Key Criteria

High Distinction
100–85%

Distinction
84.9–75%

Credit
74.9–65%

Pass
64.9–50%

Fail
<49.9%

TOTAL

Slide presentation (10%)

(10–8.5)

A total of 9 slides used that are extremely aesthetically pleasing and hold the audience’s attention. The slides are free of unnecessary detail, succinct, and readable. The slides contain an extremely appealing array of appropriate script and graphics and are the student’s own work.

(8.4–7.5)

A total of 9 slides used that are aesthetically pleasing and hold the audience’s attention. The slides are free of unnecessary detail, succinct, and readable. The slides contain an appealing array of appropriate script and graphics and are the student’s own work.

(7.4–6.5)

A total of slides used that are mostly aesthetically pleasing and hold the audience’s attention. The slides are mostly free of unnecessary detail, succinct, and readable. The slides contain mostly appropriate script and graphics and are the student’s own work.

(6.4–5)

A total of slides used that contain some unnecessary detail but are readable. The slides contain somewhat appropriate script and graphics and are the student’s own work.

(4.9–0)

Nine slides have not been used. The slides are not aesthetically pleasing and do not hold the audience’s attention. The slides contain unnecessary detail, are cluttered, and/or are not readable. The slides do not contain appropriate script and graphics and/or are not the student’s own work.

Oral presentation (10%)

(10–8.5)

The presenter consistently engages the audience. The presenter speaks very clearly, demonstrating enthusiasm for the topic. Each slide is comprehensively articulated and justified. The topic is very clearly presented. The presenter comprehensively addresses audience questions.

(8.4–7.5)

The presenter readily engages the audience. The presenter speaks clearly, demonstrating enthusiasm for the topic. Each slide is clearly articulated and justified. The topic is clearly presented. The presenter clearly addresses audience questions.

(7.4–6.5)

The presenter engages the audience. The presenter speaks well and demonstrates some enthusiasm for the topic. Each slide is articulated and justified. The topic is presented. The presenter effectively addresses audience questions.

(6.4–5)

The presenter occasionally engages the audience. The presenter speaks well at times and attempts to demonstrate enthusiasm for the topic. Each slide is discussed and somewhat justified. The topic is presented but lacks clarity. The presenter mostly addresses the audience's questions.

(4.9–0)

The presenter minimally or does not engage the audience in the presentation. The presenter does not speak clearly and/or demonstrate enthusiasm for the topic. Each slide is either not discussed or is poorly discussed, or poorly or not justified. The topic is not clearly presented. Audience questions are not adequately addressed.

Knowledge of cognitive decline (20%)

(20–17)

Content includes current and comprehensive contextual information on cognitive decline and the various presentations supported by valid and relevant research and conveyed using the student’s own words.

(16.9–15)

Content mostly includes current and comprehensive contextual information on cognitive decline and the various presentations supported by valid and relevant research conveyed in the student’s own words.

(14.9–13)

Some content includes current and comprehensive contextual information on cognitive decline and the various presentations supported by valid and relevant research conveyed in the student’s own words.

(12.9–10)

Content lacks the most current and comprehensive contextual information on cognitive decline and the various presentations supported by valid and relevant research conveyed in the student’s own words.

(9.9–0)

The content is irrelevant and/or minimally addresses information on cognitive decline and the various presentations and/or is not supported by valid and relevant research and/or conveyed in the student’s own words.

Knowledge of assessment in relation to validated screening tools (20%)

(20–17)

A concise and comprehensive explanation of conducting an assessment that applies to contemporary nursing knowledge, ethical, legal, and professional practice concepts and includes validated screening tools to assess physiological, psychological, mental health, and social functioning. Explanation supported by valid and relevant research and is conveyed using the student’s own words.

(16.9–15)

A comprehensive explanation of conducting an assessment that applies to contemporary nursing knowledge, ethical, legal, and professional practice concepts. Discussion comprehensively includes validated screening tools to assess physiological, psychological, mental health, and social functioning. Explanation supported by valid and relevant research and is conveyed using the student’s own words.

(14.9–13)

A good explanation of conducting an assessment that applies to contemporary nursing knowledge, and ethical, legal, and professional practice concepts. Good discussion of validated screening tools to assess physiological, psychological, mental health, and social functioning. Explanation supported by valid and relevant research and is conveyed using the student’s own words.

(12.9–10)

Mostly correct explanation of conducting an assessment that applies to contemporary nursing knowledge, and ethical, legal, and professional practice concepts. Discussion of validated screening tools to assess physiological, psychological, mental health, and social functioning, is provided but requires more depth. Explanation supported by valid and relevant research and is conveyed using the student’s own words.

(9.9–0)

The assessment information is irrelevant and/or minimally addresses conducting an assessment that that applies to contemporary nursing knowledge, and ethical, legal, and professional practice concepts. The discussion of the screening tools to assess physiological, psychological, mental health, and social functioning has significant gaps in content or is missing. Explanation is not supported by valid and relevant research and/or is not conveyed using the student’s own words.

