| Course Code |
Class Code |
Assignment Title |
Total Points |
| NRS-410V |
NRS-410V-O500 |
Case Study: Mr. C. |
120.0 |
| Criteria |
Percentage |
Unsatisfactory (0.00%) |
Less Than Satisfactory (75.00%) |
Satisfactory (79.00%) |
Good (89.00%) |
Excellent (100.00%) |
Comments |
Points Earned |
| Content |
80.0% |
| Clinical Manifestations of Mr. C. |
|
| 10.0% |
Clinical manifestations are omitted. |
Clinical manifestations are partially presented. There are major omissions and inaccuracies. |
Clinical manifestations are summarized. An overview of the general symptoms is presented. Some findings are incomplete. |
Subjective and objective clinical manifestations are described. Overall, the clinical manifestations are accurate and reflect observed and perceived signs and symptoms. |
Subjective and objective clinical manifestations are detailed. The clinical manifestations are accurate and clearly report the observed and perceived signs and symptoms. |
| Potential Health Risks for Obesity and Bariatric Surgery |
10.0%
Potential health risks for obesity and whether bariatric surgery is an appropriate intervention are not discussed. |
A partial summary on the potential health risks for obesity and whether bariatric surgery is an appropriate intervention is presented. There are major inaccuracies. More information is needed. No evidence or rationale is provided to support discussion. |
A summary on the potential health risks for obesity and whether bariatric surgery is an appropriate intervention is presented. There are some inaccuracies. More evidence or rationale is needed to support discussion. |
A discussion on the potential health risks for obesity is presented. A discussion on whether bariatric surgery is an appropriate intervention is presented but needs some evidence or rationale for support. |
A detailed discussion of the potential health risks for obesity is presented. A through and compelling discussion on whether bariatric surgery is an appropriate intervention is presented. The discussion is well-developed and supported by evidence and additional rationale. |
| Functional Health Patterns |
| 1
|
|
| 5.0% |
Actual or potential problems based on the assessment of functional health patterns of the patient are omitted or are irrelevant for the patient and his condition. The overall criteria for this assignment are not met. |
At least four actual or potential problems identified from the functional health patterns are presented. The identified problems are not entirely relevant for the patient and his condition. Rationale or evidence is required for support. |
At least five actual or potential problems identified from the functional health patterns are summarized. The identified problems are generally relevant for the patient and his condition. Some rationale and evidence is required for support. |
Five or more actual or potential problems identified from the functional health patterns are discussed. The identified problems are relevant for the patient and his condition. Overall, the discussion is supported by rationale and evidence. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy. |
Five or more actual or potential problems identified from the functional health patterns are discussed. The discussion is insightful, and the identified problems are highly relevant for the patient and his condition. The discussion is well-supported by rationale and evidence. |
| Staging and Contributing Factors of End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) |
10.0%
Staging and contributing factors for ESRD are omitted or inaccurate. |
Staging of ESRD is partially summarized. The contributing factors for ESRD are vague. There are inaccuracies. |
The staging of ESRD and the contributing factors for ESRD are generally explained. Some information is required; there are minor inaccuracies. |
The staging of ESRD and the contributing factors for ESRD are explained. Some information or detail is needed for clarity or detail. |
The staging of ESRD and the contributing factors for ESRD are explained. The information is accurate and reflects contemporary practice and research. |
| Health Promotion and Prevention for ESRD |
| 20.0% |
Patient education for the prevention of future events, health restoration, and avoidance of deterioration of renal status is omitted. |
Patient education for the prevention of future events, health restoration, and avoidance of deterioration of renal status is partially summarized. There are inaccuracies. Some aspects are not relevant for the patient and his health status. |
Patient education for the prevention of future events, health restoration, and avoidance of deterioration of renal status is generally described. There are minor inaccuracies. Overall, the proposed items are relevant for the patient and his health status. Some evidence and rationale are needed to support the discussion. |
Patient education for the prevention of future events, health restoration, and avoidance of deterioration of renal status is described. The proposed items are relevant and appropriate for the patient and his health status. Evidence and rationale generally support the discussion. |
Patient education for the prevention of future events, health restoration, and avoidance of deterioration of renal status is thoroughly described. The proposed items are clearly presented and highly relevant and supportive of patient and his health status. Strong evidence and rationale generally support the discussion. |
| Resources for ESRD Patients for Nonacute Care and Multidisciplinary Approach |
15.0%
Types of resources available for ESRD patients for nonacute care, and the beneficial types of multidisciplinary approaches, are not discussed. |
An incomplete explanation on the types of resources available for ESRD patients for nonacute care, and the beneficial types of multidisciplinary approaches, is presented. There are major inaccuracies. |
A general explanation on the types of resources available for ESRD patients for nonacute care, and the beneficial types of multidisciplinary approaches, is presented. There are minor inaccuracies. Some additional information is required. |
An explanation on the types of resources available for ESRD patients for nonacute care, and the beneficial types of multidisciplinary approaches, is presented. Some detail is required for clarity. |
A clear and detailed explanation on the types of resources available for ESRD patients for nonacute care, and the beneficial types of multidisciplinary approaches, is presented. The explanation demonstrates insight into both resources and multidisciplinary approaches for nonacute care for ESRD patients. |
| Organization, Effectiveness, and Format |
20.0%
| Thesis Development and Purpose |
5.0%
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. |
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. |
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. |
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. |
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
| Argument Logic and Construction |
5.0%
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. |
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. |
Argument is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. |
Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. |
Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) |
5.0%
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present. |
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. |
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. |
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) |
2.0% |
Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. |
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. |
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. |
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. |
All format elements are correct. |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) |
3.0% |
Sources are not documented. |
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. |
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
| Total Weightage |
100% |
