Assessment 2:
Written assessment - scenario based nursing care plan
Number of words: 1000 Value: 25%
Due date: Monday, 25 September 2017 by 12 midnight - Electronic submission via VU Collaborate
The written assessment task is related to Mr Peter Jones, your Inquiry Based Learning (IBL) case study patient in week three tutorial. The first part of this assessment task should include brief evidence-based justification of the three problems that have been used in the care plan. The second part is the care plan that must include a patient problem statement, goal, interventions, rationale, and evaluation.
Further details:
As a nurse caring for Mr Jones on the third post-operative day, using clinical reasoning skills, what would you identify as the top three priority problems for Mr Jones after a laparotomy and a newly created colostomy? You also need to consider the fact that Mr and Mrs Jones also need to cope with a cancer diagnosis; therefore, psychosocial implications of this new diagnosis should also be taken into consideration.
For the three high priority problems chosen from Mr Jones’s case scenario, you will need to produce a care plan with a problem statement, goal, interventions, rationale, and evaluation. The tutorial discussion in week 3 will enable you to do a detailed case analysis on Mr Jones that may help identify some of the priority areas in the postoperative phase of his care. In addition, the week 1 lecture will help you understand the elements of care plan writing.
Please note that the care plan submitted for this assignment needs to be an individual piece of work.
This is not an essay and therefore does not require an introduction and conclusion. Headings should be used in the first section where you justify the three chosen problems. Answers should be written in a scholarly style. The Nursing Care Plan must be referenced and related specifically to Mr Jones. You should include as many interventions as you determine are necessary to fully manage the chosen problems. A simple problem may have fewer nursing interventions than a complex problem. Each of the intervention provided should be accompanied with a rationale and an evaluation. The nursing care plan can be set out in a table format. A proforma table has
been provided on VU Collaborate for you to follow, however its’ use is not compulsory.
All written assessments must align to scholarly standards.
Academic standards require:
· APA 6th edition for in-text citations and reference list;
· adherence to word count;
· a 12 size font in either Arial, Times New Roman or Calibri; and · a 1.5 spacing.
All assessments should have a title page that specifies:
· Unit Code & Unit Name
· Student Name
· Student Identification number
· Title of assignment
· An accurate word count including in-text citations, but not the end references
Lodgement:
• Students are required to submit their assignments online via VU Collaborate. • All assignment documents should be a word document (with .doc format)
• No paper based or emailed assessments will be accepted.
Students should refer to VU Assessment for Learning policy regarding word count and late submission penalties
Not Adequate
Needs Improvement Meets Expectations Above average Exceptional
Presentation & Style 1 2 3 4 5
Meaning unclear & / or grammar & / or many spelling errors Meaning apparent, but language not always fluent. Grammar &/or spelling contains some errors Language mainly fluent Grammar & spelling mainly accurate with few errors Language fluent. Grammar & spelling accurate. Minor errors only Excellent writing style appropriate to document. Grammar & spelling always accurate
Organisation of answer 1 1.5 2 3 4
Disorganised/incoherent organisation. Answer does not follow any logical sequence. Shows no apparent attempt to
stick to the word limit Poor organisation. Some attempt to organise answer in a logical manner. Some organisation of answer. Has identified some of the key concepts and their relationships to each other. Good organisation of answer. Coherent, generally follows the linked aspects of the case study. Exceptional organisation of answer. Consistently links the theoretical concepts with the problems evident in the case study in a logical ordered fashion.
Identification of problems with appropriate ‘related to’ and/or ‘manifested by’ statement 1 3 6 7 9
Identified problems that are not relevant to the case study
specifically or not of a significant priority
Identified one problem that
is relevant or of a significant priority Identified two problems that were relevant or of a significant priority Identified three problems that were relevant or of a significant priority Identified three distinct and separate problems relevant to the case study which were of a high priority
Identification and
Justification of Problem 1 0 2 3 4 5
Lacks evidence of knowledge relevant to this problem. Significantly misuses terminology Evidence of limited knowledge of the patient problem with a reliance on repetition of research input without evidence of understanding Has given a factual & / or conceptual knowledge base regarding the patient problem and shows some ability to contextualise to Mr Jones Sound knowledge of topic and an awareness of a variety of ideas and
contexts relating to Mr
Jones Comprehensive/detailed knowledge of topic. Has identified the ramifications of the chosen problem relating to Mr Jones.