Critical thinking and advanced knowledge
(30%)

(30–25.5)

Concise and comprehensive explanation and justification of a planned nursing care approach for older adults experiencing cognitive decline. Explanation supported by valid and relevant research and is conveyed using the student’s own words.

(25.4–22.4)

Comprehensive explanation and justification of a planned nursing care approach for older adults experiencing cognitive decline. Explanation supported by valid and relevant research and is conveyed using the student’s own words.

(22.3–19.4)

Mostly concise explanation and justification of a planned nursing care approach for older adults experiencing cognitive decline. Explanation supported by valid and relevant research and is conveyed using the student’s own words.

(19.3–15)

The nursing care approach for older adults experiencing cognitive decline is provided but requires depth of content and discussion. Explanation supported by valid and relevant research and is conveyed using the student’s own words.

(14.9–0)

The content is irrelevant and/or does not meet/address the task. The content of the nursing approach for older adults experiencing cognitive decline has inaccuracies or is limited in scope. Explanation is not supported by valid and relevant research and/or is not conveyed using the student’s own words.

Use of evidence (5%)

(5–4.25)

Expertly integrates quality, relevant and valid references to support and reflect all ideas, factual information, and quotations.

(4.2–3.8)

Consistently integrates quality, relevant and valid references to support and reflect ideas, factual information, and quotations with 1 or 2 exceptions.

(3.75–3.55)

Frequently integrates quality, relevant and valid references to support and reflect ideas, factual information, and quotations, with 3 or 4 exceptions.

(3.50–2.5)

Occasionally integrates relevant and valid references to support and reflect ideas, factual information, and quotations, with 5 or 6 exceptions.

(2.45–0)

Infrequent or fails to attempt (>6 errors) to integrate relevant and valid references to support and reflect ideas, factual information, and quotations.

Referencing (5%)

(5–4.25)

Referencing fully adheres to APA 7^th style guidelines and is sourced from the CQUniversity Library. Literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(4.2–3.8)

Referencing generally adheres to APA 7^th style guidelines with 1-2 consistent errors. References are sourced from the CQUniversity Library. The majority of literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(3.75–3.55)

Referencing mostly adheres to APA 7^th style guidelines with 3-4 consistent errors. References are sourced from the CQUniversity Library. Most of the literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(3.50–2.5)

Referencing occasionally adheres to APA 7th style guidelines with 5-6 consistent errors. References are sourced from the CQUniversity Library. Some of the literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(2.45–0)

Referencing does not adhere to APA 7^th style guidelines with more than 6 consistent errors. Some references may not be sources from the CQUniversity Library. The majority of literature cited is published ≥5 years.

TOTAL =

Key Criteria

High Distinction

84.5–100%

Distinction

74.50–84.49%

Credit

64.50–74.49%

Pass

49.50–64.49%

Fail

<49.5%

TOTAL

Introduction and conclusion (10%)

(10–8.5)

The case study has a clear and succinct introduction and conclusion conveyed using the student’s own words. The introduction provides excellent background information and outlines the direction of the assessment, and the conclusion succinctly summarises the key points.

(8.4–7.5)

The case study has a clear introduction and conclusion conveyed using the student’s own words. The introduction provides good background information and outlines the direction of the assessment, and the conclusion summarises most key points.

(7.4–6.5)

The case study has an adequate introduction and conclusion conveyed using the student’s own words. The introduction provides some background information and outlines the direction of the assessment, and the conclusion summarises some key points.

(6.4–5)

An introduction and conclusion have been attempted and conveyed using the student’s own words. The introduction provides limited background information and an outline of the case study’s direction, and the conclusion has a few key points.

(4.9–0)

The introduction has significant errors or omissions of aims and direction of content or the introduction is not provided and/or is not conveyed using the student’s own words. The logical direction of the assessment is unclear. The conclusion does not summarise the assessment or is omitted.

Nursing assessment and management (20%)

(20–17)

The case study provides a comprehensive search of the literature on the nursing assessment and management of an older person with cognitive decline at end-of-life to support the content of the nursing care plan developed for Mrs Quill.

(16.9–15)

The case study provides a clear search of the literature on the nursing assessment and management of an older person with cognitive decline at end-of-life to support the content of the nursing care plan developed for Mrs Quill.

(14.9–13)

The case study partly provides a search of the literature on nursing assessment and management of an older person with cognitive decline at end-of-life to support the content of the nursing care plan developed for Mrs Quill.

(12.9–10)

The case study lacks some content that indicates an incomplete search of the literature on the nursing assessment and management of an older person with cognitive decline and hearing loss to support the content of the nursing care plan developed for Mrs. Quill.

(9.9–0)

There is minimal, incorrect, or omitted content of the nursing assessment and management of an older person with cognitive decline and hearing loss to support the content of the nursing care plan developed for Mrs Quill.

