Key Criteria

High Distinction

84.5–100%

Distinction

74.50–84.49%

Credit

64.50–74.49%

Pass

49.50–64.49%

Fail

≤49.4%

TOTAL

Explanation of clinical governance in healthcare organisations

(5%)

(5–4.3)

Provides a comprehensive and concise explanation of clinical governance in health care organisations.

Provides a comprehensive and concise example of how the student’s healthcare organisation addresses clinical governance.

(4.22–3.73)

Provides a concise explanation of clinical governance in healthcare organisations.

Provides a concise, example how the student’s healthcare organisation addresses clinical governance.

(3.72–3.23)

Provides an adequate explanation of clinical governance in health care organisations.

Provides an adequate example of how the student’s healthcare organisation addresses clinical governance.

(3.22–2.48)

An explanation of clinical governance is attempted; however, the explanation is limited. An example of how the student’s healthcare organisation addresses clinical governance is attempted but there are inaccuracies and/or gaps.

(2.47–0)

There is minimal or no explanation of clinical governance and/or has inaccuracies and/or gaps. There is limited or no information on how the student’s healthcare organisation addresses clinical governance.

Nursing practice to audit

(15%)

(15–12.75)

One appropriate nursing practice was selected to be audited. The nursing practice to be audited is comprehensively identified.

The background to the audit including the clinical risk(s) to the patient, the necessity of the audit, and nurse leaders involved in the decision-making is comprehensively discussed. Relates the audit to an appropriate National Standard.

(12.74–11.25)

One appropriate nursing practice was selected to be audited. The nursing practice to be audited is clearly identified.

The background to the audit including the clinical risk(s) to the patient, the necessity of the audit, and nurse leaders involved in the decision-making is concisely discussed. Relates the audit to an appropriate National Standard.

(11.24–9.75)

One appropriate nursing practice was selected to be audited. The nursing practice to be audited is identified.

The background to the audit including the clinical risk(s) to the patient, the necessity of the audit, and nurse leaders involved in the decision-making is adequately discussed. Relates the audit to an appropriate National Standard.

(9.74–7.5)

One nursing practice was selected to be audited. The nursing practice to be audited is identified.

The background to the audit including the clinical risk(s) to the patient, the necessity of the audit, and nurse leaders involved in the decision-making is limited or gaps identified is discussed. Relates the audit to an appropriate National Standard, with some gaps in discussion.

(7.4–0)

One appropriate nursing practice was not selected to be audited. The nursing practice to be audited is not stated or is not a nursing practice.

The background to the audit is not adequately discussed and does not include the clinical risk(s) to the patient, and/or the necessity of the audit. There is minimal or no discussion about Nurse leaders’ involvement in the decision-making. Discussion does not relate the audit to an appropriate National Standard.

Evidence Based Justification of Audit topic.

(30%)

(30–25.5)

Two appropriate peer-reviewed research studies selected. Studies are within the last seven years and from the CQUniversity library databases.

Provides a comprehensive and concise justification for auditing this topic. Comprehensively and concisely discusses how the study results support the need for audit.

(25.4–22.4)

Two appropriate peer-reviewed research studies selected. Studies are within last seven years and from the CQUniversity library databases.

Provides a concise justification for auditing this topic. Provides a concise discussion of how the study results support the need for audit.

(22.3–19.4)

One appropriate peer-reviewed research study selected. The second article is non research. Studies are within the last seven years and from the CQUniversity library databases.

Provides an adequate justification for auditing this topic. Provides some discussion of how the study results support the need for audit.

(19.3–15)

One appropriate peer-reviewed research study selected. The second article is non research. Studies are/are not within the last seven years and are/are not from the CQUniversity library databases.

Basic justification is provided for auditing this topic. A discussion is attempted of how the study results support the need for audit, however, there are gaps in the discussion.

(14.9–0)

Two peer-reviewed research studies were not selected and/or no articles selected.

Studies are not within the last seven years and not from the CQUniversity library databases.

Minimal or no justification provided for auditing this topic. Limited or no information provided and/or lack of relevance in discussion on how study results support the need for audit.

Steps to undertake the audit

(30%)

(30–25.5)

A comprehensive list of the actions required to complete the audit is presented. Audit cycle is used to frame the audit steps.

Data collection methods are appropriate for the chosen audit. The sample size and population are appropriate for the audit.

The timelines proposed are realistic and achievable.

(25.4–22.4)

Steps to undertake the audit include a complete list of the actions required to complete the project. Audit cycle is used to frame the audit steps. Data collection methods are appropriate for an audit. The sample size and population are appropriate for the audit. The timelines proposed are realistic and achievable.

(22.3–19.4)

Steps to undertake the audit include an adequate list of the actions required to complete the project. Audit cycle is used to frame the audit steps. Data collection methods are appropriate for an audit. The sample size and population are appropriate for the audit. The timelines proposed are realistic.

