(10–8.5)

A total of 6 slides used that are aesthetically outstanding and holds the audience’s attention. The slides are free of unnecessary detail and are succinct and readable. The slides contain a very appealing array of appropriate script and graphics. Font style and size enhances the readability.

(8.4–7.5)

A total of 6 slides used that are aesthetically pleasing and holds the audience’s attention. The slides are free of unnecessary detail, succinct and readable. The slides contain an appealing array of appropriate script and graphics. Font style and size enhances the readability.

(7.4–6.5)

A total of 6 slides used that are mostly aesthetically pleasing and holds the audience’s attention. The slides are mostly free of unnecessary detail, are succinct and readable. The slides contain appropriate script and graphics. Font style and size is legible.

(6.4–5)

A total of 6 slides used A total of 6 slides used that are aesthetically pleasing and sometimes holds the audience’s attention. The slides contain some appropriate script and graphics. Font style and size is often difficult to read.

(4.9–0)

More or less than 6 slides have been used. The slides are disorganised and are distracting to the audience’s attention. Slides contain unnecessary detail, are cluttered or are difficult to read. The slides do not contain appropriate script and graphics.

(10–8.5)

The presenter very readily engages the audience. The presenter speaks very clearly, demonstrating enthusiasm for the topic. Each slide is very clearly articulated and justified, and the presenter uses fluctuation in voice volume and tone, emphasises key points, and does not refer to notes during the presentation. Topic is very clearly presented. The presenter comprehensively addresses audience questions.

(8.4–7.5)

The presenter readily engages the audience. The presenter speaks clearly, demonstrating enthusiasm for the topic. Each slide is clearly articulated and justified. The presenter uses fluctuation in voice volume and tone, emphasises key points, and does not refer to notes during the presentation. Topic is clearly presented. The presenter clearly addresses audience questions.

(7.4–6.5)

The presenter engages the audience. The presenter speaks well and demonstrates some enthusiasm for the topic. Each slide is articulated and justified. The presenter often uses fluctuation in voice volume and tone, mostly emphasised key points, and occasionally referred to notes during the presentation. Topic is presented. The presenter effectively addresses audience questions.

(6.4–5)

The presenter somewhat engages the audience. The presenter speaks well at times and attempts to demonstrate enthusiasm for the topic. Each slide is discussed and somewhat justified. The presenter occasionally used fluctuation in voice volume and tone, occasionally emphasised key points, and often referred to notes during the presentation. Topic is presented but lacks clarity. The presenter mostly addresses the audience questions.

(4.9–0)

The presenter does not engage the audience in the presentation. The presenter does not speak clearly nor demonstrate enthusiasm for the topic. Each slide is either not discussed or is poorly discussed, or poorly or not justified. The presenter rarely used fluctuation in voice volume and tone, rarely emphasised key points, and consistently referred to notes during the presentation. Topic is not clearly presented. Audience questions are not adequately addressed.

(20-17)

The presentation provides a comprehensive search of the literature on the nursing assessment and management of hypovolaemic and anaphylactic shock. Content accurately synthsises the definition of shock, and hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock and thoroughly discusses the various clinical presentations and the impact of hypovolaemic and anaphylactic shock in relation to the medical-surgical patient.

(16.9-15)

The presentation provides a concise search of the literature on the nursing assessment and management of hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock. Content clearly defines shock, and hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock and discusses the various clinical presentations and the impact of hypovolaemic and anaphylactic shock in relation to the medical-surgical patient.

(14.9-13)

The presentation provides a generalised search of the literature on the nursing assessment and management of hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock. Content defines shock, and hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock and discusses some aspects of clinical presentations and the impact of hypovolaemic and anaphylactic shock in relation to the medical-surgical patient.

(12.9-10)

The presentation provides some content on the nursing assessment and management of hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock. A definition of shock, and hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock is quoted. The discussion of the of clinical presentations and the impact of hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock presented but lacks clarity in relation to the medical-surgical patient.

(9.9-0)

The presentation incompletely or inaccurately presents the nursing assessment and management of hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock. A definition of shock, and hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock is vague, inaccurate or omitted. Discussion of the of clinical presentations and the impact of hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock is inaccurate or omitted in relation to the medical-surgical patient.

(20-17)

Extremely concise and comprehensive explanation and justification of a planned nursing care approach of the medical-surgical patient experiencing hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock. Scholarly literature is consistently used to support the nursing care plan.

(16.9-15)

Concise explanation and justification of a planned nursing care approach of the medical-surgical patient experiencing hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock. Scholarly literature is used to support the nursing care plan.

(14.9-13)

Mostly concise explanation and justification of a planned nursing care approach of the medical-surgical patient experiencing hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock. Scholarly literature is mostly used to support the nursing care plan.

