Assessment 2-Case study based written assignment Assignment 2 instructions Key components of the assignment 1. Interview a client with a chronic illness/ condition (chronic kidney disease) and collect...

Assessment 2-Case study based written assignment
Assignment 2 instructions
Key components of the assignment
1. Interview a client with a chronic illness/ condition (chronic kidney disease) and collect the required information for your case study. E.g. medical history and cormo
ities.
2. In your own words, discuss the pathophysiology of the chronic illness/ condition, include the contributing factors, the related clinical manifestations and any other como
idities the client may have.
3. Discuss the impact of the disease/ illness on health of the person and the family/ carer.
4. Use evidence-based practice to recommend multidisciplinary prevention strategies / resources to enhance better outcomes for the client, family and care giver, including pharmacological management.
Due date:    Sunday 20th of October - Midnight
Length:    2,000 words
Mark loading:    50%
There have been a few inquiries around interviewing a client for the second assignment. You are not expected to conduct a formal interview as such. You can use a made up scenario in the form of a case study of a client that has your particular condition .If you are able to access a client with the condition you were given please conduct an interview with them as long as you have their permission to do so, remembering privacy and confidentiality. 
Please ensure that you use sub headings according to your assignment criteria.
REFERENCES: 20 (no old than 5-7 years).
    
    ASSESSMENT MARKING GUIDE FOR ASSIGNMENT 2
    CRITERIA
    HIGH DISTINCTION
    DISTINCTION
    CREDIT
    PASS
    FAIL
    MARKS
    
Introduction of the client and the direction of the paper. Conclusion draws ideas together.
    (11-12)
1.Thoroughly but concisely introduces the chronic disease/ illness/ disability and the direction of the paper is very clear.
2. Insightfully provides a conclusion that highlights the key points and draws the ideas together in a cohesive manner.
    (9-10)
1. Adequately introduces the chronic disease/ illness/ disability and the direction of the paper is clear.
2. Insightfully provides a conclusion that highlights some key points and draws the ideas together in a cohesive manner.
    (7-8)
1. Introduction of the chronic disease/ illness/ disability and there is an attempt to introduce the paper.
2. Provides a conclusion that highlights some key points and draws the ideas together.
    (6)
1. Does not sufficiently introduce the chronic disease/ illness/ disability and the direction of the paper is unclear and or inaccurate.
2. Conclusion does not sufficiently highlight the key points and does not draw the ideas together.
    (0-5)
1. Does not introduce the chronic disease/ illness/ disability and the direction of the paper is unclear.
3. Conclusion does not summarise key points and is unclear and or missing information.
    
12
    
Discuss the pathophysiology of the chronic illness/ disease, include contributing factors, the related clinical manifestations and any other como
idities
    (25-32)
1. Clearly describes the contributing/ risk factors and has provided relevant literature to support argument.
2. Uses relevant, convincing evidence and is able to make connection to the chronic medical condition/ illness/ disability and clinical manifestations.
3. Excellent understanding of the como
idities which have been well supported and articulated.
4. Extensively draws from literature and insightfully relates the pathophysiology to the chronic condition/ illness.
    (22-24)
1. Describes the contributing/ risk factors and has provided relevant literature to support argument.
2. Draws from relevant literature and adequate connections have been made to the medical condition and clinical manifestations.
3. Good understanding of the como
idities which have been supported and articulated well.
4. Adequately draws from literature and relates the pathophysiology to the chronic condition/ illness.
    (19-21)
1. Inadequate literature to support the argument on the contributing
isk factors.
2. Use of some evidence but inadequate connections have been made to the medical condition and clinical manifestations.
3. Draws from some literature to support argument on the como
idities but is inadequate and/ or some information is missing.
4. Some evidence has been used to relate the pathophysiology to the chronic condition/ illness.
    (16-18)
1. Very little evidence has been used to describe the contributing
isk factors.
2. Very little evidence has been used to make connections between the chronic condition and clinical manifestations.
2. Very little use of literature to support the argument on como
idities and is inadequate or missing information.
3. Very little evidence has been used to relate the pathophysiology to the chronic condition/ illness.
    (0-15)
1. Little or no evidence of literature review. Contributing factors inco
ectly selected and or inadequate.
2. Little or no evidence has been used to make connections to the medical condition and clinical manifestations.
3. Little or no evidence to support argument on the como
idities. Missing information.
4. Little or no evidence has been used to relate the pathophysiology to the chronic condition/ illness.
    
