
| Resources needed to complete task: | Case Option 1 (adolescent case) or Case Option 2 (adult case) outlines are available on the Blackboard site under Assessment 2 Tab.The Clinical Reasoning Cycle template i s available on the Blackboard site. |
| Include peer reviewed, current and relevant evidence (valid, contemporary references from 2014 onwards) from journal articles for the majority of the supporting evidence. You may also refer to: QUT Cite Write APA guide.Turnitin Tip Sheets. Videos can be found under the assessment link on Blackboard: Introduction to Evidence in Evidence Based PracticeAcademic Integrity CRAAP Test |
| Academic Integrity The School of Nursing takes academic integrity very seriously. All work submitted must be your own work and work not previously submitted for other study. The work of others needs to be correctly acknowledged and referenced according to the APA guidelines. There are serious consequences that will be imposed should you be found to breach academic integrity. Make sure you are familiar with the MOPP C/5.3 Academic Integrity and view the Academic Integrity video and explore the Academic Case Studies available on your Blackboard site. Maintaining academic integrity is your responsibility. If in doubt, check it carefully. |
NSB 231 Assessment Task 2 Rubric
Name: Paul Jarrett
Learning outcomes assessed: 1,2,3,4 & 5 Weighting: 45 %
| Criteria | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 – 1 |
| Problem 1: Demonstrates an understanding of the chosen problem, linking the case assessment data and relevant pathophysiology to the assessment, planning and evaluation of patient care Weighting: 15% | Provided an in-depth and comprehensive explanation of all the significant assessment data from the case and applies clinical knowledge which unequivocally links to the chosen problem with extensive discussion of the relevant pathophysiology. | Provided a detailed explanation of the most significant assessment data from the case and applies clinical knowledge which strongly links to the chosen problem with an in-depth discussion of the relevant pathophysiology. | Provided a sound explanation of most of the significant assessment data from the case and applies reasonable clinical knowledge which demonstrates some linkage to the chosen problem. Most relevant pathophysiology discussed, but some gaps/omissions. | Provided an adequate explanation of some assessment data from the case and applies adequate clinical knowledge which links to the chosen problem. Minimal pathophysiology discussed at a surface level. Significant gaps or omissions. | Attempted to provide some reasoned explanation of some of the assessment data from the case and some rudimentary clinical knowledge however, there were weak links to the chosen problem. Very little relevant pathophysiology demonstrated. | Little or no attempt to provide a reasoned explanation of assessment data. Little or no clinical knowledge demonstrated. Unable to link to the chosen problem, and/or incorrect/missing explanation of the pathophysiological concepts and/or the problem was incorrectly identified. |
| Interventions for Problem1: Critical thinking, arguing and justification using evidence in the context of the two chosen interventions Weighting: 30% | Provided a highly convincing, comprehensive justification for the proposed two interventions. At least ONE (1) independent nurse initiated intervention. Critically applies a significant depth of clinical knowledge, of two interventions to manage the chosen problem. | Provided a convincing and significant justification for the proposed two interventions. At least ONE (1) independent nurse initiated intervention. Applied a high level of clinical knowledge, of two interventions to manage the chosen problem. | Provided at times a somewhat convincing justification for the proposed two interventions. At least ONE (1) independent nurse initiated intervention. Applied a sound clinical knowledge, of two interventions to manage the chosen problem. | Provided a reasonable justification for the proposed two interventions that did not fully convince the reader. At least ONE (1) independent nurse initiated intervention. Applied some basic clinical knowledge of two interventions to manage the chosen problem, but obvious major gaps in knowledge and understanding. | Attempted justification but superficial/ inaccurate/ inappropriate explanations and/or the reasoning was generally weak or flawed. At least ONE (1) independent nurse initiated intervention. Significant or dangerous gaps in clinical knowledge and/or not related to interventions. | Little or no attempt to provide any reasoned justification for the proposed interventions. Did not include two interventions and/or any independent nurse initiated intervention for problem 1. Unable to apply clinical knowledge as to how your selected interventions relate to the management of the chosen problem and/or life-threatening interventions or management. |
