Views the person agains

CNA155 Clinical Reasoning Report

Objective/Criteria	Performance Indicators
HD 8 – 6.4 marks	DN 6.3 – 5.6 marks	CR 5.5 – 4.8 marks	PP 4.7 – 4 marks	NN 3.9 – 0 marks
Consider the patient: 8 Marks Explains what is significant about the patient’s profile i.e. age, culture, health specific issues, medical history and social history, risk factors, making links to the presenting situation.	Views the person against a background of her own age, culture, health specific issues, medical history, social history and risk factors where applicable. Considers health-specific issues/medical history, social history. Makes links to why this is significant. Forms an initial impression and makes a basic assumption about what might be occurring at the time.	Recalls facts about the case accurately with sensible interpretation of the significance of the person’s profile i.e. age, culture, health specific issues, medical history, social history and risk factors. Gains an initial impression and makes a basic assumption about what might be unfolding.	Recalls facts about the case accurately with reasonable interpretation of the significance of the person’s profile i.e. age, culture, health specific issues, medical history, social history and risk factors. Gains a good initial impression of the person in the case.	Recalls the facts in the case accurately but with vague interpretation of the significance of the person’s profile i.e. age, culture, health specific issues, medical history and social history and risk factors. Forms a basic impression of the person in the case.	Recalls facts within the case only, with or without accuracy. Does not make an interpretation of the patients profile i.e. age, culture, health specific issues, medical history, social history and risk factors. Does not develop an initial impression of the person in the case.
HD 12 – 9.6 marks	DN 9.5 – 8.4 marks	CR 8.3 – 7.2 marks	PP 7.1 – 6 marks	NN 5.9 – 0 marks
Collect Cues/Information: 12 Marks Reviews information available. Demonstrates a clear understanding of new assessments required for the situation. Links assessments to a clear understanding of what is going on with the patient from a functional and structural perspective within the brain. Recalls knowledge of the bio scientific principles underlying the case.	Reviews all information currently available. Correctly determines cues that are relevant to collect, decides on new assessment data to be collected, states assessment techniques/tools to be used. Can link assessments and cue collection on knowledge from a nursing and bioscience perspective of the patient’s situation.	Reviews in detail most information currently available. Correctly determines most of the cues that are relevant to collect, decides accurately on most of the new assessment data to be collected. States accurately most techniques and tools to be used. Cue collection is accurately based on nursing and bioscience knowledge relating to the patients situation	Reviews most information available. Determines reasonable cues that are relevant to collect and decides on reasonable new assessment data to collect. States reasonable techniques and tools for assessment. Cue collection is based on reasonable nursing and bioscience knowledge relating to the patient’s situation.	Reviews some of the information available. Determines some cues that are relevant to collect. Decides on some new assessments data that is relevant to collect. States some techniques or tools of assessment. Cue collection is based on some nursing and bioscience knowledge relating to the patient’s situation.	Lists cues provided in the case, no review. Cannot determine which cues are relevant to collect. New assessments are either not relevant or not suggested. Does not state the techniques or tools to be used in new cue collection. No links to the patient’s situation.
HD 10 – 8 marks	DN 7.9 – 7 marks	CR 6.9 – 6 marks	PP 5.9 – 5 marks	NN 4.9 – 0 marks
Process Information: 10 Marks Demonstrates understanding of the most important and relevant cues related to the neurological system in this case. Able to cluster cues in relation to the suspected problem in the case. Able to make a suggestion based on analysis of the case to make logical inferences about what the patient is experiencing.	Narrows down all the important information and the relevant cues in the case. Clusters all cues and recognises patterns relating to the suspected problem underlying the case. Forms an accurate and logical opinion about what the patient is experiencing.	Narrows down on majority of the important information and relevant cues. Clusters majority of cues and recognises patterns making clear links to a suspected problem underlying the case. Forms a logical opinion about what the patient is experiencing.	Narrows down on most important information and relevant the cues. Clusters most cues and recognises patterns relating to the suspected problem. Attempts to form a logical opinion about what the patient is experiencing.	Narrows down on some important and relevant cues. . Clusters some cues and recognise patterns relating to the suspected problem. May or may not form a logical opinion about what the patient is experiencing.	Narrowing down of important cues has not occurred. There is no cue clustering or pattern recognition relevant to the suspected problem. No logical opinion formed.

CNA155 Clinical Reasoning Report

HD 5 – 4 marks	DN 3.9 – 3.5 marks	CR 3.4 – 3 marks	PP 2.9 – 2.5 marks	NN 2.4 – 0 marks
Writes in a structured, succinct and well informed manner: 5 Marks References appropriate academic literature and current evidence-based research. Uses Harvard reference guide.	High level of academic writing with strong evidence of planning. The paper is exceptionally logical, insightful, consistently expressed in a clear and fluent manner. Accurately referenced Harvard style.	Academic writing with strong evidence of planning. The paper is logical, balanced, and expressed in a clear and fluent manner. Accurately referenced, majority sources using the Harvard style.	Academic writing with clear evidence of planning with a logical flow. Discussion is generally expressed in a clear and fluent manner. Mostly accurate references, Harvard style.	Academic writing using coherent and partly cohesive expression. Semi structured. Used some academic literature to support the paper. Harvard style referencing minor errors.	Multiple punctuation, sentence structure and formatting errors, which affect readability. Non academic sources are utilised. Does not use the Harvard style.

High Distinction = 35-28 marks
Distinction = 27.9 – 24.5 marks
Credit = 24.4 – 21 marks
Pass 20.9- 17.5 marks
Fail 17.4 – 0

The post Views the person agains appeared first on My Assignment Tutor.

• • Assignment status: Resolved by our Writing Team
  • Source@PrimeWritersBay.com

GET THIS PAPER COMPLETED FOR YOU FROM THE WRITING EXPERTS  CLICK HERE TO ORDER 100% ORIGINAL PAPERS AT PrimeWritersBay.com

• • • • NO PLAGIARISM