Patient Advocacy Identify the interdisciplinary teamwork
Affected person Advocacy Project Rubric Standards Rankings Pts Inform the story of the expertise. 10 factors 10 pts Mastery Description of occasion is wealthy with particulars permitting reader to totally perceive the state of affairs. eight.9 - 10 factors eight.eight pts Proficient Description of occasion is full permitting reader to perceive the state of affairs. 7.7 – eight.eight factors 7.6 pts Growing Description of occasion is missing element leaving the reader unable to totally perceive the state of affairs. 6.5 – 7.6 factors 6.four pts Starting Description of occasion is missing element leaving the reader unable to totally perceive the state of affairs. 5.three – 6.four factors NOTE: If the scholar does not embrace a description of the occasion, scholar will obtain zero factors. / 10 pts Affected person Advocacy Project Rubric Standards Rankings Pts Determine the interdisciplinary teamwork that both helped or hinder the affected person advocacy course of. Describe if resistance or challenges got here from the affected person, facility coverage, different nurses, household, and so forth. 16 factors 16 pts Mastery Description of the interdisciplinary teamwork that took place was very clear and straightforward to perceive. Description of resistance or challenges confronted is wealthy in element and are clearly defined 14.24 - 16 factors 14.08 pts Proficient Description of the interdisciplinary teamwork that took place was clear and straightforward to perceive. Description of resistance or challenges confronted is defined. 12.32 – 14.08 factors 12.16 pts Growing Description of the interdisciplinary teamwork that took place was considerably however could have been troublesome to perceive. Description of resistance or challenges confronted is not clear and is issue to / 16 pts Affected person Advocacy Project Rubric Standards Rankings Pts perceive. 10.four – 12.16 factors 10.24 pts Starting Description of the interdisciplinary teamwork that took place was imprecise and troublesome to perceive. Description of resistance or challenges confronted is not clear and is issue to perceive. eight.48 – 10.24 factors NOTE: If the scholar does not embrace data about interdisciplinary work or challenges confronted, scholar will obtain zero factors. Examine and distinction the article to the expertise you had. Embrace similarities and variations. 16 factors 16 pts Mastery Description of how the article compares with the expertise is full with particular examples from the expertise and the article. 14.24 - 16 factors 14.09 pts Proficient Description of how the article compares with the expertise / 16 pts Affected person Advocacy Project Rubric Standards Rankings Pts is full with examples from the expertise and the article. 12.32 – 14.08 factors 12.16 pts Growing Description of how the article compares with the expertise is full however not detailed. 10.four – 12.16 factors 10.24 pts Starting Description of how the article compares with the expertise is very minimal eight.48 – 10.24 factors NOTE: If the scholar does not embrace a comparability/distinction of expertise and article, scholar will obtain zero factors. Summarize the coverage 10 factors 10 pts Mastery Abstract of the coverage is full and paraphrased with restricted quotes. Clearly explains how the coverage advocates for affected person rights. eight.9 - 10 factors eight.eight pts Proficient / 10 pts Affected person Advocacy Project Rubric Standards Rankings Pts Abstract of the coverage is full. Minimal clarification of how the coverage advocates for affected person rights. 7.7 – eight.eight factors 7.6 pts Growing Abstract of the coverage is minimal leaving the reader uncertain of how the coverage advocates for affected person rights. 6.5 – 7.6 factors 6.four pts Starting Abstract of the coverage is very minimal leaving the reader uncertain of how the coverage advocates for affected person rights. 5.three – 6.four factors NOTE: If the scholar does not embrace a abstract of the coverage, scholar will obtain zero factors. Examine and distinction the coverage to the article. Included how the coverage handle the challenges described in the article. 16 factors 16 pts Mastery Examine/distinction of the coverage to the article is full with particular examples from each the article and the / 16 pts Affected person Advocacy Project Rubric Standards Rankings Pts coverage. 14.24 - 16 factors 14.08 pts Proficient Examine/distinction of the coverage to the article is full however lacks the particular examples from the article and the coverage. 12.32 – 14.08 factors 12.16 pts Growing Examine/distinction of the coverage to the article is minimal with very restricted examples. 10.four – 12.16 factors 10.24 pts Starting Examine/distinction of the coverage to the article is minimal with very no examples. eight.48 – 10.24 factors NOTE: If scholar does not present a evaluate/distinction of the coverage and article, scholar will obtain zero factors. Talk about if your scientific judgement about what you felt was greatest for the affected person coincide with the affected person preferences and/or the facility coverage. 16 factors 16 pts Mastery Description of how scientific judgement coincided with or / 16 pts Affected person Advocacy Project Rubric Standards Rankings Pts contradicted the affected person’s preferences and/or facility coverage is detailed and clearly defined. 14.24 - 16 factors 14.08 pts Proficient Description of how scientific judgement coincided with or contradicted the affected person’s preferences and/or facility coverage is detailed and clearly defined. 12.32 – 14.08 factors 12.16 pts Growing Description of how scientific judgement coincided with or contradicted the affected person’s preferences and/or facility coverage is clearly defined. 10.four – 12.16 factors 10.24 pts Starting Description of how scientific judgement coincided with or contradicted the affected person’s preferences and/or facility coverage is very minimally defined. eight.48 – 10.24 factors NOTE: If scholar does not talk about his/her Succesful Description of how scientific judgement coincided with or contradicted the affected person's preferences what's extra, or facility coverage is detailed and clearly defined. 12.32 –14.08 factors 12.16 pts Creating Description of how scientific judgement coincided with or contradicted the affected person's preferences moreover, or facility coverage is clearly defined. 10.four –12.16 factors 10.24 pts Beginning Description of how scientific judgement coincided with or contradicted the affected person's preferences moreover, or facility coverage is very minimally defined. eight.48 – 10.24 factors NOTE: If scholar does not talk about his/her Affected person Advocacy Project Rubric Standards Rankings Pts scientific judgment in regards to affected person preferences and facility coverage, scholar will obtain zero factors. Analyze how your private beliefs about affected person advocacy and affected person rights have modified by the experiences, article and/or coverage. 16 factors 16 pts Mastery Description of how scholar’s private beliefs about affected person advocacy and affected person rights have modified by the expertise, article and/or coverage is wealthy in element and demonstrates deep self-reflection. 14.24 - 16 factors 14.08 pts Proficient Description of how scholar’s private beliefs about affected person advocacy and affected person rights have modified by the expertise, article and/or coverage consists of some particulars and demonstrates some self-reflection. 12.32 – 14.08 factors 12.16 pts Growing Description of how scholar’s private beliefs about affected person advocacy and affected person / 16 pts Affected person Advocacy Project Rubric Standards Rankings Pts rights have modified by the expertise, article and/or coverage consists of very few particulars and demonstrates minimal selfreflection. 10.four – 12.16 factors 10.24 pts Starting Description of how scholar’s private beliefs about affected person advocacy and affected person rights have modified by the expertise, article and/or coverage is imprecise and demonstrates very minimal selfreflection. eight.48 – 10.24 factors NOTE: If scholar does not present description of how scholar’s private beliefs about affected person advocacy and affected person rights have modified, scholar will obtain zero factors. Whole Factors: zero Add a Remark: Media CommentAttach File