The rationale for this case – based assignment is to allow you to demonstrate your clinical reasoning skills developed in the course thus far , demonstrating your capacity to differentiate normal from abnormal and to identify appropriate (evidence based) investiga tions and treatment modalities associated with the assigned case – study .
2804NRS
Human Pathophysiology and Pharmacology 1
:
Assessment 2
Students choose between
:
1) Individual, written
concept map
;
or
2)
Individual
,
podcast/
video mini
–
lecture
Weighting:
30%
Due Date
: Week
7
; Tuesday 18
th
April by 5pm
Learning Outcomes Assessed:
1, 2, 4 & 5
Length:
1)
1 PowerPoint slide
+ 500 word
written
explanation
.
2)
Video
/podcast
tutorial
:
7
–
10mins
Rationale and purpose
of assessment:
The
rationale
for
this case
–
based
assignment is to allow you to demonstrate
your clinical reasoning skills
developed
in the course thus far
,
demonstrating
your capacity to
differentiate
normal from abnormal and
to
identify
appropriate
(evidence based)
investiga
tions
and treatment modalities associated with the assigned
case
–
study
.
The purpose of this assessment is
for you
to
determine
how
the risk factors and
mechanisms of cell
injury/adaptation/repair relate to the
diagnosis
within
a
n assigned
case
–
study
scenario
from one of the studied
systems (nervous, immune
or
musculoskeletal)
.
You will also apply
your understanding of the
pathophysiology
for the diagnosed disease
with
its
clinical manifestations,
and identify
appropriate
(evidence
based)
diagnostic tests/physical
assessment
s
, and treatment modalities
for this case
; skills which are necessary
in everyday practice.
Choice 1: Individual, Written Assig
nment,
concept map
Total Marks:
3
0
Weighting:
30%
Length:
1 PowerPoint slide
+ 500 word explanation
Task
description
:
x
For this task you need to
create a
single
(1)
slide
(using PowerPoint) concept map
and
500 word
explanation
, demonstrating
analysis
of the case study
emailed
to you in week 1.
A PowerPoint
template file will be made available for you to customised based on your assigned
case
scenario
.
x
In your concept map you must:
1)
Interpret
the patient’s risk factors (from the case
–
study
scenario
) and
determine
how these risk
factors may lead to cell pathology (based on the patient’s diagnosis);
2)
E
xplain
the links between cellular pathology and the pathophysiology of the diagnosed disease;
3)
Describe
how the pathophysiology of the disease accounts
for the patient’s clinical manifestations
(described in the case
–
study
scenario
); and
4)
A
nalyse and interpret
evidence based research to
suggest
appropriate diagnostic
assessments
and
treatment modalities for the patient’s diagnosis.
x
In your 500 word wr
itten explanation you must:
1)
Explain
the links between the risk factors and aetiology to account for the disease’s
pathophysiology.
2)
Describe
how the disease’s pathophysiology manifests through the patient’s signs and
symptoms.
Due Date
:
Submission via
Turnitin
within the course Learning@Griffith
site by
Tuesday
week 7,
18th
April 2017,
5pm
.
Other
elements
:
x
The
concept map
should be a
maximum
of
1 PowerPoint slide
in length
and 1 page (500 words) written
explanation
(excluding reference list);
x
You will be presented with a
case study electronically
(
via email
) by
Friday
3rd March (week 1);
x
Use
APA 6
th
edition
for in
–
text referencing and
in
the reference list;
x
Reference list should be on a separate slide following the concept map;
x
Ensure that your references have been published within the last 10 years
;
x
Marking, moderation, and student feedback will be provide
d electronically based on the marking
rubric, which is in accordance wi
th University assessment policy;
x
10% late penalties apply for each
working
day after submission date;
x
Always refer to the marking rubric
as
this will assist you
to determine the depth o
f response for each
section;
x
An exemplar concept map will be
created
in
the
week 1
tutorials
.
Refer to the
Health
Writing and Referencing guide for more information
(click here)
Marking Rubric*:
Assessment Task 2
–
Individual, Written Assignment
.
Good (
11
. 5+)
Satisfactory (
7.5
–
11
. 4)
Unsatisfactory (0
–
7.4
)
Presentation, written communication
(
15
marks)
Concept map
and written explanation
has a logical structure
,
and is
concise and focused. No spelling or grammatical errors.