| Provides a compelling, consistent and highly accurate argument supporting the relevance and appropriateness of the two interventions. Applies in-depth clinical knowledge to accurately identify evaluation criteria to indicate the success of two interventions. References to a wide range of high quality, contemporary relevant evidence. >8 valid, contemporary references provided for each problem/intervention. | Predominantly consistent and accurately argues the relevance and appropriateness of the two interventions. Predominantly applies clinical knowledge to accurately identify evaluation criteria to indicate the success of two interventions. Reference to mostly high quality, contemporary relevant evidence. At least 7 valid, contemporary references provided for each problem/intervention. | Generally, soundly and accurately argued the relevance and appropriateness of the two interventions. Provided sound clinical knowledge to identify evaluation criteria to indicate the success of two interventions. Reference to some evidence from relevant sources. >5 valid, contemporary references provided for each problem/intervention. | Attempted to provide an argument supporting the relevance and appropriateness of the two interventions. Applied some clinical knowledge to identify evaluation criteria to indicate the success of two interventions. Concepts were missing and/or not described in sufficient detail. Reference to some evidence from relevant sources. At least 4 valid, contemporary references provided for each problem/intervention. | There was very little evidence of critical discussion. Significant or dangerous gaps in clinical knowledge and evaluation. Less than 4 valid, contemporary references provided for each problem/intervention. | Little to no evidence of critical thinking Unable to apply clinical knowledge or evaluate effectiveness. Less than 2 valid, contemporary references provided for each problem/intervention. | |
| Problem 2: Demonstrates an understanding of the chosen problem, linking the case assessment data and relevant pathophysiology to the assessment, planning and evaluation of patient care Weighting: 15% | Provided an in-depth and comprehensive explanation of all the significant assessment data from the case and applies clinical knowledge which unequivocally links to the chosen problem with extensive discussion of the relevant pathophysiology. | Provided a detailed explanation of the most significant assessment data from the case and applies clinical knowledge which strongly links to the chosen problem with an in-depth discussion of the relevant pathophysiology. | Provided a sound explanation of most of the significant assessment data from the case and applies reasonable clinical knowledge which demonstrates some linkage to the chosen problem. Most pathophysiology discussed, but some gaps/omissions. | Provided an adequate explanation of some assessment data from the case and applies adequate clinical knowledge which links to the chosen problem. Minimal pathophysiology discussed at a surface level. Significant gaps or omissions. | Attempted to provide some reasoned explanation of some of the assessment data from the case and some rudimentary clinical knowledge but with weak links to the chosen problem. Very little relevant pathophysiology demonstrated. | Little or no attempt to provide a reasoned explanation of assessment data. Little or no clinical knowledge demonstrated. Unable to link to the chosen problem, and/or incorrect/missing explanation of the pathophysiological concepts and/or the problem was incorrectly identified. |
| Interventions for Problem 2: Critical thinking, arguing and justification using evidence in the context of the two chosen interventions. Weighting: 30% | Provided a highly convincing, comprehensive justification for the proposed two interventions. At least ONE (1) independent nurse initiated intervention. Critically applies a significant depth of clinical knowledge, of two interventions to manage the chosen problem. Provides a compelling, consistent and highly accurate argument supporting the relevance and appropriateness of the two interventions. Applies in-depth clinical knowledge to accurately identify evaluation criteria to indicate the success of the two interventions. References to a wide range of high quality, contemporary relevant evidence.>8 valid, contemporary references provided for each problem/intervention. | Provided a convincing and significant justification for the proposed two interventions. At least ONE (1) independent nurse initiated intervention. Applied a high level of clinical knowledge, of two interventions to manage the chosen problem. Predominantly consistent and accurately argues the relevance and appropriateness of the two interventions. Predominantly applies clinical knowledge to accurately identify evaluation criteria to indicate the success of the two interventions. Reference to mostly high quality, contemporary relevant evidence. At least 7 valid, contemporary references provided for each problem/intervention. | Provided at times a somewhatconvincing justification for the proposed two interventions. At least ONE (1) independent nurse initiated intervention. Applied a sound clinical knowledge, of two interventions to manage the chosen problem. Generally, soundly and accurately argued the relevance and appropriateness of the two interventions. Provided sound clinical knowledge to identify evaluation criteria to indicate the success of the two interventions. Reference to some evidence from relevant sources. >5 valid, contemporary references provided for each problem/intervention. | Provided a reasonable justification for the proposed two interventions that did not fully convince the reader. At least ONE (1) independent nurse initiated intervention. Applied some basic clinical knowledge of two interventions to manage the chosen problem, but