32
    Discuss the impact of the disease/ illness / disability on the health of the person and the family/ carer.
    (13-16)
1. Extensively draws from literature and clearly describes the impact on the client in a meaningful way.
2. Insightfully describes the impact on the family or care giver.
    (11-12)
1. Draws from literature and describes the impact on the client in a meaningful way.
2. Insightfully describes some impacts on the family or care giver.
    (9-10)
1. Draws from some literature and describes the impact of client in a clear manner.
2. Describes some impact on the family or care giver, however some information missing and or inaccurate.
    (8)
1. Minimal use of literature to describe the impact in a basic manner only.
2. Impact on the family or care giver is inadequately described and some information is missing.
    (0-7)
1. No use of literature to describe the impact.
2. Impact on the family or care giver is unclear, missing or inaccurate.
    
16
    
Use evidence based practice to recommend multidisciplinary prevention strategies/ resources, including pharmacological management
    (19-24)
1. Extensively draws from literature and clearly describes prevention strategies.
2. Has an excellent understanding of the roles of the interdisciplinary / multidisciplinary teams in the management of chronic diseases.
3. Excellent understanding of the pharmacological interventions in the management of chronic diseases/ illnesses and is well supported with literature.
    (16-18)
1. Adequately draws from literature and describes prevention strategies in a moderate manner.
2. Has an understanding of the roles of the interdisciplinary / multidisciplinary teams in the management of chronic diseases.
3. Has a clear understanding of the pharmacological interventions in the management of chronic diseases/ illnesses and is supported with literature.
    (14-15)
1. Draws from literature and describes prevention strategies in a basic manner.
2. The roles of the interdisciplinary/ multidisciplinary teams is not very clear.
3. Has some understanding of the pharmacological interventions in the management of chronic diseases/ illnesses but is not is well supported with literature.
    (12-13)
1. Minimal literature to describe prevention strategies.
2. The roles of the interdisciplinary/ multidisciplinary teams is somewhat lacking.
3. Minimal understanding of the pharmacological interventions in the management of chronic diseases/ illnesses and is not well supported with literature. Some information missing and/ or inaccurate.
    (0-11)
1. Minimal literature to support prevention strategies.
2. The roles of the interdisciplinary /multidisciplinary team is not described and unclear.
3. Lacks understanding of the pharmacological interventions in the management of chronic diseases/ illnesses and is not supported with literature. Information missing and/ or inaccurate.
    
24
    
Paper is written in Academic standards
    (13-16)
1. Cites all data obtained from other sources, references are cu
ent, acknowledged and referenced according to APA 6th style.
2. Excellent writing that is consistent with academic essay writing. No issues with syntax. No grammar and/ or spelling mistakes.
3. Work is the required length and presented in the co
ect format.
    (11-12)
1. Cites most data obtained from other sources, references are cu
ent and referenced in proper APA 6th style. Some omissions are noted.
2. Well written submission that is consistent with academic essay writing. There are some minor issues with syntax. Minimal grammar and/ or spelling e
ors.
3. Work is the required length and for the most part in the co
ect format.
    (9-10)
1. Cites some data obtained from other sources, references are cu
ent and referenced in APA 6th style but omissions are noticeable.
2. Submission is consistent with academic essay writing. Syntax and grammar issues are noticeable and detract from the quality of work. Spelling and/ or grammar mistakes are noticeable.
3. Work is either slightly long or
ief and or in the co
ect format.
    (8)
1. Data inadequately cited, some sources are unclear and not referenced in APA 6th style.
2. Some parts of the submission is not written according to academic essay writing. Multiple mistakes with syntax, grammar and/ or spelling.
3. Work is way too long or too
ief and or in the co
ect format.
    (0-7)
1. Data not cited, sources unclear, references old and or not referenced in APA 6th style.
2. Submission not written according to academic essay writing. Mistakes with syntax, grammar and spelling are profound which detracts the quality of work.
3. Work is way too long or too
ief and or the work is in the inco
ect format.
    
16
    Feedback & Comments
    
/100