Unit Outline
Page 1 of 25… Extended Unit Outline – NRSG377_FINAL MODERATED_202360 © Australian Catholic University 2023
ASSIGNMENT 2
Additional information is available on the NRSG377 Leo Site within the Assessment Tile
Weighting: 50%
Length and/or format: 1500 words +/- 10%
Purpose: This assessment enables students to demonstrate sound written
communication skills and synthesis of concepts, through
contribution, reflection, and response to discussions about
professional and leadership issues in nursing and health care.
Learning outcomes assessed: LO3, LO4, LO5
How to submit: This assessment must be submitted via Turnitin through
NRSG377 LEO Site. Multiple submissions can be made up until
the due date for the assessment (please note that there can be a
24-48 hour lock out period between each submission).
Resubmissions are NOT permitted after the due date.
Return of assignment: Grades and feedback will be made available through Turnitin in
accordance with ACU policy. As per ACU Assessment Policy, the
grades for this assessment task will not be available until release
of results for the Unit.
Assessment criteria: The criterion-referenced ru
ic on Appendix B should be used to
guide your writing. This ru
ic will also form the basis of your
feedback.
Page 2 of 25… Extended Unit Outline – NRSG377_FINAL MODERATED_202360 © Australian Catholic University 2023
Appendix B - Assessment Task 2 Overview
The role of a clinical leader:
To motivate, to inspire, to promote the values of the Healthcare profession, to empower and create a consistent
focus on the needs of patients being served. Leadership is necessary not just to maintain high standards of care,
ut to transform services to achieve even higher levels of excellence” (Department of Health, 2007, p.49 as
stated in Stanley, 2023).
You are a graduate registered nurse working on a surgical ward in a large regional hospital. You have been
working on the ward for the past six (6) months and are feeling comfortable in your role as the registered nurse.
In the past couple of weeks, you have observed/ noticed the following in practice and through your own
professional development:
There have been many staff, inclusive of nursing and allied health who have resigned from their positions.
You have also noted that the casual/ pool staff that are allocated to the ward are not happy to be there.
You have overheard the pool staff make comments like “they do not feel welcome, they are always given
the heaviest workload and if an incident occurs, they are always blamed.”
There has been an increase in patients being readmitted to the ward due to complications of wound
eakdowns. When observing other staff members completing dressing changes for patients, you notice
a large discrepancy in techniques and notice a significant lack in following the ward policy related to
dressing changes.
After reading some journal articles for PD, you have identified that Electronic Medical Records (EMR)
are utilised in some health services however in the regional hospital, medical records are paper- based
version. This makes you wonder, what type of records have a more positive effect on patients and health
care professionals?
After reflecting on these observations, as a clinical leader, you have escalated your concerns to your Nurse Unit
Manager who supports your concerns and advises you to write a letter to Myles Chamberlain, the Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) of the health service district. In your letter, respond to the following:
1. Identify the issue/ practice concern/ ward culture that you would propose to change and give a
ackground explanation why (using cu
ent literature XXXXXXXXXXwords)
2. Identify two (2) interventions you propose to implement that are specific and achievable in relation to
your identified area for change. Discuss how you are going to engage stakeholders and communicate
these proposed interventions. (400 words)
3. Identify two (2) possible ba
iers to change, one (1) individual and one (1) organisational and discuss.
(300 words)
4. Identify the leadership style that you will adopt in this innovation for change. Analyse how the attributes
of this specific leadership style would benefit and guide success of this change management proposal.
(400 words)
Department of Health XXXXXXXXXXOur NHS: Our Future. NHS Next Stage Review Interim Report. London: HM
Stationary Office
Stanley, D XXXXXXXXXXValues-based leadership in healthcare: Congruent leadership explored. SAGE
Page 3 of 25… Extended Unit Outline – NRSG377_FINAL MODERATED_202360 © Australian Catholic University 2023
Appendix B: Assessment Task 2 Ru
ic marked at 100% and weighted at 50% of the overall grade
Criteria (marks) High Distinction (HD) 100-
85%
Distinction (D) 84-75% Credit (CR) 74-65% Pass (PA) 64-50% Fail (NN) 49-0% Fail – No attempt
Structure,
Mechanics, and
Intelligibility
5 marks
5 marks 4 marks 3 marks 2.5 marks 1 mark 0 marks
The formal letter structure
has been followed. Written in
first person.
Cohesive writing that has
information organised
appropriately within each
paragraph.
Each paragraph relates to a
discrete idea.
There are clear linking
sentences that link each
paragraph to the next.
There are no e
ors with
grammar, spelling and
punctuation, and the meaning
is easily discernible.
The formal letter structure
has been followed. Written in
first person.
The writing is organised into
paragraphs, and the
information is organised
appropriately within the
paragraph.
Each paragraph relates to a
discrete idea.
There are clear linking
sentences that link most
paragraphs to the next.
There are minimal e
ors with
grammar, spelling, and
punctuation. The meaning is
eadily discernible.
The formal letter structure
has been followed. Written in
first person.
The writing is organised into
paragraphs, and the
information is mostly
organised appropriately within
the paragraph.
Most paragraphs relate to a
discrete idea.
There are clear linking
sentences that link most
paragraphs to the next.
There are some e
ors with
grammar, spelling, and
punctuation. The e
ors
detract; however, the
meaning is discernible.
The formal letter structure is
somewhat followed. Written in
first person.
The writing is organised into
paragraphs, and the
information is somewhat
organised appropriately within
the paragraph.