obvious major gaps in knowledge and understanding. Attempted to provide an argument supporting the relevance and appropriateness of the two interventions. Applied some clinical knowledge to identify evaluation criteria to indicate the success of the two interventions. Concepts were missing and/or not described in sufficient detail. Reference to some evidence from relevant sources. At least 4 valid, contemporary references provided for each problem/intervention. | Attempted justification but superficial/ inaccurate/ inappropriate explanations and/or the reasoning was generally weak or flawed. At least ONE (1) independent nurse initiated intervention. Significant or dangerous gaps in clinical knowledge and/or not related to interventions. There was very little evidence of critical discussion. Significant or dangerous gaps in clinical knowledge and evaluation. Less than 4 valid, contemporary references provided for each problem/intervention. | Little or no attempt to provide any reasoned justification for the proposed two interventions. Did not include two interventions and/or any independent nurse initiated intervention for problem 2. Unable to apply clinical knowledge as to how your selected interventions relate to the management of the chosen problem and/or life-threatening interventions or management. Little to no evidence of critical thinking Unable to apply clinical knowledge or evaluate effectiveness. Less than 2 valid, contemporary references provided for each problem/intervention. |
| Academic Writing & Formatting Weighting: 10% | The introduction positions the reader with a clear and explicit understanding of the chosen case and the purpose of the essay. The body is well focused to the topic with a logical flow between paragraphs. The conclusion is decisive and relates clearly and specifically to the essay demonstrating convincing arguments for the decisions regarding current problems and interventions. Adhered to writing/formatting guidelines with exceptional quality exactly. Used eloquent and appropriate professional language and appropriate clinical terminology. Demonstrated no mistakes in citation or referencing format (QUT APA). | The introduction concisely and clearly introduces the chosen case and the purpose of the essay. The body addresses the task and flows well between and within the paragraphs. The conclusion is decisive and justified from the body and the topic of the paper. Adhered to writing/formatting guidelines with high quality (1 error). Used sophisticated appropriate professional language and appropriate clinical terminology There was no more than 1 or 2 mistakes in citation and/or referencing format (QUT APA) | The introduction is useful to direct the reader’s attention to the chosen case and the purpose of the essay. The body addresses the task and shows a logical progression of reasoning. The conclusion relates to the topic and makes purposeful comments. Adhered to writing/formatting guidelines (with 2 errors). Used appropriate professional language and appropriate clinical terminology There were no more than 3 or 4 mistakes in citation and/or referencing format (QUT APA) | The introduction was evident, and broadly reflected the topic area and/or the paper itself chosen case and the purpose of the essay. Instances of direct re- stating of the case which could have been paraphrased. The body addresses the task and shows some logical progression of reasoning. The conclusion relates broadly to the topic. Mostly adhered to writing/formatting guidelines >2 errors. Mostly used appropriate professional language and appropriate clinical terminology There were 5 mistakes in citation and/or referencing format (QUT APA) | The introduction failed to adequately introduce the topic area of the paper and/or is a re- statement of the facts of the case. The body does not have a clear and logical flow of the progression of ideas. The conclusion is missing or had little relevance to the paper. Failed to summarise the essay topic. Poor sentence structure and formatting of paper. Did not adhere to formatting guidelines with 3 or more errors. Frequently used unprofessional, judgemental and/ or discriminatory language and/ or incorrect use of terminology There were 6 to 9 mistakes in citation and/or referencing format (QUT APA) | No clear introduction. No clear body/paragraphs or linkage between paragraphs. No clear conclusion. Non-adherence to writing/formatting guidelines throughout. Consistently unprofessional, judgemental or discriminatory language or incorrect use of terminology Severe and consistent referencing errors throughout >10 |
| There were no mistakes in spelling or grammar. Adhered to word limit (+/- 10% of prescribed limit) | There were no more than 1 or 2 mistakes in spelling and/or grammar. Adhered to word limit (+/- 10% of prescribed limit) | There were a few mistakes in spelling and/or grammar. Adhered to word limit (+/- 10% of prescribed limit) | There were several mistakes in spelling and/or grammar. Adhered to word limit (+/- 10% of prescribed limit) | Relied heavily on direct quotations. Many mistakes in spelling and/or grammar. Did not adhere to word limit (+/- greater than 10% of prescribed limit) | Significant and consistent mistakes in spelling and/or grammar. Significantly under/over the word limit. >20% |
Get expert help for NSB 231 Integrated Nursing Practice and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!