(19.3–15)

Steps to undertake the audit include a mostly complete list of the actions required to complete the project. Audit cycle is used to frame the audit steps. Data collection methods are appropriate for an audit. The sample size and population are appropriate for the audit, however, contains some gaps. Some of the timelines proposed are realistic, some require revision.

(14.9–0)

Steps to undertake the audit do not include the actions required to complete the project. Audit cycle is incorrect or omitted from the steps. Data collection methods are inappropriate for an audit and include research methods. Audit sample in size and/or population is omitted or incorrect. The timelines proposed are not realistic.

Professional writing and presentation

(10%)

(10–8.5)

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. Literature cited is published in the last 7 years. Assessment is written using the student’s own words and is the student’s own work.

(8.4–7.5)

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. Majority of literature cited is published in the last 7 years. Assessment is written using the student’s own words and is the student’s own work.

(7.4–6.5)

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. Most literature cited is published in the last 7 years. Assessment is written using the student’s own words and is the student’s own work.

(6.4–5)

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. Some literature cited is published in the last 7 years. Assessment is written using the student’s own words and is the student’s own work.

(4.9–0)

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. Majority of literature cited is published ≥7 years or not cited. Assessment is inconsistently or not written using the student’s own words and/or is not the student’s own work.

Referencing

(10%)

(10–8.5)

Acknowledges all sources of peer-reviewed literature. Has no APA 7^th Edition referencing errors, and all references have been cited. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 8 appropriate contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th Edition referencing standards with no errors in-text and the reference list.

(8.4–7.5)

Acknowledges majority sources of peer-reviewed literature. Has 1 APA 7^th Edition referencing errors or references not provided. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 7, appropriate contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th Edition referencing standards with no more than 1 errors in-text and the reference list.

(7.4–6.5)

Acknowledges most sources of peer-reviewed literature. Has 2 APA 7^th Edition referencing errors or references not provided. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 6, appropriate contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th Edition referencing standards with no more than 2 errors in-text and the reference list.

(6.4–5)

Acknowledges some sources of peer-reviewed literature. Has 3 APA 7^th Edition referencing errors or references not provided. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 5, appropriate contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th Edition referencing standards with no more than 3 errors in-text and the reference list.

(4.9–0)

Acknowledges minimal or no sources peer peer-reviewed literature. Has ≥4 or more APA 7^th Edition referencing errors or references not provided. The assessment cites ≤4 sources of peer-reviewed evidence and/or evidence is not appropriate. Has ≥4 or more APA 7^th Edition referencing errors in-text and the reference list.

TOTAL:

MARKER:

Marker’s feedback:

STUDENT ID NUMBER

STUDENT NAME (please print)

STUDENT SIGNATURE

MARKER NAME (please print)

MARKER SIGNATURE

DATE

All sections above MUST be completed prior to submitting to Moodle in Word or PDF format only.

All pages of this document (front page and rubric) must be uploaded.

Documents in an incorrect format are not accepted (Photographs/JPEG/PNG/GIF/BMP images).

Please note: Following your oral presentation, please upload the front page and rubric for this assessment to Moodle within three business days of your assessment. Submission of incomplete documents will be regarded as a non-submission and a fail grade will be awarded for this unit. Overall grades for this unit cannot be finalised until the above steps have been completed.

Key Criteria

High Distinction

84.5–100%

Distinction

74.50–84.49%

Credit

64.50–74.49%

Pass

49.50–64.49%

Fail

≤49.4%

TOTAL

Slide presentation

(10%)

(10–8.5)

A total of 1 slide used, is extremely aesthetically pleasing and holds the audience’s attention. The slide is free of unnecessary detail, succinct, and readable. The slide contains an extremely appealing array of appropriate script and graphics and is student’s own work.

(8.4–7.5)

A total of 1 slide used, is aesthetically pleasing and holds the audience’s attention. The slide is free of unnecessary detail, succinct, and readable. The slide contains an appealing array of appropriate script and graphics and is the student’s own work.

(7.4–6.5)

A total of 1 slide used, is mostly aesthetically pleasing and holds the audience’s attention. The slide is mostly free of unnecessary detail, succinct, and readable. The slide contains mostly appropriate script and graphics and is the student’s own work.

(6.4–5)

A total of 1 slide used, contains some unnecessary detail but is readable. The slide contains some appropriate script and graphics and is the student’s own work.

(4.9–0)

One slide has not been used. The slide is not aesthetically pleasing and does not hold the audience’s attention. The slide contains unnecessary detail, is cluttered, and/or is not readable. The slide does not contain appropriate script and graphics and/or is 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. Adheres to time limit.

(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. Adheres to time limit.

(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. Adheres to time limit.

(6.4–5)

The presenter occasionally engages the audience. The presenter speaks well at times and attempts to demonstrate enthusiasm for the topic. The topic is presented but lacks clarity. Presenter mostly addresses the audience's questions. Does not adhere to time limit (<1 minute over).

(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. The topic is not clearly presented. Audience questions are not adequately addressed.

