MEDI11004 Assessment 1B

Assessment: Weighting: Date: Objectives: Submit online:

1 - Part B Written Assessment 20%. Part B is worth 10%. Part B Due Monday 16th September at 08:00 This assessment item relates to the course learning outcomes numbers 1-7 Written reflection submitted as a word document (doc or docx, appendix maybe pdf) Name of submission to include student name and assessment number / letter Title page with student, course and assessment details. Reference list using Harvard or APA referencing conventions Part B 250 words (not including referencing and appendix)

Length:

Task: You are required to write a Critical Incident Report (B). The writing of this informed reflective piece will help you gain insight into your professional practice with relation to your academic knowledge, values, experiences and beliefs. You will only be expected to understand the course knowledge covered by report submission date. In each report you will need to describe and analyse a situation, identify key issues and research theoretical aspects of those issues as they apply to health care. This may involve the recognition of a misalignment between theoretical findings and previously held assumptions and bias: and the application of your new understanding of the issues to the task of suggesting practical initiatives for change. This process will enable you to gain a new perspective on a situation. It is recognised that your level of practical experience may be minimal.

MEDI11004_Assessment_1B_2013

MEDI11004 Assessment 1B

Critical Incident Report - Part B You are going to reflect on your role within the interprofessional team in this course, and on the effectiveness of the processes used to communicate, make decisions and resolve conflict. You will describe, analyse and evaluate the experience with particular emphasis on how your reflection will inform your future practice as a member of a health team. Evidence submitted with this reflection will include: 1. Completed rating scale for evaluating one (1) team meeting. 2. Completed student self assessment sheet. 3. Completed evaluation of team's processes and performance. These documents will be available on the Moodle site and are to be completed and submitted as an appendix to the reflection. They can be referred to by number within the reflection itself. The appendix is not included in the word count.

MEDI11004_Assessment_1B_2013

MEDI11004 Assessment 1B

Learning outcomes assessed:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Interact effectively with patients and staff through an understanding of patient, professional and interprofessional relationships Discuss the importance of reflective practice on learning and working in the medical field Apply knowledge of evidence based practice in learning and in the workplace Understand the concepts of good judgement , decision making in the health professions Apply knowledge of appropriate legal and ethical aspects in good practice Explore the impact of culture in health care Describe the ethical issues that impact the provision of allied health care

Assessment Criteria:

The complete criterion referenced marking rubric is below and addresses the criteria listed: * Structure and Form - spelling, grammar , paragraph structure, logical sequence, cohesion, clarity of expression, succinctness and adherence to word limit * Content - well considered evidence-based ideas * Theory & Analysis - detailed description, analysis and interpretation of the issues relative to the theoretical aspects of the discipline, own assumptions and bias and prioritization of information for inclusion. * Improvement - formulation of strategies for improvement, convincing rationale and clear reasoning. * Referencing - Accurate use of Harvard or APA reference style, credible sources, minimum number of references including primary sources.

MEDI11004_Assessment_1B_2013

MEDI11004 Assessment 1B CRITERION REFERENCED MARKING RUBRIC FOR THE CRITICAL INCIDENT REPORT
10 Structure (10%) Excellent presentation. Appropriate spacing and font. Explicit organisation with cohesive logical sequence. Succinctness and clarity of expression. Consistently accurate with spelling and grammar. Adherence to word limit. Well presented presentation. Appropriate spacing and font. Clear organisation with cohesive logical sequence. Succinctness and clarity of expression. 1 or 2 errors in spelling and grammar. Adherence to word limit. Well presented presentation. Appropriate spacing and font. Some organisation and logical sequence. Clarity of expression. 3 or 4 consistent errors with spelling and grammar. Adherence to word limit. Well presented presentation. Appropriate spacing and font. Limited organisation. 4 or 5 consistent errors with spelling and grammar. Adherence to word limit. Poorly presented. Appropriate spacing and font. Poor organisation. 5 or more consistent errors with spelling and grammar. Did not adhere to word limit. 9.5 9.0 8.5 8 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.2 5.9 5.5 5.0 4.5 4 3.5

Approach (80%) 20 18 17 16.8 16 15 14.8 14 13 12.8 12 10 9-8 6 4-0

Concise, detailed description of experience which conveys context in which experience occurred. Accurate identification and clear explanation of relevant issues

Detailed description of experience which conveys context in which experience occurred. Identification and clear explanation of relevant issues

Basic description of experience which conveys some idea of context in which experience occurred. Identification and explanation of relevant issues

Limited description of experience which conveys minimal context in which experience occurred. Some identification and explanation of some relevant issues

Poor description of experience which conveys little context in which experience occurred. Little identification and explanation of issues

40

38

35

34

32

30

28

27

25

22

20

15

14-10

4-0

Detailed analysis and interpretation of incident (or experience), and issues identified, in relation to theoretical aspects of discipline, own assumptions and bias. Well thought out Ideas presented in a systematic and organised way.

Acceptable analysis and interpretation of incident (or experience), and issues identified, in relation to theoretical aspects of discipline, own assumptions and bias. Ideas presented in a systematic and organised way.

Basic analysis and interpretation of incident (or experience), and some issues identified, in relation to theoretical aspects of discipline, own assumptions and bias. Some Ideas presented in a systematic and organised way.

Limited analysis and interpretation of incident (or experience), and some issues identified, in relation to theoretical aspects of discipline, own assumptions and bias. 1 or 2 Ideas presented in an organised way.

Poor analysis and interpretation of incident (or experience), and issues identified, in relation to theoretical aspects of discipline, own assumptions and bias. Ideas presented in a disorganised way.

20

18

17

16.8

16

15

14.8

14

13

12.8

12

10

9-8

4-0

MEDI11004_Assessment_1B_2013

MEDI11004 Assessment 1B
Identification of well considered evidencebased strategies for change. Convincing rationale for strategies chosen. Clear reasoning. Clear willingness to integrate strategies into future practice. Identification of evidence-based strategies for change. Some rationale for strategies chosen. Willing to integrate strategies into future practice. Some evidence-based strategies for change. Limited rationale for strategies chosen. Willing to integrate strategies into future practice. Limited evidence-based strategies for change. Minimal rationale for strategies chosen. Willing to integrate strategies into future practice. Strategies chosen demonstrate little understanding of the course.

Referencing (10%). Referencing is consistent throughout with Harvard or APA system. 10 9.5 9.0 8.5 8 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.2 5.9 5.0 4.5 4.0 3 2-0

Accurately cites, using the Harvard or APA reference style, all sources of information to support credibility and authority of the information presented. Minimum of 3 references used for each reflective journal, including one primary source.

Most sources are cited accurately using the Harvard or APA reference style and support the credibility and authority of the information presented. Minimum of 3 references used for each reflective journal.

Some sources are cited accurately, using the Harvard or APA reference style, but few adequately support the credibility and authority of the information presented. Minimum of 2 references used for each reflective journal, including one primary source.

Few sources are cited accurately, using the Harvard or APA reference style and they failure to adequately support the credibility and authority of the information presented. Minimum of 2 reference used for each reflective journal piece.

Does not provide any accurate information about the sources used. Does not use the Harvard or APA referencing style. Minimum of 1 reference used for each reflective journal.

MEDI11004_Assessment_1B_2013