Identification and
Justification of Problem 2 0 2 3 4 5
Lacks evidence of knowledge relevant to this problem. Significantly misuses terminology Evidence of limited knowledge of the patient problem with a reliance on repetition of research input without evidence of understanding Has given a factual & / or conceptual knowledge base regarding the patient problem and shows some ability to contextualise to Mr Jones Sound knowledge of topic and an awareness of a variety of ideas and
contexts relating to Mr
Jones Comprehensive/detailed knowledge of topic. Has identified the ramifications of the chosen problem relating to
Mr Jones
Identification and
Justification of Problem 3 0 2 3 4 5
Lacks evidence of knowledge relevant to this problem. Significantly misuses terminology & or has described an irrelevant problem
Evidence of limited knowledge of the patient problem with a reliance on repetition of research input without evidence of understanding Has given a factual & / or conceptual knowledge base regarding the patient problem and shows some ability to contextualise to Mr Jones Sound knowledge of topic and an awareness of a variety of ideas and
contexts relating to Mr
Jones Comprehensive/detailed knowledge of topic. Has identified the ramifications of the chosen problem relating to Mr Jones.
Argument & Evidence
Justification of priority 2 3 4 5 6
Lacks critical thought/analysis/ reference to theory Some evidence of critical thought/critical analysis & rationale for work Demonstrates application of theory through analysis of the topic area Clear application of theory through critical analysis / critical thought of the topic area Consistently demonstrates application of critical analysis of research of problem and ramifications of identified problems to justify priority
Argument & Evidence Use of Literature 1 2 3 4 5
Either no evidence of literature being consulted
or irrelevant to the assignment set Literature is presented uncritically in a purely descriptive way & indicates
limitations of understanding Clear evidence & application of readings appropriate to the subject; use of academic sources identified Able to critically appraise the literature & theory gained from variety of academic sources, developing own ideas in the process Has developed & justified using own ideas based on a wide range of academic sources which have been thoroughly analysed, applied & discussed
NCP -Interventions 10 12 17 20 25
Interventions listed are superficial and will not adequately meet the needs of Mr Jones.
Multiple omissions of mandatory care exist
Some mandatory
interventions are listed. Some interventions suggested are not suitable or required for Mr Jones 's problems Most of the interventions listed are suitable for Mr Jones although other potentially useful interventions are omitted The suggested interventions are suitable to adequately manage Mr
Jones 's problems A comprehensive range of suitable interventions are listed which could be expected to significantly impact Mr Jones's problems
3 6 7 8 10
NCP - Rationales The rationales provided are superficial and do not
demonstrate understanding of the relationship between the problem identified and
the interventions documented Some of the rationale statements are relevant and relate to the interventions but some repeat previously identified information Most of the rationales provided are logical and relate to the interventions and problems identified Rationales show an understanding of why the chosen intervention will be relevant and practical to
the identified patient
problem The rationales provided are relevant and theoretically related to the problem and intervention identified. Rationale show a comprehensive understanding of the care requirements
3 5 7 8 10
NCP - Evaluation There is no evidence that the care provided via interventions will be adequately evaluated Only some aspects of care are evaluated in a timely or purposeful manner. Some evaluations are irrelevant or inappropriate to Mr Jones and will not provide useful assessment Most of the aspects of care are evaluated using appropriate measures and in reasonable time frames and are relevant to Mr Jones Evaluation of effectiveness of the care is relevant and timely for Mr Jones Evaluation criteria and timing show a comprehensive understanding of the process of care delivery assessment and replanning for Mr Jones
References 4 5 8 9 11
Referencing is absent / unsystematic Some literature cited. Some attempt at referencing Literature cited is appropriate.
Referencing is mainly accurate Literature cited is relevant yet not extensive. Referencing is accurate with minimal errors Literature cited is relevant and extensive. Referencing is consistently accurate
OVERALL MARK