Slide presentation 

(10%)

(10–8.5)

A total of 7 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 utilise a legible and appropriate font and appropriate supporting graphics. The slides are the student’s own work. 

(8.4–7.5)

A total of 7 slides are used that are aesthetically pleasing and hold the audience’s attention. The slides are free of unnecessary detail, succinct, and readable. The slides utilise a legible and appropriate font and appropriate supporting graphics. The slides are the student’s own work.

(7.4–6.5)

A total of 7 slides are 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 mostly utilise a legible and appropriate font and appropriate supporting graphics. The slides are the student’s own work.

(6.4–5)

A total of 7 slides are used that contain some unnecessary detail but are readable. The slides contain some appropriate script and graphics and are the student’s own work.

(4.9–0)

Seven 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

(5%)

(5–4.25)

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 the assignment questions. 

(4.2–3.8)

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 the assignment questions. 

(3.75–3.55)

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 the assignment questions.  

(3.50–2.5)

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 some justification is provided. The topic is presented but lacks clarity. The presenter mostly addresses the assignment questions.  

(2.45–0)

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 not discussed or is poorly discussed, and/or poorly or not justified. The topic is not clearly presented. Assignment questions are not adequately addressed. 

Overview of the patient. ISBAR – Introduction, Situation and Background (Slide 2)

(20%)

(20–17)

Content includes current and comprehensive contextual information on the introduction, situation and background of the patient including the pathophysiology of the disease process. Marker is left with an excellent understanding of who the patient is and the situation and background of the patient. Conveyed using the student’s own words.

(16.9–15)

Content mostly includes current and comprehensive contextual information on the introduction, situation and background of the patient including the pathophysiology of the disease process. Marker is left with a very good understanding of who the patient is and the situation and background of the patient. Conveyed using the student’s own words.

(14.9–13)

Some content includes current and comprehensive contextual information on the introduction, situation and background of the patient including the pathophysiology of the disease process. Marker is left with a good understanding of who the patient is and the situation and background of the patient. Conveyed using the student’s own words.

(12.9–10)

Content lacks the most current and comprehensive contextual information on the introduction, situation and background of the patient, pathophysiology of the disease process poorly explained. Marker is left with a fair understanding of who the patient is and the situation and background of the patient. Conveyed using the student’s own words. 

(9.9–0)

The content is irrelevant and/or minimally or does not address information on the introduction, situation and background of the patient, pathophysiology of the disease process not included or poorly explained. Marker is left with a poor/ no understanding of who the patient is and the situation and background of the patient.

ISBAR – Assessment (Slides 3-4)

(15%)

(15–12.8)

A concise and comprehensive assessment overview. All relevant assessment data and results have been included. Statements are supported by valid and relevant research. Consistently insightful and accurate comments that are highly relevant and reflective of the data and results provided. Student demonstrates an excellent understanding of assessment data and results that are specific to the patient. Provision of a relevant and justified preliminary interpretation of the patient’s condition. Conveyed using the student’s own words.

(12.7–11.3)

Comprehensive assessment overview. All relevant assessment data and results have been included. Statements are supported by valid and relevant research. Comments are mostly insightful and accurate and are predominantly relevant and reflective of the data and results provided. Student demonstrates a very good understanding of the assessment data and results that are specific to the patient. Provision of a relevant and justified preliminary interpretation of the patient’s condition. Conveyed using the student’s own words.

(11.2–9.8)

A good assessment overview. Most of the relevant assessment data and results have been included. Statements are supported by valid and relevant research. Most comments are insightful and often include relevant assessment data and results provided, however, are not consistently accurate. Student demonstrates a good understanding of the assessment data and results that are specific to the patient. Provision of an acceptable and justified preliminary interpretation of the patient’s condition. Conveyed using the student’s own words.

(9.7–7.5)

An acceptable assessment overview. Some of the relevant assessment data and results have been included. Statements are supported by valid and relevant research. Some comments are insightful with occasional inclusion of relevant data and results provided. Comments are occasionally accurate and relevant. Student demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the assessment data and results that are specific to the patient. Provision of an acceptable preliminary interpretation of the patient’s condition. Reasonably presented in the student’s own words.

(7.4–0)

Poor to no presentation of assessment and/or is not in the student’s own words. Minimal to no insightful comments regarding relevant assessment data and results provided. Statements are not supported by valid and relevant research. Student demonstrates poor to no understanding of the assessment data and results specific to the patient. Interpretation of the patient condition is missing or inappropriate. 

