Key Criteria

High Distinction
84.5–100%

Distinction
74.50–84.49%

Credit
64.50–74.49%

Pass
49.50–64.49%

Fail
<49.5%

TOTAL

Overview of clinical governance in healthcare organisations
(20%)

(20–17)
Concise, accurate and comprehensive summary of clinical governance including how clinical governance impacts clinical risk and influences safety and quality in nursing practice. Comprehensive discussion on how the student’s healthcare organisation addresses clinical governance, including risk identification and nurse-initiated audits.

(16.9–15)
Concise accurate summary of clinical governance including how clinical governance impacts clinical risk and influences safety and quality in nursing practice. Concise discussion on how the student’s healthcare organisation addresses clinical governance, including risk identification and nurse-initiated audits.

(14.9–13)
Mostly accurate, concise summary of clinical governance including how clinical governance impacts clinical risk and influences safety and quality in nursing practice. Mostly concise discussion on how the student’s healthcare organisation addresses clinical governance, including risk identification and nurse-initiated audits.

(12.9–10)
A satisfactory summary of clinical governance including how clinical governance impacts clinical risk and influences safety and quality in nursing practice; however, contains some inaccuracies and is not concise and/or not comprehensive. Satisfactory discussion on how the student’s healthcare organisation addresses clinical governance, including risk identification and nurse-initiated audits.

(9.9–0)
Clinical governance is not summarised satisfactorily or has some inaccuracies and/or does not include how clinical governance impacts clinical risk and influences safety and quality in nursing practice. Inadequate discussion on how the student’s healthcare organisation addresses clinical governance, including risk identification and nurse-initiated audits.

Nursing practice to audit
(15%)

(15–12.75)
One appropriate nursing practice was selected to be audited. The nursing practice to be audited is comprehensively identified. The background to the audit is comprehensively discussed including the clinical risk(s) to the patient and the necessity of the audit to the student’s workplace, and nurse leaders involved in the decision-making.

(12.74–11.25)
One appropriate nursing practice was selected to be audited. The nursing practice to be audited is clearly identified. The background to the audit is completely discussed including the clinical risk(s) to the patient and the necessity of the audit to the student’s workplace, and nurse leaders involved in the decision-making.

(11.24–9.75)
One appropriate nursing practice was selected to be audited. The nursing practice to be audited is identified. The background to the audit is adequately discussed including the clinical risk(s) to the patient and the necessity of the audit to the student’s workplace, and nurse leaders involved in the decision-making.

(9.74–7.5)
One nursing practice was selected to be audited. The nursing practice to be audited is identified. The background to the audit is discussed including the clinical risk(s) to the patient and the necessity of the audit to the student’s workplace, and nurse leaders involved in the decision-making.

(7.4–0)
One appropriate nursing practice was not selected to be audited. The nursing practice to be audited is not stated or is not a nursing practice. The background to the audit is not adequately discussed and does not include the clinical risk(s) to the patient and the necessity of the audit to the student’s workplace, and nurse leaders involved in the decision-making.

National Safety and Quality Health Service Standard or Aged Care Quality Standards
(15%)

(15–12.75)
One National Safety and Quality Health Service Standard or one Aged Care Quality Standard has been identified and is the most relevant to the audit. The discussion comprehensively relates the Standard to the nursing practice being audited. Consistently and comprehensively integrates valid and relevant references to support and reflect all ideas, factual information, and quotations.

(12.74–11.25)
One National Safety and Quality Health Service Standard or one Aged Care Quality Standard has been identified and is the most relevant to the audit. The discussion completely relates the Standard to the nursing practice being audited. Consistently integrates valid and relevant references to support and reflect ideas, factual information, and quotations with 1 exception.

(11.24–9.75)
One National Safety and Quality Health Service Standard or one Aged Care Quality Standard has been identified and is relevant to the audit. The discussion adequately relates the Standard to the nursing practice being audited. Frequently integrates valid and relevant references to support and reflect ideas, factual information, and quotations, with 2 exceptions.

(9.74–7.5)
One National Safety and Quality Health Service Standard or one Aged Care Quality Standard has been identified and is relevant to the audit. The discussion relates the Standard to the nursing practice being audited but lacks clarity. Occasionally integrates valid and relevant references to support and reflect ideas, factual information, and quotations, with 3 exceptions.

(7.4–0)
One National Safety and Quality Health Service Standard or one Aged Care Quality Standards has been identified but is not relevant to the audit. The discussion does not relate the Standard to the nursing practice being audited. Minimal or no appropriate and/or valid and relevant references integrated to support arguments and factual ideas and/or cited excessive quotations reflecting the knowledge of others.

