Uncategorized

Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Content
Name: PRAC_6665_Week9_Assignment2_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Photo ID display and professional attire Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Photo ID is displayed. The student is dressed professionally. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Photo ID is not displayed. Student must remedy this before grade is posted. The student is not dressed professionally. Feedback:
Time Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) The video does not exceed the 8-minute time limit. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) The video exceeds the 8-minute time limit. (Note: Information presented after 8 minutes will not be evaluated for grade inclusion.) Feedback:
Discuss Subjective data: • Chief complaint • History of present illness (HPI) • Medications • Psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis • Pertinent histories and/or ROS Points: Points Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) The video accurately and concisely presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) The video accurately presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) The video presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis, but is somewhat vague or contains minor inaccuracies. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) The video presents an incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose description of the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Or subjective documentation is missing. Feedback:
Discuss Objective data: • Physical exam documentation of systems pertinent to the chief complaint, HPI, and history • Diagnostic results, including any labs, imaging, or other assessments needed to develop the differential diagnoses Points: Points Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) The video accurately and concisely documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Pertinent diagnostic tests and their results are documented, as applicable. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) The response accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are documented, as applicable. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Documentation of the patient’s physical exam is somewhat vague or contains minor inaccuracies. Diagnostic tests and their results are documented but contain inaccuracies. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) The response provides incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose documentation of the patient’s physical exam. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed, or objective documentation is missing. Feedback:
Discuss results of Assessment: • Results of the mental status examination • Provide a minimum of three possible diagnoses in order of highest to lowest priority and explain why you chose them. What was your primary diagnosis and why? Describe how your primary diagnosis aligns with DSM-5 diagnostic criteria and is supported by the patient’s symptoms. Points: Points Range: 18 (18%) – 20 (20%) The video accurately documents the results of the mental status exam. Video presents at least three differentials in order of priority for a differential diagnosis of the patient, and a rationale for their selection. Response justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) The video adequately documents the results of the mental status exam. Video presents three differentials for the patient and a rationale for their selection. Response adequately justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The video presents the results of the mental status exam, with some vagueness or inaccuracy. Video presents three differentials for the patient and a rationale for their selection. Response somewhat vaguely justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 13 (13%) The response provides an incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose description of the results of the mental status exam and explanation of the differential diagnoses. Or assessment documentation is missing. Feedback:
Discuss treatment Plan: • A treatment plan for the patient that addresses psychotherapy; one health promotion activity and one patient education strategy; plan for treatment and management, including alternative therapies; pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters; and a rationale for the approaches selected. Points: Points Range: 18 (18%) – 20 (20%) The video clearly and concisely outlines an evidence-based treatment plan for the patient that addresses psychotherapy, health promotion and patient education, treatment and management, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters. A clear and concise rationale for the treatment approaches recommended is provided. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) The video clearly outlines an appropriate treatment plan for the patient that addresses psychotherapy, health promotion and patient education, treatment and management, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters. A clear rationale for the treatment approaches recommended is provided. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately outlines a treatment plan for the patient and provides a rationale for the treatment approaches recommended. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 13 (13%) The response does not address the diagnosis or is missing elements of the treatment plan. Feedback:
Reflect on this case. Discuss what you learned and what you might do differently. Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Reflections demonstrate critical thinking. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Reflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing. Feedback:
Focused SOAP Note documentation Points: Points Range: 18 (18%) – 20 (20%) The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly follows the Focused SOAP Note format to document the selected patient case. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) The response accurately follows the Focused SOAP Note format to document the selected patient case. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The response follows the Focused SOAP Note format to document the selected patient case, with some vagueness and inaccuracy. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 13 (13%) The response incompletely and inaccurately follows the Focused SOAP Note format to document the selected patient case. Feedback:
Presentation style Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Presentation style is exceptionally clear, professional, and focused. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Presentation style is clear, professional, and focused. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Presentation style is mostly clear, professional, and focused Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Presentation style is unclear, unprofessional, and/or unfocused. Feedback:Show Descriptions Show Feedback
Photo ID display and professional attire–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Photo ID is displayed. The student is dressed professionally. Good 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Fair 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Poor 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Photo ID is not displayed. Student must remedy this before grade is posted. The student is not dressed professionally. Feedback:
