2808NRS Human Pathophysiology and Pharmacology 2 A2 Written Assignment: Concept map assignment.
2808NRS Human Pathophysiology and Pharmacology 2 A2 Written Assignment: Concept map assignment.
Concept map + 500 words written explanation.
Weighting: 40%
Due Date: 5 pm, 19th September 2023 Aim:
The aim of this assessment is to allow you to demonstrate your critical thinking skills, your ability to distinguish between normal and abnormal patient presentations, and your ability to identify appropriate, evidence-based diagnostic investigations and treatment modalities associated with an assigned case study.
This assessment item will assess:
Learning Outcome 1:Apply knowledge of the pathophysiology of disorders of the cardiovascular, respiratory, endocrine, renal, gastrointestinal and haematological systems to solve clinical problems. Learning Outcome 2: Integrate knowledge of selected body systems and pathophysiological mechanisms to explain disorders of fluid, electrolyte and acid-base balance, and haemodynamic instability.
Learning Outcome 3:Relate clinical manifestations and diagnostic findings of health deviations to the underlying pathophysiology of disease states.
Learning Outcome 4: Select diagnostic tests, physical assessment techniques and treatment modalities that are appropriate to the disorders being examined.
Instructions:
There are TWO parts to this task. Both parts require you to interpret and analyse a case study provided at the start of the course.
• For Part 1, you will develop a single-page, color-coded concept map.
• For Part 2 you need to write a 500-word explanation of appropriate investigations and management for the patient in the case study.
Part 1 - The single-page, color-coded concept map should include:
• Three of the patient risk factors (from the case-study scenario) and a demonstration of how these risk factors correlate and relate to the aetiology and/or pathophysiology of the diagnosed disease/disorder, utilising evidence-based literature.
• A step-by-step pathophysiological sequence between the aetiology of the identified disease/disorder and five of the patient's clinical manifestations (from the case-study scenario) using evidence-based literature.
Part 2 - The 500-wordexplanation should include:
• An explanationand justification of the appropriate diagnostic investigations to confirm the patient's diagnosis, as well as an explanation and justification of the appropriate approach to treat and manage the patient's condition, based on your analysis and interpretation of the evidence-based research.
Other elements:
• You must adhere strictly to the word 500-word limit for your written explanation. The word limit includes in-text citations and quotations. The reference list is NOT included in the word limit. Please note the marker will stop marking your submitted work once it reaches 500 words.
• Parts 1 and 2 should be submitted as a single document.
• Always consult the Griffith Health Writing and Referencing Guide and ensure that your presentation format fully adheres to these guidelines.
• Ensure that you use scholarly literature[1](digitized readings, research articles, relevant Government reports and textbooks) that has been published within the last ten [10] years (between 2013 – 2023 (inclusive).
• Use the APA7 referencing style.
• You may use headings and subheadings to organize your written explanation, and you do not need to write a formal introduction and conclusion.
• Use academic language[2]throughout.
• Refer to the marking rubric when writing your assignment. This will assist you to calculate the weight of each section.
• Submit your assignment as per the instructions on your Learning@Griffith course site. [Submit via the
‘A2 Concept-map Written Assignment’ assessment tab].
• Please ensure you receive a receipt (or take a screenshot) after submitting your assignment and check that you have uploaded the correct assessment into the assessment tab.
2808NRS Human Pathophysiology and Pharmacology 2 – Rubric A2 Written Assignment: Concept map assignment
|
|
EXEMPLARY Exceptionally high
quality of
performance or standard of learning achievement. |
ACCOMPLISHED High quality performance or standard of learning
achievement. |
DEVELOPING Satisfactory quality of performance or standard
of learning achievement. |
NOT THERE YET Unsatisfactory quality of performance or standard
of learning achievement. |
|
|
Section one: Concept map |
|
||||
|
Criterion One Concept map
includes three of the patient risk
factors (from the case-study scenario) and a demonstration of how these risk factors link and
relate to the aetiology/pathophysiology of the diagnosed disease/ disorder. |
Exceptionally high standard as
evidenced by an accurate and detailed interpretation
of the three patient’s risk factors. Multiple
clear and correct links between
the three risk factors and diagnosed disease/disorder’s aetiology/pathophysiology are
evident in the concept map. |
High-quality standard as evidenced
by an accurate interpretation of most
of the patient risk factors. A range of clear
and mostly correct links between the risk factors and diagnosed
disease/disorder’s aetiology/pathophysiology
are evident in the concept map. |
Satisfactory standard as evidenced
by an adequate interpretation of some of the patient risk factors. Some correct links between the risk
factors and diagnosed disease/disorder’s aetiology/pathophysiology are
evident in the concept map. |
Unsatisfactory standard as evidenced
by an inaccurate interpretation of
the patient risk factors. Links between the risk factors and diagnosed
disease/disorder’s aetiology/pathophysiology are not clearly evident in the concept
map. |
/6 |
|
Mark allocation |
6-5.5 |
5-4 |
3.5-3.0 |
<2.5 |
|
|
Criterion Two Concept map includes a stepby-step pathophysiological
sequence between the aetiology of the diagnosed disease/disorder and all of
the patient's clinical symptoms (from the case-study scenario). |
|
High-quality standard as evidenced
by a logical and correct step by
step pathophysiological sequence between the diagnosed disease/disorder’s
aetiology and all the patient’s clinical manifestations evident in the
concept map. |
Satisfactory standard as evidenced
by a mostly correct step by step pathophysiological sequence between the
diagnosed disease/disorder’s aetiology and some of the patient’s clinical
manifestations evident in the concept map; some errors. |
Unsatisfactory standard as
evidenced by an inaccurate, incomplete