Does not adhere to time limit (>1 minute over).

Audit Plan Implementation

(30%)

(30–25.5)

Audit plan was implemented. Collaboration with the unit / ward/clinic nursing leadership team was clearly evident.

Audit data reported were appropriate.

Implementation overview included current comprehensive contextual information on the audit topic and was supported by valid and relevant research. Background, introduction, data collection, results, recommendations, and the audit steps were comprehensively and succinctly presented. Was conveyed in the student’s own words.

(25.4–22.4)

Audit plan was implemented. Collaboration with the unit / ward/clinic nursing leadership team was evident. Audit data reported were appropriate.

Implementation overview included mostly current contextual information on the audit topic and was supported by valid and relevant research. Background, introduction, data collection, results, recommendations, and the audit steps were concisely presented. Was conveyed in the student’s own words.

(22.3–19.4)

Audit plan was implemented. Collaboration with the unit / ward/clinic nursing leadership team was evident. Audit data reported were appropriate

Overview included some current contextual information on the audit topic and was supported by valid and relevant research. Background, introduction, data collection, results, recommendations, and the audit steps were adequately presented. Was conveyed in the student’s own words.

(19.3–15)

Audit plan was implemented. Collaboration with the unit / ward/clinic nursing leadership team was implied but not stated. Audit data reported were appropriate.

Overview includes little current and relevant information on the audit topic and is supported by relevant but non-research literature. Background, introduction, data collection, results, recommendations, and the audit steps were satisfactorily presented. Was conveyed in the student’s own words.

(14.9–0)

Audit plan was not implemented and there was little or no collaboration with the unit / ward/clinic nursing leadership team. Audit data were/were not reported and/or were inappropriate.

The content is irrelevant and/or does not address information on the audit topic and/or is not supported by relevant research or literature. Presentation of the background, data collection, results, recommendations, and the audit steps was unsatisfactory. There were large gaps in the content. Was not conveyed in the student’s own words.

Expert Understanding of the Topic

(20%)

(20–17)

A concise and comprehensive explanation of the audit topic, supported by valid and relevant research. The presenter demonstrated an expert understanding of their project and professionally and comprehensively presented all aspects of the audit, including background, description of the project, and implications for practice.

(16.9–15)

A comprehensive explanation of the audit topic, supported by valid and relevant research, was conveyed using the student’s own words. The presenter demonstrated a very good understanding of their project and thoroughly presented the audit introducing the background information, description of the project, and implications for practice.

(14.9–13)

A good explanation of the audit topic, supported by valid and relevant research, was conveyed using the student’s own words. The presenter demonstrated a good understanding of their project and clearly presented the audit introducing the background information, description of the project, and implications for practice.

(12.9–10)

Mostly correct explanation of the audit topic, supported by valid and relevant research, and was conveyed using the student’s own words. The presenter demonstrated some understanding of their project and satisfactorily presented the audit introducing the background information, description of the project, and implications for practice.

(9.9–0)

The project was poorly explained, not supported by valid and relevant research, and/or was not conveyed using the student’s own words. The information provided was irrelevant, and/or was missing relevant information. The presenter did not demonstrate a clear understanding of their audit and did not adequately introduce the background information, describe the project, and/or discuss implications for practice.

Justification of Audit Topic

(20%)

(20–17)

Concise and comprehensive explanation and justification of the choice of audit topic. Justification is supported by two valid and relevant research studies and is conveyed using the student’s own words.

(16.9–15)

Comprehensive explanation and justification of the choice of audit topic. Justification is supported by two valid and relevant research studies and is conveyed using the student’s own words.

(14.9–13)

Mostly concise explanation and justification of the choice of audit topic. Justification is supported by two valid and relevant research studies and is conveyed using the student’s own words.

(12.9–10)

A justification for the audit topic is provided but the explanation is limited and/or lacks clarity. Justification is supported by one valid and relevant research study and is conveyed using the student’s own words.

(9.9–0)

The content is irrelevant and/or does not meet/address the task. The justification of the choice of audit topic has inaccuracies or is limited in scope. Justification is not supported by valid or relevant research studies 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, and factual information, with all content supported by evidence.

(4.2–3.8)

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

(3.75–3.55)

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

(3.50–2.5)

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

(2.47–0)

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

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 7 years.

(4.2–3.8)

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

(3.75–3.55)

Referencing mostly adheres to APA 7^th style guidelines with 2 consistent errors. References are sourced from the CQUniversity Library. Most of the literature cited is published in the last 7 years.

(3.50–2.5)

Referencing occasionally adheres to APA 7th style guidelines with 3 consistent errors. References are sourced from the CQUniversity Library. Some of the literature cited is published in the last 7 years.

(2.45–0)

Referencing does not adhere to APA 7^th style guidelines with ≥4 consistent errors. Some references may not be sourced from the CQUniversity Library. The majority of literature cited is published ≥7 years.

MARKERS FEEDBACK

TOTAL MARKS