Description of audit
(15%)

(15–12.75)
The audit tool is comprehensively described using the student’s own words, including the origin of the tool, the measures of compliance, and audit components. A copy of the tool is attached in Appendix 1.

(12.74–11.25)
The audit tool is concisely described using the student’s own words, including the origin of the tool, the measures of compliance, and audit components. A copy of the tool is attached in Appendix 1.

(11.24–9.75)
The audit tool is adequately described using the student’s own words, including the origin of the tool, the measures of compliance, and audit components. A copy of the tool is attached in Appendix 1.

(9.74–7.5)
The audit tool is described using the student’s own words, including the origin of the tool, the measures of compliance, and audit components. A copy of the tool is attached in Appendix 1.

(7.4–0)
The audit tool is not described and/or does not use the student’s own words, and does not include the origin of the tool, the measures of compliance, or audit components. A copy of the tool is not attached in Appendix 1.

Steps to undertake the audit
(15%)

(15–12.75)
Steps to undertake the audit include a comprehensive list of the actions required to complete the project. The timelines proposed are realistic and achievable.

(12.74–11.25)
Steps to undertake the audit include a complete list of the actions required to complete the project. The timelines proposed are realistic.

(11.24–9.75)
Steps to undertake the audit include a mostly complete list of the actions required to complete the project. The timelines proposed are realistic.

(9.74–7.5)
Steps to undertake the audit include an adequate list of the actions required to complete the project. Some of the timelines proposed are realistic, some require revision.

(7.4–0)
Steps to undertake the audit do not include the actions required to complete the project. The timelines proposed are not realistic.

Professional writing and presentation
(10%)

(10–8.5)
Content is students own work, clear, accurate, and presented in a logical, succinct order demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the topic. There are no errors in English grammar, spelling, and punctuation. The language of the discipline is comprehensively used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 8, appropriate contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied without error. Adheres to the word count.

(8.4–7.5)
Content is students own work, frequently clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a good understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 1 error. The language of the discipline is frequently used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 7 appropriate contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 1 error. Adheres to the word count.

(7.4–6.5)
Content is students own work, mostly clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a sound understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 2 errors. The language of the discipline is mostly used. The assessment is substantiated with at least 6 appropriate contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 2 errors. Adheres to the word count.

(6.4–5)
Content is students own work, frequently clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a reasonable understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 3 errors. The language of the discipline is used. The assessment is substantiated with 10 or 5 contemporary peer-reviewed mostly appropriate journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 3 errors. Adheres to the word count.

(4.9–0)
Content is not students own work, consistently unclear or incorrect and is disorganised demonstrating insufficient understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling and punctuation conventions have ≥4 errors. The language of the discipline is infrequently or incorrectly used. The assessment is substantiated with ≤4 contemporary peer-reviewed, appropriate journal articles.  Formatting requirements applied with ≥4 errors. Deviates +/- 10% of the word count.

Reference quality and referencing accurately
(10%)

(10–8.5)
Acknowledges all sources and meets APA (7^th Edition) referencing standards with no errors. Literature cited is published in the last 5 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(8.4–7.5)
 Acknowledges majority of sources and/or meets APA (7^th Edition) referencing standards with 1 error. The majority of literature cited is published in the last 5 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(7.4–6.5)
Acknowledges most sources and/or meets APA (7^th Edition) referencing standards with 2 errors. Most literature cited has been published in the last 5 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(6.4–5)
Acknowledges sources and/or meets APA (7^th Edition) referencing standards with 3 errors. Some literature cited is published in the last 5 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(4.9–0)
Multiple sources not acknowledged and/or ≥4APA (7^th Edition) referencing errors or references not provided. Some literature cited is published ≥5 years and/or not sourced from the CQUniversity library.

TOTAL:

MARKER:

Marker’s feedback:

Key Criteria

High Distinction
84.5–100%

Distinction
74.50–84.49%

Credit
64.50–74.49%

Pass
49.50–64.49%

Fail
<49.5%

TOTAL

POSTER 50%

Presentation
(15%)

(15–12.75)
The poster aesthetics were pleasing and highly engaged the audience. The poster structure professionally and comprehensively presented the QI project with no errors in English grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Formatting and font size requirements were met with no errors. Used the required template. Discipline specific language was comprehensively used and is the students own work.

(11.25–12.74)
The poster aesthetics very effectively engaged the audience. The poster structure very effectively presented the QI project with a very high standard with one error in English grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Formatting and font size had one error. Used the required template. Discipline specific language was consistently used and is the students own work.