(12.9-10)

The nursing care approach is provided for the medical-surgical patient experiencing hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock. Some scholarly literature used to support the nursing care plan.

(9.9-0)

The nursing care approach for the medical-surgical patient experiencing hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock is incorrect or omitted. Minimal or no scholarly literature is used to support the nursing care plan.

(30-25.5)

Comprehensively devised and justified nursing care plan for the nursing assessment and management of hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock that applies the Registered Nurse Standards of Practice to deliver person-centred care. Nursing care plan succinctly discusses assessment data prompting the registered nurse to further investigate hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock to minimise health risks and optimise health outcomes of the medical-surgical patient.

(25.4-22.4)

Concisely devised and justified nursing care plan for the nursing assessment and management of hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock that applies pertinent Registered Nurse Standards of Practice to deliver person-centred care. Nursing care plan concisely discusses assessment data prompting the registered nurse to further investigate hypovolaemic shock and anaphylactic shock to minimise health risks and optimise health outcomes of the medical-surgical patient.

(22.3-19.4)

Mostly concise and justified nursing care plan presenting the nursing assessment and management of hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock and applies some relevant Registered Nurse Standards of Practice to deliver person-centred care. Nursing care plan discusses most assessment data prompting the registered nurse to further investigate hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock to minimise health risks and optimise health outcomes of the medical-surgical patient.

(19.3-15)

A nursing care plan with some justification is presented however some nursing assessment and management of hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock is vaguely discussed. Registered Nurse Standards of Practice to deliver person-centred care are presented but with minimal detail. Nursing care plan content has limited discussion of assessment data prompting the registered nurse to further investigate hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock to minimise health risks and optimise health outcomes of the medical-surgical patient.

(14.9-0)

A nursing care plan is presented however there are significant inaccuracies in the nursing assessment and management of hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock. Registered Nurse Standards of Practice to deliver person-centred care are discussed with little or no detail. Nursing care plan has incorrect or omitted discussion of the assessment data prompting the registered nurse to further investigate hypovolaemic or anaphylactic shock to minimise health risks and optimise health outcomes of the medical-surgical patient.

(5–4.25)

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 presentation is substantiated with a minimum of ≥8 contemporary peer reviewed journal articles and integration of the Registered Nurse Standards for Practice.

(4.2–3.8)

Content is frequently clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating good understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling and punctuation conventions have 1 error. Language of the discipline frequently used. The presentation is substantiated with 7 contemporary peer reviewed journal articles and the Registered Nurse Standards for Practice are applied throughout the presentation.

(3.75–3.55)

Content is mostly clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating sound understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling and punctuation conventions have 2 errors. Language of the discipline mostly used. The presentation is substantiated with 6 contemporary peer reviewed journal articles and there is reference to the Registered Nurse Standards for Practice throughout the presentation.

(3.50–2.5)

Content is presented with some clarity, is mostly correct and presented with some structure demonstrating reasonable understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling and punctuation conventions have 3 errors. Language of the discipline is sometimes used. The presentation is substantiated with 5 contemporary peer reviewed journal articles and the Registered Nurse Standards for Practice are inconsistently referred to.

(2.45–0)

Content is unclear or incorrect, and presentation of content is disorganised demonstrating insufficient understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling and punctuation conventions have ≥4 errors. Language of the discipline infrequently or not used. The presentation is substantiated with ≤4 contemporary peer reviewed journal articles and the Registered Nurse Standards for Practice are occasionally or not cited.

(5–4.25)

Acknowledges all sources and meets APA 7 referencing standards with no errors. Literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(4.2–3.8)

Acknowledges majority or sources and/or meets APA 7 referencing standards with 1 or 2 errors. Literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(3.50–2.5)

Acknowledges sources and/or meets APA 7 referencing standards with 4 errors. Some literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(2.45–0)

Acknowledges some sources and/or has ≥4 or more APA 7 referencing errors or references not provided.

(10–8.5)

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

(8.4–7.5)

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

(7.4–6.5)

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

(6.4–5)

An introduction and conclusion have been attempted. The introduction provides limited background information and outline of the portfolio’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 assessment is unclear. The conclusion does not summarise the assessment or is omitted.

(20–17)

Comprehensive review of credible literature using relevant, seminal and/or current evidence was accessed to inform the nursing assessment and management of the metabolic, biophysical and cognitive changes demonstrating the impact on the health integrity and safety of Mr Chalk.

(16.9–15)

Detailed review of predominantly credible literature using relevant, seminal and/or current evidence was accessed to inform the nursing assessment and management of the metabolic, biophysical and cognitive changes demonstrating the impact on the health integrity and safety of Mr Chalk.

