Skip to main content

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.



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

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should pit bull terriers be banned in my community

 Discussion Forum: Counterarguments (Should pit bull terriers be banned in my community) You created a question about the topic for your W6 Rough Draft. For this discussion, you will give an answer to that question in the form of a thesis statement. "Dieting Makes People Fat" Main Post: Share your thesis statement with your classmates. Please note: As with last week’s discussion, nothing here is set in stone. Be open to changing everything about your topic, including your position and audience, as you research it and get feedback from your classmates. Topic + Position/Purpose + Supporting Points =Thesis Statement Example: Suppose the question you posed in the Week 5 discussion was something like, “Should pit bull terriers be banned in my community?” After doing some preliminary research, you have concluded that pit bulls, if raised properly, are no more dangerous than other breeds of dogs. Your thesis statement can be something like, “Pitbulls should not be banned
Post a Comment
Read more

Controversy Associated With Dissociative Disorders

 Assignment: Controversy Associated With Dissociative Disorders The  DSM-5-TR  is a diagnostic tool. It has evolved over the decades, as have the classifications and criteria within its pages. It is used not just for diagnosis, however, but also for billing, access to services, and legal cases. Not all practitioners are in agreement with the content and structure of the  DSM-5-TR , and dissociative disorders are one such area. These disorders can be difficult to distinguish and diagnose. There is also controversy in the field over the legitimacy of certain dissociative disorders, such as dissociative identity disorder, which was formerly called multiple personality disorder. In this Assignment, you will examine the controversy surrounding dissociative disorders. You will also explore clinical, ethical, and legal considerations pertinent to working with patients with these disorders. Photo Credit: Getty Images/Wavebreak Media To Prepare · Review this week’s Learning
Post a Comment
Read more

CYBER SECURITY and how it can impact today's healthcare system and the future

 Start by reading and following these instructions: Create your Assignment submission and be sure to cite your sources, use APA style as required, and check your spelling. Assignment: Recommendations Document Due Week 6 (100 pts) Main Assignment Recommendations Document The 1250 to 1500-word deliverable for this week is an initial draft of your recommendations. Note that this is a working document and may be modified based on insights gained in module eight and your professor's feedback. This document should contain the following elements: Summary of your problem or opportunity definition A list of possible recommendation alternatives. In this section, you are not yet at the point of suggesting the best set of recommendations but you are trying to be creative and explore all the different ways that the problem or opportunity might best be addressed. The end result here will be a list of alternatives among which you will choose your final recom
Post a Comment
Read more