Some paragraphs relate to a
discrete idea.
The paragraphs mostly link to
one another.
There are substantial e
ors
with grammar, spelling, and
punctuation. The e
ors
detract significantly, but the
meaning is discernible.
The formal letter structure
has not been followed. Not
written in first person.
There is evidence of
paragraphs, however
paragraph structure is
organised, with no clear
ideas, and no links or there is
no evidence of paragraphs.
Grammar, spelling, and
punctuation are such that the
eader cannot make sense of
the content.
No paragraphs. The
eader cannot make
sense of the
content.
Understanding of
the need for
change and
identification of
the issue at hand.
20 marks
18 – 20 marks 17.5 – 16 marks 13 – 15.5 marks 12.5 – 10 marks 9.5 – 0.5 marks 0 marks
Clear and concise
identification of why this
issue/ practice concern/ ward
culture needs to change.
Comprehensive, concise, and
critical discussion that is all
directly relevant to the issue/
practice concern/ ward
culture.
All arguments are supported
and justified with high quality,
credible and appropriate
literature, and evidence.
Clear identification of why this
issue/ practice concern/ ward
culture needs to change.
Significant, concise, and
critical discussion that is
directly relevant to the issue/
practice concern/ ward
culture.
Most arguments are
supported and justified with
high quality, credible and
appropriate literature, and
evidence.
Identification of why this
issue/ practice concern/ ward
culture needs to change has
some clarity.
Discussion is relevant to the
issue/ practice concern/ ward
culture, however, is
descriptive throughout.
Some arguments are
supported and justified with
quality, credible and mostly
appropriate literature, and
evidence.
Identification of why this
issue/ practice concern/ ward
culture needs to change lacks
clarity.
Discussion has some
elevance to the issue/
practice concern/ ward
culture, however, is
descriptive throughout.
Many arguments lack support
and justification however
some credible literature and
evidence has been used.
No identification of why this
issue/ practice concern/ ward
culture needs to change.
Discussion has limited
elevance to the issue/
practice concern/ ward
culture.
Most arguments are not
supported and/or justified with
credible literature and
evidence.
No issue/ practice
concern/ war culture
identified.
There is no
discussion relevant
to the case study.
There is no
evidence to support
discussions.
Page 4 of 25… Extended Unit Outline – NRSG377_FINAL MODERATED_202360 © Australian Catholic University 2023
Criteria (marks) High Distinction (HD) 100-
85%
Distinction (D) 84-75% Credit (CR) 74-65% Pass (PA) 64-50% Fail (NN) 49-0% Fail – No attempt
Proposal for
change
Two (2)
interventions for
change identified
and both
interventions are
specific and
achievable.
25 marks
25 – 23 marks 22.5 – 20 marks 19 – 16 marks 15.5 – 12.5 marks 12 – 0.5 marks 0 marks
Comprehensive, concise, and
critical discussion that is
elevant to stakeholder
engagement and
communication of proposed
interventions.
All arguments are supported
and justified with high quality,
credible and appropriate
literature, and evidence.
Significant, concise, and
critical discussion that is
directly relevant to
stakeholder engagement and
communication of proposed
interventions.
Most arguments are
supported and justified with
high quality, credible and
appropriate literature, and
evidence.
Discussion is relevant to
stakeholder engagement and
communication of proposed
interventions; however,
discussion is descriptive
throughout.
Some arguments are
supported and justified with
quality, credible and mostly
appropriate literature, and
evidence
Less than 2 interventions
have been identified.
Either one (1) or both
interventions are mostly
specific and achievable.
Discussion has some
elevance to stakeholder
engagement and
communication of proposed
interventions; however,
discussion is descriptive
throughout.
Many arguments lack support
and justification from quality
however some credible
literature and evidence has
een used.
Either one (1) or both
interventions for change
omitted.
Interventions are mostly not
specific and/or achievable.
Discussion has limited
elevance to stakeholder
engagement and
communication of proposed
interventions.
Most arguments are not
supported and/or justified with
credible literature and
evidence.
No interventions for
change identified.
There is no
discussion relevant
to the case study.
There is no
evidence to support
discussions.
Ba
iers to change
One (1) individual
and one (1)
organisational
a
ier to change
identified and both
a
iers are
elevant and
appropriate.
20 marks
18 – 20 marks 17.5 – 16 marks 13 – 15.5 marks 12.5 – 10 marks 9.5 – 0.5 marks 0 marks
Comprehensive, concise, and
critical discussion that is all
directly relevant to the
identified ba
iers of change.
All arguments are supported
and justified with high quality,
credible and appropriate
literature, and evidence.
Significant, concise, and
critical discussion that is
elevant to the identified
a
iers of change.
Most arguments are
supported and justified with
high quality, credible and
appropriate literature, and
evidence.
.
Discussion is relevant to the
identified ba
iers of change.
However, it is descriptive
throughout.
Some arguments are
supported and justified with
quality, credible and mostly
appropriate literature, and
evidence.
Less than 2 ba
iers to
change identified.
Either one (1) or both ba
iers
are mostly relevant and
appropriate.
Discussion has some
elevance to the identified
a
iers of change, however,
is descriptive throughout.
Many arguments lack support
and justification from quality
however some credible
literature and evidence has
een used.
Either one (1) individual or
one (1) organisational ba
ier
to change omitted.
Ba
iers are mostly i
elevant
and/or not appropriate.
Discussion is not justified and
lacks clarity.
Most arguments are not
supported and/or justified with
credible literature and
evidence.
No ba
iers to
change identified