Time–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) The video does not exceed the 8-minute time limit. Good 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Fair 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Poor 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) The video exceeds the 8-minute time limit. (Note: Information presented after 8 minutes will not be evaluated for grade inclusion.) Feedback:
Discuss Subjective data: • Chief complaint • History of present illness (HPI) • Medications • Psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis • Pertinent histories and/or ROS —
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) The video accurately and concisely presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Good 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) The video accurately presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Fair 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) The video presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis, but is somewhat vague or contains minor inaccuracies. Poor 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) The video presents an incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose description of the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Or subjective documentation is missing. Feedback:
Discuss Objective data: • Physical exam documentation of systems pertinent to the chief complaint, HPI, and history • Diagnostic results, including any labs, imaging, or other assessments needed to develop the differential diagnoses–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) The video accurately and concisely documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Pertinent diagnostic tests and their results are documented, as applicable. Good 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) The response accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are documented, as applicable. Fair 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Documentation of the patient’s physical exam is somewhat vague or contains minor inaccuracies. Diagnostic tests and their results are documented but contain inaccuracies. Poor 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) The response provides incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose documentation of the patient’s physical exam. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed, or objective documentation is missing. Feedback:
Discuss results of Assessment: • Results of the mental status examination • Provide a minimum of three possible diagnoses in order of highest to lowest priority and explain why you chose them. What was your primary diagnosis and why? Describe how your primary diagnosis aligns with DSM-5 diagnostic criteria and is supported by the patient’s symptoms.–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 18 (18%) – 20 (20%) The video accurately documents the results of the mental status exam. Video presents at least three differentials in order of priority for a differential diagnosis of the patient, and a rationale for their selection. Response justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria. Good 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) The video adequately documents the results of the mental status exam. Video presents three differentials for the patient and a rationale for their selection. Response adequately justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria. Fair 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The video presents the results of the mental status exam, with some vagueness or inaccuracy. Video presents three differentials for the patient and a rationale for their selection. Response somewhat vaguely justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria. Poor 0 (0%) – 13 (13%) The response provides an incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose description of the results of the mental status exam and explanation of the differential diagnoses. Or assessment documentation is missing. Feedback:
Discuss treatment Plan: • A treatment plan for the patient that addresses psychotherapy; one health promotion activity and one patient education strategy; plan for treatment and management, including alternative therapies; pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters; and a rationale for the approaches selected.–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 18 (18%) – 20 (20%) The video clearly and concisely outlines an evidence-based treatment plan for the patient that addresses psychotherapy, health promotion and patient education, treatment and management, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters. A clear and concise rationale for the treatment approaches recommended is provided. Good 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) The video clearly outlines an appropriate treatment plan for the patient that addresses psychotherapy, health promotion and patient education, treatment and management, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters. A clear rationale for the treatment approaches recommended is provided. Fair 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately outlines a treatment plan for the patient and provides a rationale for the treatment approaches recommended. Poor 0 (0%) – 13 (13%) The response does not address the diagnosis or is missing elements of the treatment plan. Feedback:
Reflect on this case. Discuss what you learned and what you might do differently.–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking. Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Reflections demonstrate critical thinking. Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking. Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Reflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing. Feedback:
Focused SOAP Note documentation–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 18 (18%) – 20 (20%) The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly follows the Focused SOAP Note format to document the selected patient case. Good 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) The response accurately follows the Focused SOAP Note format to document the selected patient case. Fair 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The response follows the Focused SOAP Note format to document the selected patient case, with some vagueness and inaccuracy. Poor 0 (0%) – 13 (13%) The response incompletely and inaccurately follows the Focused SOAP Note format to document the selected patient case. Feedback:
Presentation style–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Presentation style is exceptionally clear, professional, and focused. Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Presentation style is clear, professional, and focused. Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Presentation style is mostly clear, professional, and focused Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Presentation style is unclear, unprofessional, and/or unfocused. Feedback:
Total Points: 100
Name: PRAC_6665_Week9_Assignment2_Rubric