Nursing care plan (25%)

(25-15.5)

Concise and comprehensively devised NANDA nursing care plan developed for Mrs Quill and is conveyed in the student’s own words. Content includes the use of the five-column format, one cognitive screening assessment tool, and one end-of-life clinical pathway.

(15.4-12.4)

Concisely devised NANDA nursing care plan for Mrs Quill and is conveyed in the student’s own words. Content includes the use of the five-column format one cognitive screening assessment tool and one end-of-life clinical pathway.

(12.3- 9.4)

Mostly concisely devised NANDA nursing care for Mrs Quill and is conveyed in the student’s own words. Some content includes the use of the five-column format, one cognitive screening assessment tool, and one end-of-life clinical pathway.

(9.3-6)

NANDA nursing care plan is provided and is conveyed in the student’s own words; there are some gaps in the use of all five-column formats one cognitive screening assessment tool and one end-of-life clinical pathway.

(5.9-0)

There is minimal or no NANDA nursing care plan, end-of-life clinical pathway, or screening tools provided for Mrs Quill and/or content is not conveyed in the student’s own words.

Critical thinking – Nursing care plan (30%)

(30–25.5)

Concise and comprehensive NANDA nursing care plan. Content includes a rationale and justification for the nursing assessments, nursing diagnosis, interventions, and the aimed outcomes to maintain or enhance the cognitive function of the older person. Ethical, legal, and professional concepts in the delivery of end-of-life nursing care and how have been comprehensively discussed, supported by valid and relevant research and is conveyed using the student’s own words.

(25.4–22.4)

Concise NANDA nursing care plan provided. Content mostly includes a rationale and justification for the nursing assessments, nursing diagnosis, interventions, and the aimed outcomes to maintain or enhance the cognitive function of the older person. Ethical, legal, and professional practice concepts in the delivery of end-of-life nursing care have been concisely discussed supported by valid and relevant research and is conveyed using the student’s own words.

(22.3–19.4)

Mostly concise NANDA nursing care plan provided. Some content includes a rationale and justification for the nursing assessments, nursing diagnosis, interventions, and the aimed outcomes to maintain or enhance the cognitive functions of the older person. ethical, legal, and professional practice concepts in the delivery of end-of-life nursing care have been discussed supported by valid and relevant research and is conveyed using the student’s own words.

(19.3–15)

The devised NANDA nursing care plan is not concise and/or does not enhance the cognitive functions of the older person. The content is limited in the discussion of ethical, legal, and professional practice concepts in the delivery of end-of-life nursing care however is supported by valid and relevant research and is conveyed using the student’s own words.

(14.9–0)

There is minimal or no NANDA nursing care plan and/or justification provided. Discussion of the ethical, legal, and professional practice concepts in end-of-life nursing care is limited or omitted and/or is not supported by valid and relevant research and/or is not conveyed using the student’s own words.

Professional writing and presentation (10%)

(10–8.5)

Content is students own work, clear, accurate, and presented in a logical, succinct order demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the topic. There are no errors in English grammar, spelling, and punctuation. The language of the discipline is comprehensively used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 15 contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied without error. Adheres to the word count.

(8.4–7.5)

Content is students own work, frequently clear, correct, and presented logically, demonstrating a good understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 1 error. The language of the discipline is frequently used. The assessment is substantiated by 13-14 contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with minimal error. Adheres to the word count.

(7.4–6.5)

Content is students own work, mostly clear, correct, and presented logically, demonstrating a sound understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 2 errors. The language of the discipline is mostly used. The assessment is substantiated by 11–12 contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with some error. Adheres to the word count.

(6.4–5)

Content is students own work, frequently clear, correct, and presented logically, demonstrating a good understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 3 errors. The language of the discipline is used. The assessment is substantiated by 9-10 contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with moderate error. Adheres to the word count.

(4.9–0)

Content is not students own work, consistently unclear or incorrect and disorganised demonstrating insufficient understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have ≥4 errors. The language of the discipline is infrequently or incorrectly used. The assessment is substantiated by 8 or fewer contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements are inaccurate or not applied. Deviates +/- 10% of the word count.

Referencing (5%)

(5–4.25)

Acknowledges all sources and meets APA (7^th Edition) referencing standards with no errors. Literature cited is published in the last 5 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(4.2–3.8)

Acknowledges majority of sources and/or meets APA (7^th Edition) referencing standards with 1 2 error. Literature cited is published in the last 5 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(3.75–3.55)

Acknowledges most sources and/or meets APA (7^th Edition) referencing standards with 2 errors. Literature cited is published in the last 5 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(3.50–2.5)

Acknowledges sources and/or meets APA (7^th Edition) referencing standards with 3 errors. Some literature cited is published in the last 5 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(3.50–2.5)

Multiple sources not acknowledged and/or ≥4APA (7^th Edition) referencing errors or references not provided and some references are not sourced from the CQUniversity library.

TOTAL