92444 ASSESSMENT 1 FAQ LIST
Question: Can I use a case with a midwife?
Answer: NO this must be a RN
Question: Can I use a case with an EN and RN
Answer: Yes - but ONLY discussion of the RN is relevant
Question: Can I use a coronial case
Answer: Yes but only if this lists the consequences for the RN. I would suggest using this as supplementary evidence if not and hunting down the registration suspension details.
Question: Can I use the textbook to find a case?
Answer: Yes – but you will still need to find the link to the actual case
Question: Can I use a case from another state?
Answer: YES
Question: If I use a case from another state do I have to refer to their policies and guidelines
Answer: YES - where feasible - they can also refer to NSW policies if they wanted to strengthen this answe
Question: Can I use a case where the RN was not suspended but had restrictions placed on their registration
Answer: NO - the assessment description and marking ru
ic are explicit about this
Question: Can I use cases discussed in class
Answer: NO - this must be a case that you identify yourself.
Question: Is there a limit on how old the case can be?
Answer: No – there is no limit on the age of the case
Question: If the RN was not registered at the time of sentencing but would have been suspended for a period of 6 months or more if they were – is this case ok to use?
Answer: Yes – this would be suitable to use
Question: Can I use a case where restrictions have been placed on the RN’s registration but they are able to continue to practice?
Answer: No – they must be suspended for at least 6 months or have their registration cancelled
UNDERGRADUATE ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET
Marking criteria: PROFESSIONALACCOUNTABILITY ESSAY
MARK
Reference and link to case study provided
YES
NO
NB: paper cannot be marked until this has been provided
1. Brief synopsis of the case
0 2 marks
Synopsis is not provided AND/OR synopsis is poorly written and is confusing in parts AND/OR contains details that are not relevant
3-4
There is an attempt to provide a synopsis however it is not clearly or concisely written AND/OR does not provide specific details
5-6 marks
A satisfactory synopsis is provided however it is too long AND/OR does not include all relevant details
7-8 marks
A good and fairly concise synopsis is provided that includes all relevant details
9-10 marks
An excellent and concise synopsis is provided that includes all relevant details
/10
2. What actions/omissions on the part of the Registered Nurse(s) contributed to the adverse outcome for the patient
0-7 marks
Actions and omissions are not identified AND/OR not discussed..
8-12 marks
There is an attempt to identify and discuss some actions or omissions however this is superficial and lacks clarity and specific detail
13-17 marks
A satisfactory understanding evident with most actions and omissions identified however discussion is limited in scope.
.
18-21 marks
A good understanding evident with most actions and omissions identified and clearly discussed.
.
22-25 marks
Excellent answer with all actions and omissions identified and clearly discussed..
/25
3. Were there any other factors that contributed to the adverse outcome for this patient?
0-7marks
No contributing factors are identified or discussed AND/OR inco
ect information is provided
8-12 marks
There is an attempt to identify and discuss the other contributing factors however this is superficial and lacks clarity
13-17 marks
Satisfactory identification and discussion of some of the other factors, however this is limited in scope and lacks specific detail. Limited understanding evident.
18-21 marks
Good identification and discussion of other factors with developing understanding evident.
22-25 marks
Excellent identification and discussion of other factors with a high level of understanding evident.
/25
MARK
4. With reference to the evidence based literature outline the actions that should have been taken by the Registered Nurse to prevent the adverse outcome for this patient
0 -7 marks
No actions that should have been taken by the RN are identified AND/OR NO evidence is used to back up the discussion of actions
8-12 marks
There is an attempt to identify and discuss the actions that should have been taken by the RN however the discussion is superficial and lacks specific detail AND/OR not all actions are supported by evidence
13-17- marks
There is satisfactory identification and discussion of some actions that should have been taken by the RN. AND/OR not all actions discussed are supported by evidence
18-21 marks
Good identification and discussion of all actions that should have been taken by the RN. There is good use of evidence to support all actions discussion.
22-25 marks
Excellent identification and discussion of all actions that should have been taken by the RN. There is excellent use of evidence to support all actions.
/25
Academic integrity and referencing
0 marks
UTS Harvard referencing not used in-text and/or in reference list AND/OR NO evidence used to back up discussion as required.