(9.75–11.24)
The poster aesthetics effectively engaged the audience. The poster structure effectively presented the QI project with a high standard with two errors in English grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Formatting and font size had two errors. Used the required template. Discipline specific language was mostly used and is the students own work.

(7.5–9.74)
The poster aesthetics mostly engaged the audience. The poster structure satisfactorily presented the QI project with mostly correct with three errors in English grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Formatting and font size had three errors. Used the required template. Discipline specific language was occasionally used and is the students own work.

(7.4–0)
The poster aesthetics did not engage the audience. The poster structure was unsatisfactory and there were four or more errors in English grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors. Formatting and font size had four or more errors. Did not use the required template. Discipline specific language was used inconsistently or not used and/or is not the students own work.

Content
(30%)

(30–25.5)
A comprehensive overview of the audit was provided. The audit steps were clearly and succinctly presented in the audit justification, background, data collection, results, recommendations and the audit cycle.

(25.4–22.4)
A concise overview of the audit was provided. The audit steps were very effectively presented in f the audit justification, background, data collection, results, recommendations and the audit cycle.

(22.3–19.4)
An effective overview of the audit was provided. The audit steps were effectively presented and included most of the audit justification, background, data collection, results, recommendations and the audit cycle.

(19.3–15)
A satisfactory overview of the audit was provided. The audit steps were mostly satisfactorily presented and included some of audit justification, background, data collection, results, recommendations and the audit cycle. There were some gaps in content. 

(14.9–0)
No clear overview of the audit was provided, and the project was poorly explained. The audit steps were not presented clearly including audit justification, background, data collection, results, recommendations and the audit cycle.

Substantiation and Referencing
(5%)

(5–4.25)
Acknowledges all sources and meets APA (7^th edition) style referencing standards with no errors. Literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(4.2–3.8)
Acknowledges majority of sources and/or meets APA (7^th edition) style referencing standards with 1 error. Literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(3.75–3.55)
Acknowledges most sources and/or meets APA (7^th edition) style referencing standards with 2 errors. Literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(3.50–2.5)
Acknowledges some sources and/or meets APA (7^th edition) style referencing standards with 3 errors. Some literature cited is published in the last 5 years. 

(2.45–0)
Acknowledges some sources and/or has ≥4 APA (7^th edition) style referencing errors. Some literature cited is published in the last 5 years or references are not provided.

ORAL PRESENTATION 50%

Presentation
(30%)

(30–25.5)
The presenter demonstrated expert understanding of their project and professionally and comprehensively presented the audit introducing the background information, description of the project and implications for practice.

(25.4–22.4)
The presenter demonstrated very good understanding of their project and comprehensively presented the audit introducing the background information, description of the project and implications for practice.

(22.3–19.4)
The presenter demonstrated good understanding of their project and thoroughly presented the audit introducing the background information, description of the project and implications for practice. 

(19.3–15)
The presenter demonstrated some understanding of their project and satisfactorily presented the audit introducing the background information, description of the project and implications for practice.

(14.9–0)
The presenter did not demonstrate understanding of their audit and did not adequately introduce the background information, describe the project and/or discuss implications for practice.

Questions
(10%)

(10–8.5)
The presenter comprehensively addressed audience questions.

(8.4–7.5)
The presenter clearly addressed audience questions.

(7.4–6.5)
The presenter effectively addressed audience questions.

(6.4–5)
The presenter mostly addressed the audience questions.

(4.9–0)
The presenter did not adequately address the audience questions.

Professional communication
(10%)

(10–8.5)
The presenter consistently engaged the audience, did not use notes, effectively used voice, eye contact and body language to maintain interest. Adheres to time limit.

(8.4–7.5)
The presenter mostly engaged the audience, used notes infrequently, effectively used voice, eye contact and body language to maintain interest. Adheres to time limit.

(7.4–6.5)
The presenter often engaged the audience, relied on their notes as a prompt, intermittently used voice, eye contact and body language to maintain interest. Adheres to time limit.

(6.4–5)
The presenter occasionally engaged the audience, read directly from notes, occasionally used voice, eye contact, and body language to maintain interest. Does not adhere to time limit (<1 min over).

(4.9–0)
The presenter inconsistently engaged / or did not engage the audience. Read directly from notes. No eye contact with the audience. Does not adhere to time limit (> 1 min over).

Total Marks:               / 100

Date:

Marker signature:

Student signature:

Marker’s feedback: