(10–8.5)

The essay has a clear and succinct introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides excellent background information and outlines the direction of the essay, and the conclusion succinctly summarises the key points.

(8.4–7.5)

The essay has a clear introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides good background information and outlines the direction of the essay, and the conclusion summarises most key points.

(7.4–6.5)

The essay has an adequate introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides some background information and outlines the direction of the essay, and the conclusion summarises some key points.

(6.4–5)

An essay and conclusion have been attempted. The introduction provides limited background information and outline of the essay’s direction, and the conclusion has a few key points.

(4.9–0)

The introduction has significant errors or omissions of aims and direction of content or the introduction is not provided. Logical direction of the essay is unclear. The conclusion does not summarise the assessment or is omitted.

(20–17)

An appropriate chronic or complex health condition was assessed. Comprehensive health assessment data was presented. Comprehensive review of credible literature using relevant, seminal and/or current evidence was accessed to inform the nursing assessment and impact of the case study’s chronic or complex health condition.

(16.9–15)

An appropriate chronic or complex health condition was assessed. Appropriate health assessment data was presented. Detailed review of predominantly credible literature using relevant, seminal and/or current evidence was accessed to inform the nursing assessment and impact of the case study’s chronic or complex health condition.

(14.9–13)

An appropriate chronic or complex health condition was assessed. Mostly appropriate health assessment data was presented. A review of the literature using mostly relevant, seminal and/or current evidence was accessed to inform the nursing assessment demonstrating the impact of the case study’s chronic or complex health condition.

(12.9–10)

An appropriate chronic or complex health condition was assessed. Some appropriate health assessment data was presented. Some health assessment data was omitted. An incomplete review of the literature using some relevant and/or current sources of evidence was accessed to inform the nursing assessment and impact of the case study’s chronic or complex health condition. Some content was omitted.

(9.9–0)

An inappropriate chronic or complex health condition was assessed. Minimal appropriate health assessment data was presented. Significant health relevant health assessment data was omitted. Minimal or no relevant evidence was accessed to inform the assessment and impact of the case study’s chronic or complex health condition. Significant content was omitted.

(20–17)

Comprehensive discussion of the person’s and family’s understanding of the clinical manifestations of the chronic or complex health condition. Thorough and concise discussion of the feelings and concerns of the individual’s chronic or complex health condition on their quality of life presented. Person-centred and family coping mechanisms for self-management of the chronic or complex health condition meticulously discussed. Evidence was meticulously incorporated.

(16.9–15)

Concise discussion of the person’s and family’s understanding of the clinical manifestations of the chronic or complex health condition. Concise discussion of the feelings and concerns of the individual’s chronic or complex health condition on their quality of life presented. Person-centred and family coping mechanisms for self-management of the chronic or complex health condition concisely discussed. Evidence was challenged.

(14.9–13)

Mostly concise discussion of the person’s and family’s understanding of the clinical manifestations of the chronic or complex health condition. Mostly concise discussion of the feelings and concerns of the individual’s chronic or complex health condition on their quality of life presented. Person-centred and family coping mechanisms for self-management of the chronic or complex health condition was discussed with some detail. Evidence was accepted with some challenge.

(12.9–10)

A discussion of the person’s and family’s understanding of the clinical manifestations of the chronic or complex health condition. A discussion of the feelings and concerns of the individual’s chronic or complex health condition on their quality of life presented. Person-centred and family coping mechanisms for self-management of the chronic or complex health condition discussed. Evidence was accepted with minimal challenge.

(9.9–0)

Discussion of the person’s and family’s understanding of the clinical manifestations of the chronic or complex health condition was inaccurate or omitted. A discussion of the feelings and concerns of the individual’s chronic or complex health condition on their quality of life presented was omitted. Person-centred and family coping mechanisms for self-management of the chronic or complex health condition comprehensively discussed. Evidence was incorrectly or not challenged.

(20–17)

Appropriate members of the multidisciplinary healthcare team thoroughly consulted with nurse-led advocacy for the person with a chronic or complex health condition. One appropriate collaborative and one nurse-led intervention related to management of the person’s chronic or complex health condition discussed. Advocacy for one collaborative and one nurse-led intervention for improved healthcare outcomes comprehensively justified. Evidence was meticulously incorporated.

(16.9–15)

Appropriate members of the multidisciplinary healthcare team consistently consulted with nurse-led advocacy for the person with a chronic or complex health condition. One appropriate collaborative and one nurse-led intervention related to management of the person’s chronic or complex health condition discussed. Advocacy for one collaborative and one nurse-led intervention for improved healthcare outcomes concisely justified. Evidence was challenged.

(14.9–13)

Appropriate members of the multidisciplinary healthcare team were mostly consulted with nurse-led advocacy for the person with a chronic or complex health condition. One appropriate collaborative and one nurse-led intervention related to management of the person’s chronic or complex health condition discussed. Advocacy for one collaborative and one nurse-led intervention for improved healthcare outcomes mostly justified. Evidence was accepted with some challenge.

(12.9–10)

Appropriate members of the multidisciplinary healthcare team occasionally consulted with nurse-led advocacy for the person with a chronic or complex health condition. One appropriate collaborative and one nurse-led intervention related to management of the person’s chronic or complex health condition discussed. Justification for advocacy for one collaborative and one nurse-led intervention for improved healthcare outcomes attempted. Evidence was accepted with minimal challenge.

(9.9–0)

Appropriate members of the multidisciplinary healthcare team not consulted with nurse-led advocacy for the person with a chronic or complex health condition. One appropriate collaborative and one nurse-led intervention related to management of the person’s chronic or complex health condition inaccurately discussed or omitted. Justification for advocacy for one collaborative and one nurse-led intervention for improved healthcare outcomes inaccurately attempted or omitted. Evidence was incorrectly or not challenged.

(10–8.5)

Reflection on what, why and how you, as the registered nurse have advocated for improved healthcare outcomes for your patient with a complex or chronic health condition is comprehensively and succinctly evident.

(8.4–7.5)

Reflection on what, why and how you, as the registered nurse have advocated for improved healthcare outcomes for your patient with a complex or chronic health condition is consistently and clearly evident.

(7.4–6.5)

Reflection on what, why and how you, as the registered nurse have advocated for improved healthcare outcomes for your patient with a complex or chronic health condition is discussed but there are some gaps in your reflection.

(6.4–5)

Reflection on what, why and how you, as the registered nurse have advocated for improved healthcare outcomes for your patient with a complex or chronic health condition is overviewed but there are many gaps in your reflection.

(4.9–0)

Reflection on what, why and how you, as the registered nurse have advocated for improved healthcare outcomes for your patient with a complex or chronic health condition is unclear, has many gaps or omitted.

(10–8.5)

Content is 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. Language of the discipline is comprehensively used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 15, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied without error.

(8.4–7.5)

Content is 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. Language of the discipline is frequently used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 13 or 14 appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 1 error.

(7.4–6.5)

Content is 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. Language of the discipline is mostly used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 11 or 12 appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 2 errors.

(6.4–5)

Content is 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. Language of the discipline is used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 10 or 11 contemporary peer reviewed mostly appropriate journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 3 errors.

(4.9–0)

Content is consistently unclear or incorrect and is disorganised demonstrating insufficient understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have ≥4 errors. Language of the discipline is infrequently or incorrectly used. The assessment is substantiated with ≤10 contemporary peer reviewed, appropriate journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with ≥4 errors.

(10–8.5)

Acknowledges all sources or literature. Meets APA 7^th edn referencing standards with no errors. Literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(8.4–7.5)

Acknowledges majority of sources of literature. Meets APA 7^th edn referencing standards with 1 error. Majority of literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(7.4–6.5)

Acknowledges most sources of literature. Meets APA 7^th edn referencing standards with 2 errors. Most literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(6.4–5.0)

Acknowledges some sources of literature. Meets APA 7^th edn referencing standards with 3 errors. Some literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(4.9–0)

Acknowledges some sources and/or has ≥5 or more APA 7^th edn referencing errors or references not provided. Acknowledges some sources of literature, and/or has ≥4 or more APA 7^th edn referencing standards errors. Cites ≤10 sources of evidence and/or evidence is not appropriate. Majority of literature cited is published ≥5 years.

(10–8.5) 

The case study has a clear and succinct introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides excellent background information and outlines the direction of the case study, and the conclusion succinctly summarises the key points.

(8.4–7.5)

The case study has a clear introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides good background information and outlines the direction of the case study, and the conclusion summarises most key points.

(7.4–6.5)

The case study has an adequate introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides some background information and outlines the direction of the case study, and the conclusion summarises some key points.

(6.4–5)

An introduction and conclusion have been attempted in the case study. The introduction provides limited background information and outline of the case study’s direction, and the conclusion has a few key points.

(4.9–0)

The introduction has significant errors or omissions of aims and direction of content or the introduction is not provided. Logical direction of the case study is unclear. The conclusion does not summarise the assessment or is omitted.

(10–8.5)

A clear and detailed overview of the case study is provided, including the person’s demographics, presenting issue, the care setting and the nurses role. A clear and detailed summary of the person’s psychosocial information and their quality of life is provided.

(8.4–7.5)

A clear overview of the case study is provided, including the person’s demographics, presenting issue, the care setting and the nurses role. A clear summary of the person’s psychosocial information and their quality of life is provided.

(7.4–6.5)

Appropriate overview of the case study is provided, including the person’s demographics, presenting issue, the care setting and the nurses role. Appropriate summary of the person’s psychosocial information and their quality of life is provided.

(6.4–5)

An overview of the case study is provided; however, it is not inclusive of all elements listed in the assessment. A summary of the psychosocial is apparent, but it not detailed.

(4.9–0)

The case study is unclear or omitted, or very limited overview of the person is provided. Psychosocial information is missing or is limited.

(10–8.5)

Pathophysiology, risk factors, signs and symptoms and potential complications of a complex or chronic are comprehensively discussed.

(8.4–7.5)

Pathophysiology, risk factors, signs and symptoms and potential complications of a complex or chronic are discussed with moderate detail.

(7.4–6.5)

Pathophysiology, risk factors, signs and symptoms and potential complications of a complex or chronic are appropriately discussed with some detail.

(6.4–5)

Pathophysiology, risk factors, signs and symptoms and potential complications of a complex or chronic are presented, however lacks detailed discussion.

(4.9–0)

Pathophysiology, risk factors, signs and symptoms and potential complications of a complex or chronic have limited discussion or inaccurate discussion or are omitted from discussion.

(30–25.5)

Two best practice nurse-led interventions for the RN are comprehensively discussed and related back to the concept of advanced nursing practice.

(25.4–22.4)

Two best practice nurse-led interventions for the RN are discussed in detail and related back to the concept of advanced nursing practice.

(22.3–19.4)

Two best practice nurse-led interventions for the RN are discussed with some detail and related back to the concept of advanced nursing practice.

(19.3–15)

Two best practice nurse-led interventions for the RN are presented, however there is limited discussion in its relevance and has limited discussion to the concept of advanced nursing practice.

(14.9–0)

Very limited or no discussion of two best practice nurse-led interventions for the RN. There is limited or no discussion in relation to the concept of advanced nursing practice.

(20–17)

A comprehensive reflection using Driscoll’s framework is provided. Implications for future practice are comprehensively discussed.

(16.9–15)

A detailed reflection using Driscoll’s framework is provided. Implications for future practice are concisely discussed.

(14.9–13)

An appropriate reflection using Driscoll’s framework is provided. Implications for future practice are mostly discussed.

(12.9–10)

A limited reflection using Driscoll’s framework is provided. Some implications for future practice are presented but are limited.

(9.9–0)

An inadequate reflection is provided using Driscoll’s framework or is omitted. Minimal implications for future practice are provided or they are omitted.

(10–8.5)

Content is 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. Language of the discipline is comprehensively used. Formatting requirements applied without error. Literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(8.4–7.5)

Content is 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. Language of the discipline is frequently used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 13 or 14 appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 1 error. Majority of literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(7.4–6.5)

Content is 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. Language of the discipline is mostly used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 11 or 12 appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 2 errors. Most literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(6.4–5)

Content is 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. Language of the discipline is used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 10 or 11 contemporary peer reviewed mostly appropriate journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 3 errors. Some literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(4.9–0)

Content is consistently unclear or incorrect and is disorganised demonstrating insufficient understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have ≥4 errors. Language of the discipline is infrequently or incorrectly used. The assessment is substantiated with ≤10 contemporary peer reviewed, appropriate journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with ≥4 errors. Majority of literature cited is published ≥5 years.

(10–8.5)

Acknowledges all sources or literature. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 15, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th edn referencing standards with no errors in-text and the reference list.

(8.4–7.5)

Acknowledges majority of sources of literature. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 13–14, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th edn referencing standards with 1 error in-text and the reference list.

(7.4–6.5)

Acknowledges most sources of literature. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 11–12, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th edn referencing standards with 2 errors in-text and the reference list.

(6.4–5.0)

Acknowledges some sources of literature. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 10–11, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th edn referencing standards with 3 errors in-text and the reference list.

(4.9–0)

Acknowledges some sources and/or has ≥5 or more APA 7^th edn referencing errors or references not provided. Acknowledges some sources of literature, and/or has ≥4 or more APA 7^th edn referencing standards errors in-text and the reference list. Cites ≤10 sources of evidence and/or evidence is not appropriate.

(10–8.5)

The case study has a clear and succinct introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides excellent background information and outlines the direction of the case study, and the conclusion succinctly summarises the key points.

(8.4–7.5)

The case study has a clear introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides good background information and outlines the direction of the case study, and the conclusion summarises most key points.

(7.4–6.5)

The case study has an adequate introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides some background information and outlines the direction of the case study, and the conclusion summarises some key points.

(6.4–5)

An introduction and conclusion have been attempted in the case study. The introduction provides limited background information and outline of the case study’s direction, and the conclusion has a few key points.

(4.9–0)

The introduction has significant errors or omissions of aims and direction of content or the introduction is not provided. Logical direction of the case study is unclear. The conclusion does not summarise the assessment or is omitted.

(10–8.5)

An engaging and well-planned presentation. The presentation material is logical, clear, concise, and convincing. Adheres to the time limit. Holds the audience’s attention with use of eye contact. Speaks with fluctuation in volume and inflection to maintain audience engagement. Answers audiences’ questions comprehensively.

(8.4–7.5)

A well-planned, logical, and clear presentation. The presentation material is generally logical, concise and convincing. Adheres to the time limit. Holds the audience’s attention with use of eye contact. Speaks with fluctuation in volume and inflection to maintain audience engagement. Answers audiences’ questions soundly.

(7.4–6.5)

The presentation needs to be more concise and convincing but is primarily comprehensive. Mostly adheres to the time limit. Mostly holds the audience’s attention with use of eye contact. Speaks with some fluctuation in volume and inflection to maintain audience engagement. Answers audiences’ questions adequately.

(6.4–5)

The presentation requires more flow and be more concise and comprehensive. The presentation runs over the time limit. Some eye contact is made to engage the audience on occasion. Speaks with some fluctuation in volume and inflection to maintain audience engagement. Answers some of the audiences’ questions but some content is omitted.

(4.9–0)

The presentation could be clearer. It is not logical OR unclear. Does not adhere to the time limit. Minimal or no eye contact made reducing the audience’s engagement. Speaks with minimal or no fluctuation in volume and inflection to maintain audience engagement. Answers audiences’ questions incompletely or not at all.

(20–17)

Comprehensively and concisely discussed the advanced nursing practice that they provided to the person with the complex or chronic health condition. Succinctly articulated how this practice is ‘advanced’.

(16.9–15)

Concisely discussed the advanced nursing practice that they provided to the person with the complex or chronic health condition. Provided a rationale for how this practice is ‘advanced’.

(14.9–13)

Mostly discussed the advanced nursing practice that they provided to the person with the complex or chronic health condition. Provided a rationale for how this practice is ‘advanced’.

(12.9–10)

Provided some discussion on the advanced nursing practice that they provided to the person with the complex or chronic health condition. Provided some rationale for how this practice is ‘advanced’.

(9.9–0)

Limited or no discussion on the advanced nursing practice that they provided to the person with the complex or chronic health condition. Provided limited rationale for how this practice is ‘advanced’.

(20–17)

Comprehensively and concisely discussed the concept of advocacy linking this to advanced practice. Provided specific examples of how they advocated for the person with a complex or chronic health condition and reflected upon the efficacy of this.

(16.9–15)

Concisely discussed the concept of advocacy linking this to advanced practice. Provided specific examples of how they advocated for the person with a complex or chronic health condition and reflected upon the efficacy of this.

(14.9–13)

Discussed the concept of advocacy linking this to advanced practice. Provided examples of how they advocated for the person with a complex or chronic health condition and reflected upon the efficacy of this.