Concept map is
colour coded with
a
respective key.
Separate
page/s
for references.
Concept map
and written explanation
was
generally well
–
structured
.
Some
minor spelling or grammatical errors.
Many spelling or grammatical errors
. Poor structure.
Excellent
(1
6
+)
Good (
13
–
1
5
.9)
Satisfactory (
10
–
12
.
9
)
Unsatisfactory (0
–
9.9
)
Identify and explain
the underlying
cellular mechanisms that contribute to
patient’s disease.
Identification and explanation
includes
:
1.
Risk factors in case study
2.
Aetiology of cellular
injury
3.
Patient’s risk factors linked to cell
injury
(
20
marks)
Detailed description of the
cellular pathology. Extensive
knowledge of the 3 descriptive
factors
as evidence by their
connections within the concept
map
and written explanation
The link
between cellular
pathology and disease is
analysed thoroughly
.
Broad description of the cellular
pathology. Sound knowled
ge of the 3
descriptive factors as evidence by their
connections within the concept map
and written explanation
.
The l
ink between cel
lular pathology
and disease is clear
but lacks depth.
Limited description of the cellular
pathology. Superficial knowled
ge of the
3 descriptive factors as evidence by
their connections within the concept
map
and written explanation
.
The l
ink between cellu
lar pathology
and disease is made but it is mainly
descriptive
.
Little information given about the type of cellular
injury
No description of how
risk factors lead to
cell
injury.
Link between cellular pathology and disease state is
confused and/or absen
t.
Excellent (40
+)
Good (
32.5
–
39.9
)
Satisfactory
(25
–
32.4
)
Unsatisfactory (0
–
24.9
)
Analysis of the pathophysiology
,
diagnosis and treatment
of the assigned
disease.
Analysis includes
:
1.
How the pathophysiology causes
the patient’s
clinical manifestations
(in the case study).
2.
E
vidence based research to suggest
the appropriate diagnostic
assessments
and where they link to
the disease state.
3.
E
vidence based research to suggest
the appropriate
treatment
modalities and where they link to
the disease state.
(50
marks)
Detailed
analysis
of
the
pathophysiological cause for
the patient’s clinical
manifestations (S&S).
Diagnostic
assessment
tests
and treatment modalities for
patient’s disease listed
/linked
,
and broadly substantiated with
current literature.
Link between patient’s disease
pathophysiology, clinical
manifestations, diagnosis and
treatment is extensively
addressed.
Some
analysis
of
the
pathophysiological cause for the
patient’s clinical manifestations (S&S).
Diagnostic
assessments
and treatment
modalities for patient’s disease listed,
and superficially substantiated with
current literature.
Link between patient’s disease
pathophysiology, clinical
manifestations, diagnosis and
treatment is addressed.
Little
analysis of
the pathophysiological
cause for the patient’s clinical
manifestations (S&S).
Diagnostic
assessments
and treatment
modalities for patient’s disease listed,
but not substantiated with literature
and/or literature outdated.
Link between patient’s disease
pathop
hysiology, clinical
manifestations, diagnosis and
treatment
minimally
addressed.
No analysis
given about pathophysiological cause for
the patient’s clinical manifestations (S&S).
Explanation of diagnostic
assessments
and
treatment modalities for patient’s disea
se
inconsistent/incorrect.
Link between patient’s disease pathophysiology,
clinical manifestations, diagnosis and treatment is
confused and/or absent.
Excellent (
12
+)
Good (
9
.
7
5
–
11
.9)
Satisfactory (
7.
5
–
9
.
7
4
)
Unsatisfactory (0
–
7.4
)
Use of references
(
15
marks)
W
ritten explanation
includes
many appropriate
and current
references, and APA guide is
followed throughout (in
–
text
and in reference list). No fewer
than 10 sources used.
W
ritten explanation
supported by
some references. References are
gener
ally appropriate and up to date.
APA guide is generally followed.
Less
than
10 sources used.
Limited references used and/or may
have occasional inappropriate or
outdated references that do not follow
APA 6
th
edition guide.
No references to the literat
ure
or many errors in the
references used.