or absent step by step pathophysiological sequence between the diagnosed
disease/disorder’s aetiology and the patient’s clinical manifestations;
multiple errors. |
/3 |
|
Mark allocation |
|
3 |
2 |
<1 |
|
|
Criterion Three The concept
map, provides an interpretation of the five clinical manifestations of the patient (from the case-study
scenario) and a demonstration of how these clinical manifestations link with
the disease's pathophysiological
sequence. |
Exceptionally high standard as evidenced by an accurate interpretation of the five
patient’s clinical manifestations. Clear links between the five clinical
manifestations and the disease’s/disorder’s pathophysiological sequence in
the concept map. |
High-quality standard as evidenced
by an accurate interpretation of most of the patient’s clinical
manifestations. Clear links between most
of the clinical manifestations and the disease’s/disorder’s pathophysiological sequence are evident in the concept map. |
Satisfactory standard as evidenced
by an adequate interpretation of some of the patient’s clinical
manifestations. Some links between
the clinical manifestations and the disease’s/disorder’s pathophysiological sequence are evident in the concept map. |
Unsatisfactory standard as evidenced
by an inaccurate or absent interpretation
of the patient’s clinical manifestations. Links between the clinical
manifestations and the disease’s/disorder’s pathophysiological sequence are not clearly evident in the concept
map. |
/10 |
|
Mark allocation |
10 – 9 |
8.5 – 6.5 |
6 – 4.5 |
4 – 1 |
|
|
|
EXEMPLARY Exceptionally high
quality of
performance or standard of learning achievement. |
ACCOMPLISHED High quality performance or standard of learning
achievement. |
DEVELOPING Satisfactory quality of performance or standard
of learning achievement. |
NOT THERE YET Unsatisfactory quality of performance or standard
of learning achievement. |
|
|
Section two: Written explanation |
|||||
|
Criterion four Uses evidence-based research to
justify diagnostic investigations in terms of their relevance and suitability
for the diagnosed disease/ disorder in the written explanation. |
Exceptionally high standard as
evidenced by an a succinct and
well-reasoned justification for ALL
diagnostic investigations in terms of their relevance and appropriateness for
the diagnosed disease/disorder. |
High quality standard as evidenced
by a thoughtful and clear justification
of most of the diagnostic
investigations in terms of their relevance and appropriateness for the
diagnosed disease/disorder. |
Satisfactory standard as evidenced
by a brief and mostly clear justification
of some of the diagnostic
investigations in terms of their relevance and appropriateness for the
diagnosed disease/disorder; might be some
errors |
Unsatisfactory standard as
evidenced by a poor justification
of the diagnostic investigations in terms of their relevance and
appropriateness for the diagnosed disease/disorder. |
/8 |
|
Mark allocation |
8 – 6.5 |
6 – 4.5 |
4 – 2.5 |
<2 |
|
|
Criterion five Using evidence-based research,
justifies the treatment modalities in terms of their relevance and
appropriateness for the diagnosed disease/ disorder in the written
explanation. |
Exceptionally high standard as
evidenced by a succinct and well-reasoned
justification for ALL the
treatment modalities in terms of their relevance and appropriateness for the
diagnosed disease/disorder. |
High-quality standard as evidenced
by a thoughtful and clear justification
of how most of the treatment
modalities in terms of their relevance and appropriateness for the diagnosed
disease/disorder. |
Satisfactory standard as evidenced
by a brief and mostly clear justification
of how some of the treatment
modalities in terms of their relevance and appropriateness for the diagnosed disease/disorder; might be some
errors |
Unsatisfactory standard as
evidenced by a poor justification
of the treatment modalities in terms of their relevance and appropriateness
for the diagnosed disease/disorder, and/or treatments are not appropriate for
the disease/disorder |
/8 |
|
Mark allocation |
8 – 6.5 |
6 – 4.5 |
4 – 2.5 |
<2 |
|
|
Section three: Overall presentation
and referencing |
|||||
|
Criterion Six Adheres to presentation, grammar
and academic writing standards per the Griffith Health Writing and
Referencing Guide. |
An exemplary demonstration of academic writing standards. Exemplary
sentence and paragraph structure, with few,
if any errors, indicates a
sophisticated ability to communicate ideas effectively. |
High-quality demonstration of academic writing standards. appropriate sentence and paragraph
structure, with some errors, that
indicates an effective ability to
communicate ideas effectively. |
Sufficient demonstration of academic writing standards. Developing sentence and paragraph
structure, and/or there are some
errors that disrupt the communication of ideas. |
Does not comply with academic writing standards. Poor sentence and paragraph structure, and poor logical flow demonstrates an
inability to communicate ideas
effectively. |
/3 |
|
Mark allocation |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
Criterion Seven Adheres to referencing standards per the Griffith Health Writing and Referencing
Guide. |
Exceptionally high standard as
evidenced by exemplary use of APA 7
format in-text and reference list with
no errors. |
High-quality standard as evidenced
by the consistent use of APA 7 format in-text and
reference list with minimal errors.
|
Satisfactory standard as evidenced
by the developing use of APA 7
format in-text and reference list, but with
several errors. |
Unsatisfactory standard as
evidenced by the beginning or absent
use of APA 7 format in-text and reference list with many errors. |
/2 |
|
|
2 |
1 |
0.5 |
0 |
|
|
|
TOTAL |
/40 |
|||
[1] Scholarly or peer-reviewed journal articles are written by scholars or professionals who are experts in their field, as opposed to literature such as magazine articles, which reflect the taste of the general public and are meant as entertainment.
[2] Everyday language is predominately subjective. It is mainly used to express opinions based on personal preference or belief rather than evidence. Written academic English is formal. It avoids colloquialisms and slang, which may be subjective to local and social variations. Formal language is more precise and stable, and therefore more suitable for the expression of complex ideas and the development of reasoned argumentation.