(12.9–10)

Appropriate discussion the concept of advocacy linking this to advanced practice. Provided examples of how they advocated for the person with a complex or chronic health condition and reflected upon the efficacy of this.

(9.9–0)

Limited discussion on the concept of advocacy with weak or no linking this to advanced practice. Provided minimal or no examples of how they advocated for the person with a complex or chronic health condition and had limited reflection upon the efficacy of this.

(20–17)

A comprehensive reflection is provided including: - Reflection on how peer nurses might be encouraged to develop advanced their nursing practice. - One factor which enabled and one barrier to advanced practice is discussed. - Explored one element of advanced practice that nurse does well. - Explored of one elements of advanced practice which can be further developed.

(16.9–15)

A detailed reflection is provided including: - Reflection on how peer nurses might be encouraged to develop advanced nursing practice. - One factor which enabled and one barrier to advanced nursing practice was discussed. - Explored of one element of advanced practice that nurse does well. - Explored of one elements of advanced practice which can be further developed.

(14.9–13)

An appropriate reflection is provided including: - Reflection on how peer nurses might be encouraged to develop advanced nursing practice. - One factor which enabled and one barrier to advanced nursing practice was discussed. - Explored of one element of advanced practice that nurse does well. - Explored of one elements of advanced practice which can be further developed.

(12.9–10)

A limited reflection is provided including: - Reflection on how a peer nurses might be encouraged to develop advanced nursing practice. - One factor which enabled and one barrier to advanced nursing practice was discussed. - Explored of one element of advanced practice that nurse does well. - Explored of one elements of advanced practice which can be further developed.

(9.9–0)

An inadequate reflection is provided which does not include all elements or is very limited in discussion: - Reflection on how a peer nurses might be encouraged to develop advanced nursing practice. - One factor which enabled and one barrier to advanced nursing practice was discussed. - Explored one element of advanced practice that nurse does well. - Exploration of one elements of advanced practice which can be further developed.

(10–8.5)

Content is 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. Language of the discipline is comprehensively used. Formatting requirements applied without error. The poster is aesthetically pleasing and holds the audience’s attention. Figures, photos and text are well balanced on the PowerPoint presentation. Font size and style enhance readability of the PowerPoint presentation. Literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(8.4–7.5)

Content is 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. Language of the discipline is frequently used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 13 or 14 appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 1 error. Figures, photos and text are well balanced on the PowerPoint presentation. Font size and style enhance readability of the PowerPoint presentation. Majority of literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(7.4–6.5)

Content is 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. Language of the discipline is mostly used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 11 or 12 appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 2 errors. Figures, photos and text are well balanced on the PowerPoint presentation. Font size and style enhance readability of the PowerPoint presentation. Most literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(6.4–5)

Content is 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. Language of the discipline is used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 10 or 11 contemporary peer reviewed mostly appropriate journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 3 errors. Figures, photos and text are well balanced on the PowerPoint presentation. Font size and style enhance readability of the PowerPoint presentation. Some literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(4.9–0)

Content is consistently unclear or incorrect and is disorganised demonstrating insufficient understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have ≥4 errors. Language of the discipline is infrequently or incorrectly used. The assessment is substantiated with ≤10 contemporary peer reviewed, appropriate journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with ≥4 errors. Figures, photos and text are not balanced on the PowerPoint presentation. Font size and style detract from the readability of the PowerPoint presentation. Majority of literature cited is published ≥5 years.

(10–8.5)

Acknowledges all sources or literature. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 15, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th edn referencing standards with no errors in-text and the reference list.

(8.4–7.5)

Acknowledges majority of sources of literature. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 13–14, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th edn referencing standards with 1 error in-text and the reference list.

(7.4–6.5)

Acknowledges most sources of literature. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 11–12, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th edn referencing standards with 2 errors in-text and the reference list.

(6.4–5.0)

Acknowledges some sources of literature. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 10–11, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th edn referencing standards with 3 errors in-text and the reference list.

(4.9–0)

Acknowledges some sources and/or has ≥5 or more APA 7^th edn referencing errors or references not provided. Acknowledges some sources of literature, and/or has ≥4 or more APA 7^th edn referencing standards errors in-text and the reference list. Cites ≤10 sources of evidence and/or evidence is not appropriate.