ISBAR – Recommendations (Slides 5-6)

(35%)

(35–29.6)

All interventions identified within the scenario are clearly outlined. An excellent rationale has been provided for all existing interventions and are supported by valid and relevant literature. Two excellent additional nursing interventions and one excellent multidisciplinary team specialist review are recommended and are appropriately based on the patient assessment results. All recommended interventions demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the patient's described condition. All recommendations are supported by valid and relevant evidence. Conveyed using the student’s own words.

(29.5–26.3)

Interventions identified within the scenario are clearly outlined. A very good rationale has been provided for all existing interventions and are supported by valid and relevant research. Two very good nursing interventions and one very good multidisciplinary team specialist review are recommended, are appropriately based on the outlined assessment findings. All recommended interventions demonstrate a very good understanding of the patient's described condition. All interventions are supported by valid and relevant evidence. Conveyed using the student’s own words.

(26.2–22.8)

Most of the interventions identified within the scenario are outlined. A sound rationale has been provided for all existing interventions and are supported by valid and relevant research. Two good nursing interventions and one good multidisciplinary team specialist review are recommended, are mostly appropriately based on the outlined assessment findings. All recommended interventions demonstrate a good understanding of the patient's described condition. All interventions are supported by valid and relevant evidence. Conveyed using the student’s own words.

(22.7–17.5)

Some of the interventions identified within the scenario are outlined. A reasonable rationale has been provided for all existing interventions and are supported by valid and relevant research. Discussion on rationale is not consistently clear. Two fair nursing interventions and one fair multidisciplinary team specialist review are recommended, are somewhat appropriately based on the outlined assessment findings. One or more of the recommended interventions demonstrate an understanding of the patient's described condition. All interventions are supported by valid and relevant evidence. Mostly conveyed using the student’s own words.

(17.4–0)

Minimal and/or no interventions have been identified. Those identified are poorly outlined with minimal to no rationale provided. Interventions are not supported by valid and relevant research. One or no additional interventions are recommended and are loosely or are not appropriate or not based on the outlined assessment findings. No, or an inappropriate multidisciplinary team specialist review is recommended. Recommended interventions demonstrate a poor or inappropriate understanding of the patient's described condition. Interventions are minimally and/or not supported by current and relevant evidence. Mostly conveyed using the student’s own words.

Use of evidence and referencing (Slide 7)

(10%) 

(10–8.5)

Expertly integrates quality, relevant, and valid references to support and reflect all ideas, and factual information, with all content supported by evidence (citations).

Reference list and in-text referencing citations fully adheres to APA 7th style guidelines and is sourced from the CQUniversity Library. Presentation is supported by more than 7 appropriate references. Literature cited is published in the last 7 years.

(8.4–7.5)

Consistently integrates quality, relevant, and valid references to support and reflect ideas, and factual information, with 1 exception.

Reference list and in-text referencing citations generally adheres to APA 7th style guidelines with 1 consistent error. References are sourced from the CQUniversity Library. Presentation is supported by at least 7 appropriate references. The majority of literature cited is published in the last 7 years.

(7.4–6.5)

Frequently integrates quality, relevant, and valid references to support and reflect ideas, and factual information, with 2 exceptions.

Reference list and in-text referencing citations mostly adheres to APA 7th style guidelines with 2 consistent errors. References are sourced from the CQUniversity Library. Presentation supported by at least 6 appropriate references. Most of the literature cited is published in the last 7 years.

(6.4–5)

Occasionally integrates relevant and valid references to support and reflect ideas, and factual information, with 3 exceptions.

Reference list and in-text referencing occasionally adheres to APA 7th style guidelines with 3 consistent errors. References are sourced from the CQUniversity Library. Presentation supported by 5 appropriate references. Some of the literature cited is published in the last 7 years.

(4.9–0)

Infrequent or fails to attempt (≥ 4 errors) to integrate relevant and valid references to support and reflect ideas, and factual information.

Reference list and in-text referencing does not adhere to APA 7th style guidelines with ≥4 consistent errors. Some references may not be sourced from the CQUniversity Library. Presentation supported by fewer than 5 appropriate references. The majority of literature cited is published ≥7 years.

Script upload

(5%)
 

(5–4.25)

Transcript is uploaded and is comprehensive. Transcript perfectly reflects the oral presentation, maintaining accuracy in content, tone, and flow, with no discrepancies.

(4.2–3.8)

Transcript is uploaded and aligns well with the oral presentation, with only minor discrepancies that do not impact understanding.

(3.75–3.55)

Transcript is uploaded and generally aligns with the oral presentation but contains noticeable errors or inconsistencies in key sections.

(3.50–2.5)

Transcript is uploaded but shows weak alignment with the oral presentation. There are significant errors or inconsistencies that hinder understanding.

(2.45–0)

Transcript is missing or fails to align with the oral presentation, with major inaccuracies or omissions.

Nursing intervention one (1)

(20%)

(20–17)

Comprehensive and logical discussion of the nursing intervention. The intervention is clearly articulated, appropriate, and relevant. Excellent rationale based on pathophysiology provided. Consistently supported by valid and relevant literature. Written in the student’s own words.

(16.9–15)

Clear and logical discussion of the nursing intervention. The intervention is clearly outlined, appropriate, and relevant. A very good rationale, based on pathophysiology, is provided. Mostly supported by valid and relevant literature. Written in the student’s own words.

(14.9–13)

Satisfactory and mostly logical discussion of the nursing intervention. The intervention is clear, appropriate, and relevant. A sound rationale, based on pathophysiology, is provided that is often supported by valid and relevant literature. Written in the student’s own words.

(12.9–10)

Adequate and mostly logical discussion of the nursing intervention. The intervention is somewhat clear, appropriate, and relevant. A satisfactory rationale based on pathophysiology has been provided. Occasionally supported by valid and relevant literature. Written in the student’s own words. 

(9.9–0)

Nursing intervention is not clear, appropriate, and/or relevant. Minimal to no rationale provided with minimal to no valid and reliable literature and/or is not in the student’s own words.

Nursing intervention two (2)

(20%)

(20–17)

Comprehensive and logical discussion of the nursing intervention. The intervention is clearly articulated, appropriate, and relevant. Excellent rationale based on pathophysiology provided. Consistently supported by valid and relevant literature. Written in the student’s own words.

(16.9–15)

Clear and logical discussion of the nursing intervention. The intervention is clearly outlined, appropriate, and relevant. A very good rationale, based on pathophysiology, is provided. Mostly supported by valid and relevant literature. Written in the student’s own words.

(14.9–13)

Satisfactory and mostly logical discussion of the nursing intervention. The intervention is clear, appropriate, and relevant. A sound rationale, based on pathophysiology, is provided that is often supported by valid and relevant literature. Written in the student’s own words.

(12.9–10)

Adequate and mostly logical discussion of the nursing intervention. The intervention is somewhat clear, appropriate, and relevant. A satisfactory rationale based on pathophysiology has been provided. Occasionally supported by valid and relevant literature. Written in the student’s own words. 

(9.9–0)

Nursing intervention is not clear, appropriate, and/or relevant. Minimal to no rationale provided with minimal to no valid and reliable literature and/or is not in the student’s own words.

Nursing intervention three (3)

(20%)

(20–17)

Comprehensive and logical discussion of the nursing intervention. The intervention is clearly articulated, appropriate, and relevant. Excellent rationale based on pathophysiology provided. Consistently supported by valid and relevant literature. Written in the student’s own words.

(16.9–15)

Clear and logical discussion of the nursing intervention. The intervention is clearly outlined, appropriate, and relevant. A very good rationale, based on pathophysiology, is provided. Mostly supported by valid and relevant literature. Written in the student’s own words.

(14.9–13)

Satisfactory and mostly logical discussion of the nursing intervention. The intervention is clear, appropriate, and relevant. A sound rationale, based on pathophysiology, is provided that is often supported by valid and relevant literature. Written in the student’s own words.

(12.9–10)

Adequate and mostly logical discussion of the nursing intervention. The intervention is somewhat clear, appropriate, and relevant. A satisfactory rationale based on pathophysiology has been provided. Occasionally supported by valid and relevant literature. Written in the student’s own words.

(9.9–0)

Nursing intervention is not clear, appropriate, and/or relevant. Minimal to no rationale provided with minimal to no valid and reliable literature and/or is not in the student’s own words.

Nursing intervention four (4)

(20%)

(20–17)

Comprehensive and logical discussion of the nursing intervention. The intervention is clearly articulated, appropriate, and relevant. Excellent rationale based on pathophysiology provided. Consistently supported by valid and relevant literature. Written in the student’s own words.

(16.9–15)

Clear and logical discussion of the nursing intervention. The intervention is clearly outlined, appropriate, and relevant. A very good rationale, based on pathophysiology, is provided. Mostly supported by valid and relevant literature. Written in the student’s own words.

