Uncategorized

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

Content
Name: NRNP_6675_Week8_Assignment_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent 90%–100% Good 80%–89% Fair 70%–79% Poor 0%–69%
In 2–3 pages, address the following:
• Explain your state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult psychiatric emergencies. Include who can hold a patient and for how long, who can release the emergency hold, and who can pick up the patient after a hold is released.

Points: Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The response includes a thorough and well-organized explanation of student’s state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult emergencies. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) The response includes an accurate explanation of student’s state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult emergencies. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 11 (11%) – 11 (11%) The response includes a somewhat vague or inaccurate explanation of student’s state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult emergencies. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 10 (10%) The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of student’s state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult emergencies. Or the response is missing. Feedback:
• Explain the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state. Points: Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The response includes an accurate and concise explanation of the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) The response includes a well-organized explanation of the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 11 (11%) – 11 (11%) The response includes a somewhat vague explanation of the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 10 (10%) The response includes a vague explanation of the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state. Or the response is missing. Feedback:
• Explain the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts. Points: Points Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) The response includes an accurate and concise explanation of the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) The response includes an accurate explanation of the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) The response includes a somewhat vague or incomplete explanation of the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts. Or the response is missing. Feedback:
• Select one of the following topics and explain one legal issue and one ethical issue related to this topic that may apply within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies: patient autonomy, EMTALA, confidentiality, HIPAA privacy rule, HIPAA security rule, protected information, legal gun ownership, career obstacles (security clearances/background checks), and payer source. Points: Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The response accurately and concisely explains one legal and one ethical issue related to the selected topic, within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) The response accurately explains one legal and one ethical issue related to the selected topic, within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 11 (11%) – 11 (11%) The response somewhat vaguely or innacurately explains one legal and one ethical issue related to the selected topic, within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 10 (10%) The response vaguely or innacurately explains one legal and one ethical issue related to the selected topic, within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies. Or, response is missing. Feedback:
•Identify one evidence-based suicide risk assessment that you could use to screen patients. Attach a copy or a link to the assessment you identified. Points: Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The response identifies and explains an appropriate, evidence-based suicide risk assessment that could be used to screen patients. A copy of or a link to the assessment is included. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) The response identifies an appropriate, evidence-based suicide risk assessment that could be used to screen patients. A copy of or a link to the assessment is included. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 11 (11%) – 11 (11%) The risk assessment identified is somewhat inappropriate for the intended use or dated. A copy of or a link to the assessment may be missing. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 10 (10%) The risk assessment identified is inappropriate for the intended use, not evidence based, or dated. Or, response is missing. Feedback:
• Identify one evidence-based violence risk assessment that you could use to screen patients. Attach a copy or a link to the assessment you identified. Points: Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The response identifies and explains an appropriate, evidence-based violence risk assessment that could be used to screen patients. A copy of or a link to the assessment is included. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) The response identifies an appropriate, evidence-based violence risk assessment that could be used to screen patients. A copy of or a link to the assessment is included. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 11 (11%) – 11 (11%) The risk assessment identified is somewhat inappropriate for the intended use or dated. A copy of or a link to the assessment may be missing. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 10 (10%) The risk assessment identified is inappropriate for the intended use, not evidence based, or dated. Or, response is missing. Feedback:
Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria.

Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet they are brief and not descriptive. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are vague or off topic. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided. Feedback: Written Expression and Formatting - English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors Feedback: Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Contains 1-2 grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors Feedback: Points: Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%) Contains 3-4 grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 3 (3%) Contains five or more grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding Feedback: Written Expression and Formatting - The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors Feedback: Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Contains 1-2 APA format errors Feedback: Points: Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%) Contains 3-4 APA format errors Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 3 (3%) Contains five or more APA format errors Feedback:Show Descriptions Show Feedback In 2–3 pages, address the following: • Explain your state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult psychiatric emergencies. Include who can hold a patient and for how long, who can release the emergency hold, and who can pick up the patient after a hold is released. -- Levels of Achievement: Excellent 90%–100% 14 (14%) - 15 (15%) The response includes a thorough and well-organized explanation of student's state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult emergencies. Good 80%–89% 12 (12%) - 13 (13%) The response includes an accurate explanation of student's state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult emergencies. Fair 70%–79% 11 (11%) - 11 (11%) The response includes a somewhat vague or inaccurate explanation of student's state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult emergencies. Poor 0%–69% 0 (0%) - 10 (10%) The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of student's state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult emergencies. Or the response is missing. Feedback: • Explain the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state.-- Levels of Achievement: Excellent 90%–100% 14 (14%) - 15 (15%) The response includes an accurate and concise explanation of the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state. Good 80%–89% 12 (12%) - 13 (13%) The response includes a well-organized explanation of the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state. Fair 70%–79% 11 (11%) - 11 (11%) The response includes a somewhat vague explanation of the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state. Poor 0%–69% 0 (0%) - 10 (10%) The response includes a vague explanation of the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state. Or the response is missing. Feedback: • Explain the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts.-- Levels of Achievement: Excellent 90%–100% 9 (9%) - 10 (10%) The response includes an accurate and concise explanation of the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts. Good 80%–89% 8 (8%) - 8 (8%) The response includes an accurate explanation of the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts. Fair 70%–79% 7 (7%) - 7 (7%) The response includes a somewhat vague or incomplete explanation of the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts. Poor 0%–69% 0 (0%) - 6 (6%) The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts. Or the response is missing. Feedback: • Select one of the following topics and explain one legal issue and one ethical issue related to this topic that may apply within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies: patient autonomy, EMTALA, confidentiality, HIPAA privacy rule, HIPAA security rule, protected information, legal gun ownership, career obstacles (security clearances/background checks), and payer source.-- Levels of Achievement: Excellent 90%–100% 14 (14%) - 15 (15%) The response accurately and concisely explains one legal and one ethical issue related to the selected topic, within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies. Good 80%–89% 12 (12%) - 13 (13%) The response accurately explains one legal and one ethical issue related to the selected topic, within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies. Fair 70%–79% 11 (11%) - 11 (11%) The response somewhat vaguely or innacurately explains one legal and one ethical issue related to the selected topic, within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies. Poor 0%–69% 0 (0%) - 10 (10%) The response vaguely or innacurately explains one legal and one ethical issue related to the selected topic, within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies. Or, response is missing. Feedback: •Identify one evidence-based suicide risk assessment that you could use to screen patients. Attach a copy or a link to the assessment you identified.-- Levels of Achievement: Excellent 90%–100% 14 (14%) - 15 (15%) The response identifies and explains an appropriate, evidence-based suicide risk assessment that could be used to screen patients. A copy of or a link to the assessment is included. Good 80%–89% 12 (12%) - 13 (13%) The response identifies an appropriate, evidence-based suicide risk assessment that could be used to screen patients. A copy of or a link to the assessment is included. Fair 70%–79% 11 (11%) - 11 (11%) The risk assessment identified is somewhat inappropriate for the intended use or dated. A copy of or a link to the assessment may be missing. Poor 0%–69% 0 (0%) - 10 (10%) The risk assessment identified is inappropriate for the intended use, not evidence based, or dated. Or, response is missing. Feedback: • Identify one evidence-based violence risk assessment that you could use to screen patients. Attach a copy or a link to the assessment you identified.-- Levels of Achievement: Excellent 90%–100% 14 (14%) - 15 (15%) The response identifies and explains an appropriate, evidence-based violence risk assessment that could be used to screen patients. A copy of or a link to the assessment is included. Good 80%–89% 12 (12%) - 13 (13%) The response identifies an appropriate, evidence-based violence risk assessment that could be used to screen patients. A copy of or a link to the assessment is included. Fair 70%–79% 11 (11%) - 11 (11%) The risk assessment identified is somewhat inappropriate for the intended use or dated. A copy of or a link to the assessment may be missing. Poor 0%–69% 0 (0%) - 10 (10%) The risk assessment identified is inappropriate for the intended use, not evidence based, or dated. Or, response is missing. Feedback: Written Expression and Formatting - Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria. -- Levels of Achievement: Excellent 90%–100% 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria. Good 80%–89% 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet they are brief and not descriptive. Fair 70%–79% 3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are vague or off topic. Poor 0%–69% 0 (0%) - 3 (3%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided. Feedback: Written Expression and Formatting - English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation -- Levels of Achievement: Excellent 90%–100% 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors Good 80%–89% 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Contains 1-2 grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors Fair 70%–79% 3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%) Contains 3-4 grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors Poor 0%–69% 0 (0%) - 3 (3%) Contains five or more grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding Feedback: Written Expression and Formatting - The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.-- Levels of Achievement: Excellent 90%–100% 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors Good 80%–89% 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Contains 1-2 APA format errors Fair 70%–79% 3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%) Contains 3-4 APA format errors Poor 0%–69% 0 (0%) - 3 (3%) Contains five or more APA format errors Feedback: Total Points: 100 Name: NRNP_6675_Week8_Assignment_Rubric