(14.9–13)

A review of the literature using mostly relevant, seminal and/or current evidence was accessed to inform the nursing assessment and management of the metabolic, biophysical and cognitive changes demonstrating the impact on the health integrity and safety of Mr Chalk.

(12.9–10)

An incomplete review of the literature using some relevant and/or current sources of evidence was accessed to inform the nursing assessment and management of the metabolic, biophysical and cognitive changes and its impact on the health integrity and safety of Mr Chalk. Some content was omitted.

(9.9–0)

Minimal or no relevant evidence was accessed to inform the assessment and management of the metabolic, biophysical and cognitive changes and the impact of these conditions on the health integrity and safety of Mr Chalk. Significant content was omitted.

(25–21.25)

The NANDA nursing care plan comprehensively included nursing assessments, diagnosis, interventions, outcomes and evaluation criteria for Mr Chalk. Rationale/s and justification for the nursing care plan consistently integrated throughout assessment demonstrating person-centred care for Mr Chalk.

(21.24–18.75)

The NANDA nursing care plan concisely included nursing assessments, diagnosis, interventions, outcomes and evaluation criteria for Mr Chalk. Rationale/s and justification for the nursing care plan integrated throughout assessment demonstrating person-centred care for Mr Chalk.

(18.74–16.25)

The NANDA nursing care plan included most nursing assessments, diagnosis, interventions, outcomes and evaluation criteria for Mr Chalk. Most rationale/s and justification for nursing care plan were provided demonstrating person-centred care for Mr Chalk.

(16.2–12.5)

The NANDA nursing care plan was partly provided however some nursing assessments, diagnosis, interventions, outcomes and evaluation criteria for Mr Chalk we omitted. Some rationale/s and justification for nursing care plan were provided. Person-centred care for Mr Chalk was not consistently evident.

(12.5–0)

The NANDA nursing care plan was inaccurate or omitted demonstrating lack of person-centred care for Mr Chalk’s nursing assessments, diagnosis, interventions, outcomes and evaluation criteria. Rationale/s and justification for nursing care plan were inaccurate or omitted.

(30–25.5)

Thorough, concise, comprehensive and appropriate person-centred NANDA nursing care plan that demonstrates effective nursing management of the metabolic, biophysical, and cognitive changes that Mr Chalk is experiencing. Evidence was comprehensively challenged.

(25.4–22.4)

Concise and appropriate person-centred NANDA nursing care plan that demonstrates effective nursing management of the metabolic, biophysical, and cognitive changes that Mr Chalk is experiencing. Evidence was challenged.

(22.3–19.4)

Mostly concise and appropriate person-centred NANDA nursing care plan that demonstrates effective nursing management of the metabolic, biophysical, and cognitive changes that Mr Chalk is experiencing. Evidence was accepted with minimal challenge.

(19.3–15)

The NANDA nursing care plan was mostly complete and included some person-centred care for the nursing management of Mr Chalk’s metabolic, biophysical, and cognitive changes. Evidence was accepted with minimal challenge.

(14.9–0)

The NANDA nursing care plan is inaccurate or omitted and/or demonstrates little or no discussion of the metabolic, biophysical, and cognitive changes that Mr Chalk is experiencing. Evidence was not challenged.

(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 ≥10–12 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 good understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling and punctuation conventions have 1 error. Language of the discipline frequently used. The assessment is substantiated with 8–10 contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with minimal error.

(7.4–6.5)

Content is mostly clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating sound understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling and punctuation conventions have 2 errors. Language of the discipline mostly used. The assessment is substantiated with 6–7 contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with some error.

(6.4–5)

Content is frequently clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating good understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling and punctuation conventions have 3 errors. Language of the discipline frequently used. The assessment is substantiated with 6 contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with moderate error.

(4.9–0)

Content is consistently unclear or incorrect and content is disorganised demonstrating insufficient understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling and punctuation conventions have ≥4 errors. Language of the discipline infrequently or incorrectly used. The assessment is substantiated with ≤4 contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements are inaccurately or not applied.

(5–4.25)

Acknowledges all sources and meets APA 7 referencing standards with no errors. Literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(4.24–3.8)

Acknowledges majority or sources and/or meets APA 7 referencing standards with 1 or 2 errors. Literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(3.75–3.55)

Acknowledges most sources and/or meets APA 7 referencing standards with 3 errors. Literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(3.5–2.5)

Acknowledges sources and/or meets APA 7 referencing standards with 4 errors. Some literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(2.4–0)

Acknowledges some sources and/or has ≥5 or more APA 7 referencing errors or references not provided.