1-2 marks
More than 5 e
ors in UTS Harvard referencing in-text and/or in reference list AND/OR evidence used inco
ectly or insufficiently to back up discussion as required.
3 marks
3-5 e
ors in UTS Harvard referencing in-text and/or in reference list. Co
ect use of evidence to back up discussion as required.
4 marks
1-2 e
ors in UTS Harvard referencing in-text and/or in reference list. Co
ect use of evidence to back up discussion as required
5 marks
No e
ors in UTS Harvard referencing in-text and in reference list. Co
ect use of evidence to back up discussion as required.
/5
Academic literacy
0 - 2 marks
Poorly constructed and written assessment
3 – 4 marks
The construction of the assessment is NOT effective. There is some evidence of satisfactory quality of writing; however the writing includes numerous spelling and grammatical e
ors.
5 - 7 marks
Satisfactory construction of assessment with a satisfactory quality of writing.
8 marks
Well-constructed assessment with a high quality of writing
9-10 marks
Excellent and logically constructed assessment with a high standard & quality of writing
/10
TOTAL
/100
TOTAL MARK
40
Marking criteria 92444 assessment 3 AUTUMN 2018
British Medical Journal
Education and debate
Human e
or: models and management
James Reason
The human e
or problem can be viewed in two ways:
the person approach and the system approach. Each
has its model of e
or causation and each model gives
ise to quite different philosophies of e
or manage-
ment. Understanding these differences has important
practical implications for coping with the ever present
isk of mishaps in clinical practice.
Person approach
The longstanding and widespread tradition of the per-
son approach focuses on the unsafe acts—e
ors and
procedural violations—of people at the sharp end:
nurses, physicians, surgeons, anaesthetists, pharma-
cists, and the like. It views these unsafe acts as arising
primarily from abe
ant mental processes such as for-
getfulness, inattention, poor motivation, carelessness,
negligence, and recklessness. Naturally enough, the
associated countermeasures are directed mainly at
educing unwanted variability in human behaviour.
These methods include poster campaigns that appeal
to people’s sense of fear, writing another procedure (o
adding to existing ones), disciplinary measures, threat
of litigation, retraining, naming, blaming, and shaming.
Followers of this approach tend to treat e
ors as moral
issues, assuming that bad things happen to bad
people—what psychologists have called the just world
hypothesis.1
System approach
The basic premise in the system approach is that
humans are fallible and e
ors are to be expected, even
in the best organisations. E
ors are seen as
consequences rather than causes, having their origins
not so much in the perversity of human nature as in
“upstream” systemic factors. These include recu
ent
e
or traps in the workplace and the organisational
processes that give rise to them. Countermeasures are
ased on the assumption that though we cannot
change the human condition, we can change the con-
ditions under which humans work. A central idea is
that of system defences. All hazardous technologies
possess ba
iers and safeguards. When an adverse
event occurs, the important issue is not who blundered,
ut how and why the defences failed.
Evaluating the person approach
The person approach remains the dominant tradition
in medicine, as elsewhere. From some perspectives it
has much to commend it. Blaming individuals is emo-
tionally more satisfying than targeting institutions.
People are viewed as free agents capable of choosing
etween safe and unsafe modes of behaviour. If some-
thing goes wrong, it seems obvious that an individual
(or group of individuals) must have been responsible.
Seeking as far as possible to uncouple a person’s
unsafe acts from any institutional responsibility is
clearly in the interests of managers. It is also legally
more convenient, at least in Britain.
Nevertheless, the person approach has serious
shortcomings and is ill suited to the medical domain.
Indeed, continued adherence to this approach is likely to
thwart the development of safer healthcare institutions.
Although some unsafe acts in any sphere are egre-
gious, the vast majority are not. In aviation
maintenance—a hands-on activity similar to medical
practice in many respects—some 90% of quality lapses
were judged as blameless.2 Effective risk management
depends crucially on establishing a reporting culture.3
Without a detailed analysis of mishaps, incidents, nea
misses, and “free lessons,” we have no way of uncover-
ing recu
ent e
or traps or of knowing where the
“edge” is until we fall over it. The complete absence of
such a reporting culture within the Soviet Union con-
tributed crucially to the Chernobyl disaster.4 Trust is a
Summary points
Two approaches to the problem of