Reflect on an ethical dilemma case study and outline best practice recommendations to resolve this dilemma in practice using existing legislation, policy development in the area and debates around their application in practice to guide your approach.

XGBSHN5013 Applying Health and Social Care Policy, Ethics and Law

Portfolio, Deadline: Friday, 21^st March 2025 by noon 

Assessment Pack contents:

Short introduction to the task

Key terms

Key resources

Template to outline structure and content

Rubric to understand marking criteria

Video to explain it

Short Introduction to the Task:

The portfolio will require you to complete several tasks designed to enable you to explore an aspect of social policy and practice relevant to health and social care in more depth.

It will require you to reflect on an ethical dilemma case study and outline best practice recommendations to resolve this dilemma in practice using existing legislation, policy development in the area and debates around their application in practice to guide your approach.

Word Count: 3,000 Word (Not include the references list).

Referencing: Please use the APA referencing guidelines.

Key Terms:

The portfolio is designed to enable you to explore an aspect of social policy and practice relevant to health and social care in more depth.

It will require you to reflect on an ethical dilemma case study and outline your approach to resolving this in practice using existing legislation.

Key Resources:

The tasks are all found on Moodle for you to complete.

Template:

Classification:

Criterion:

Exceptional First

100, 95, 92

Outstanding 1^st/Dist

88, 85, 82

First/Distinction

78, 75, 72

2 (i)

68. 65. 62

2 (ii)

58. 55. 52

Third

48. 45. 42

Fail

38. 35. 32

Abject Fail

25, 20, 10, 0

Knowledge & Understanding (20%)

Polished grasp of subject. Astute and authoritative approach to complexity.

Comprehensive and confident grasp with a strong sense of subject complexity.

Thorough understanding is evident and well applied to questions or projects.

Secure, general understanding and reasonable application to question or project.

Sound knowledge relevant to the question or project.

Limited knowledge shows basic understanding. Some awareness of the context of the question or project.

Faulty understanding of questions or concepts. Irrelevant or mostly absent content.

No understanding of question or concepts. Irrelevant or absent content.

Structure, Argument

(20%)

Effective and integrated over-arching argument or structure, clear, insightful synthesis. Highly creative understanding of topic.

Effective overall argument with clear and insightful connections between claims. Creative understanding of topic. 

Clear and logical focus and direction with valuable connections made between claims.  Good level of creativity. 

Well-focused on the question with some clear connections made between claims and some overall direction.  Some creativity. 

Addresses the topic with some direction and makes some connections between claims or different parts of artefact/assignment.

Argument is weak and difficult to detect. Connections made between statements limited

Lack of argument. Faulty connection between statements.

No argument. Many faulty connections between statements.

Analysis and Conclusions

 (20%)

Original and searching analysis, critical appraisal of task and judicious conclusions.

Searching analysis with pertinent conclusions drawn.

Insightful analysis throughout with appropriate conclusions drawn.

Strong analysis of salient illustrative examples. Some general conclusions drawn.

Some conclusions drawn based on some reasonable comparisons and examples.

Basic analysis. Remains descriptive, little evaluation or comparison. Few clear conclusions.

Insufficient evaluation or attempt to make comparisons. Conclusions illogical insufficient.

No evaluation or attempt to make comparisons. Conclusions illogical or absent.

Sources & Evidence

Adherence to

Referencing Conventions,

Technical Skills

(20%)

Extensive and evaluative use of evidential support for argument.

Flawless referencing or technical skills

Extensive use of evidence with some evaluation.

Flawless referencing or technical skills.

Clear support of argument with well selected evidence.

Excellent referencing or technical skills.

Draws on relevant independent sources and evidence to support claims.

Consistent and accurate referencing or technical skills.

Makes simple use of evidence from recommended sources.

Largely consistent accurate referencing. or technical skills.

Relies on superficial statements with little supporting evidence.

Limited referencing/ adherence to convention or technical skills.

Lack of evidence or relevant sources.

Inadequate referencing or technical skills.

No evidence or relevant sources.

Inadequate or no referencing or technical skills.

Written/Visual

Oral

Style & Clarity

(20%)

Professional and sophisticated with exceptional clarity and coherence. Excellent, controlled, confident delivery, pace, and audience engagement.

Professional and fluent with great clarity and coherence. Confident delivery, pace, and audience engagement.

Fluent and accurate with great clarity and coherence. Mostly confident delivery, pace, and audience engagement.

Clear and coherent. Good delivery, pace, and audience engagement

Some lapses of clarity. Some expression is ineffective. Satisfactory delivery, pace, and audience engagement

Adequate, but awkward expression throughout with little clarity. Poor delivery, pace, and audience engagement

Inadequate and unclear presentation. Impaired communication. Error-strewn.

Grossly inadequate and unclear presentation. Severely impaired communication.

Error-strewn.