(14.9–13)

Satisfactory and mostly logical discussion of the nursing intervention. The intervention is clear, appropriate, and relevant. A sound rationale, based on pathophysiology, is provided that is often supported by valid and relevant literature. Written in the student’s own words.

(12.9–10)

Adequate and mostly logical discussion of the nursing intervention. The intervention is somewhat clear, appropriate, and relevant. A satisfactory rationale based on pathophysiology has been provided. Occasionally supported by valid and relevant literature. Written in the student’s own words.

(9.9–0)

Nursing intervention is not clear, appropriate, and/or relevant. Minimal to no rationale provided with minimal to no valid and reliable literature and/or is not in the student’s own words.

Multidisciplinary intervention

(10%)

(10–8.5)

Multidisciplinary team intervention is clearly articulated, appropriate, and relevant. Excellent rationale has been provided that is consistently supported by valid and relevant literature. Written in the student’s own words.

(8.4–7.5)

Multidisciplinary team intervention is clear, appropriate, and relevant. A very good rationale has been provided that is mostly supported by valid and relevant literature. Written in the student’s own words.

(7.4–6.5)

Multidisciplinary team intervention is clear, appropriate, and relevant. A very good rationale has been provided that is mostly supported by valid and relevant literature. Written in the student’s own words.

(6.4–5)

Multidisciplinary team intervention is clear, somewhat appropriate, and relevant. A satisfactory rationale has been provided that is occasionally supported by valid and relevant literature. Written in the student’s own words.

(4.9–0)

Multidisciplinary team intervention is not appropriate, and/or relevant, and/or is not related to the multidisciplinary team. Minimal to no rationale provided with minimal to no supporting literature. Discussion is not supported by valid and relevant evidence and/or is not in the student’s own words.

Professional writing and presentation 

(5%)

(5–4.25)

Content is 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. Language of the discipline is comprehensively used. Formatting requirements applied without error. Assessment is written using the student’s own words and is the student’s own work.

(4.2–3.8)

Content is frequently clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a good understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 1 error. Language of the discipline is frequently used. Formatting requirements are applied with 1 error. Assessment is written using the student’s own words and is the student’s own work.

(3.75–3.55)

Content is mostly clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a sound understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 2 errors. Language of the discipline is mostly used. Formatting requirements are applied with 2 errors. Assessment is written using the student’s own words and is the student’s own work.

(3.50–2.5)

Content is frequently clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a reasonable understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 3 errors. Language of the discipline is used. Formatting requirements are applied with 3 errors. Assessment is written using the student’s own words and is the student’s own work.

(2.45–0)

Content is consistently unclear or incorrect and is disorganised demonstrating insufficient understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling and punctuation conventions have ≥4 errors. Language of the discipline is rarely, incorrectly, or not used. Formatting requirements are applied with ≥4 errors. Assessment is inconsistently or not written using the student’s own words.

Intext citations

2.5%) 

(2.5–2.1)

Consistently accurate intext citations with no errors in APA 7th Edition referencing style to support and reflect all ideas, information, and quotations.  

(2.0–1.9)

One consistent in-text citation error in APA 7th Edition referencing style identified. Intext citations support and reflect most ideas, information, and quotations. 

(1.8–1.6)

Two consistent in-text citation errors in APA 7th Edition referencing style identified. Intext citations support and reflect many ideas, information, and quotations.

(1.5–1.25)

Three consistent in-text citation errors in APA 7th Edition referencing style identified. Intext citations support and reflect some ideas, information, and quotations.

(1.24–0)

Four or more consistent in-text citations errors in APA 7th Edition referencing style. Limited or no intext citations used to support ideas, information, and quotations.

Reference List

(2.5%)

(2.5–2.1)

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

(2.0–1.9)

Acknowledges majority of sources and/or meets APA (7th Edition) referencing standards with 1 error. Nine peer reviewed references provided. The majority of literature cited is published in the last 7 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(1.8–1.6)

Acknowledges most sources and/or meets APA (7th Edition) referencing standards with 2 errors. Eight peer reviewed references provided. Most literature cited has been published in the last 7 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(1.5–1.25)

Acknowledges some sources and/or meets APA (7th Edition) referencing standards with 3 errors. Seven peer reviewed references provided. Some literature cited is published in the last 7 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(1.24–0)

Multiple sources not acknowledged and/or ≥4 APA (7th Edition) referencing errors and/or references not provided.

Fewer than seven peer reviewed references provided. Some literature cited is published ≥7 years and/or not sourced from the CQUniversity library.