|
Assignment Sections
|
A+/A (70-100%)
|
B+/B (60-69%)
|
C+/C (50-59%)
|
D/D+ (40-49%)
|
Fail (0-39%)
|
|
Introduction
5/100
|
Audit has been clearly introduced and linked to the importance of clinical governance. The quality issues are identified with use of relevant data or evidence. The assignment structure is outlined concisely.
|
Audit has been introduced and linked to the importance of clinical governance. The quality issues are identified with use of some relevant data or evidence. The assignment structure is outlined and matches the contents of the assignment
|
Audit has been introduced and there are some links to the importance of clinical governance. The quality issues are identified although more evidence may be required to support claims. The assignment structure is outlined.
|
There has been a brief introduction to audits but not clearly linked to the importance of clinical governance. The quality issues are described and more evidence may be required to support claims. The assignment structure is outlined but this may not match the contents.
|
The introduction of the essay does not discuss audits or the importance of clinical governance. The quality issues are not identified. The assignment structure is unclear.
|
|
Analysis
20/100
|
An appropriate analytical tool is chosen for the topic and the choice was fully justified with high-quality references. The analysis is communicated using appropriate tools such as tables and figures. These are presented in academic style and explained fully in the text. Situational, social, and clinical factors have been fully explored and the discussion justifies the analysis. Writing is formal and concise with correct referencing.
|
An appropriate analytical tool is chosen and there is some attempt to justify the choice. Evidence of reading from sources is demonstrated. The presentation should communicate the tool clearly but there may be omissions in the detail of the analysis. Most factors that impact the topic are identified. Writing is formal but there may be small errors of writing or referencing. However, the meaning is very clear throughout.
|
An appropriate tool is chosen and applied fully to the topic but critical statements about the choice of tool may be limited. Most claims are supported from reading. The presentation of the analysis should be clear but there may be errors of presentation. The analysis is discussed in the text, but this may miss some critical statements or references to support claims. Writing is clear but there may be informal statements or errors.
|
A tool from the module has been applied but it may not be the best selection for the topic. The choice may not be justified, or the justification may not be specific to the chosen topic. The analysis should fit the tool and refer to the topic, but it may not be detailed or clear in places. The analysis may not be fully discussed. Referencing may be incorrect or missing and the writing will convey meaning but will have errors of expression.
|
The analysis may not use a tool from the module. Or no tool is applied at all. The analysis may not be able to identify situational factors that are relevant to the topic. Little or no justification of statements are given. Referencing may be missing and the writing my have so many errors that the meaning is unclear.
|
|
20/100
Quality improvement/ change management
|
TQM was briefly discussed with a clear link to supporting staff. A model is applied to identify the factors that will encourage or discourage change. All claims are supported with high-quality sources and writing is concise and formal.
|
TQM is briefly described with some links to supporting staff. There is application of a model from the module although some areas may not fully link to the analysis. Claims are supported with high-quality sources although there may be one or two errors or omissions. Writing is formal and generally concise.
|
TQM is described but there may be limited application to supporting staff. A model is applied to explore change management, but this may be described and not always linked to the topic. There are references to support claims, but these may be lower-quality or there may be some omissions. There may be errors of referencing, but the meaning is clear, and writing is still formal.
|
TQM is mentioned but evidence of learning from the module is limited. There is some discussion of challenges in implementing change, but this may not apply a model from the module. Referencing is attempted but there may be errors or missing citations. There are multiple errors in the writing which makes the tone informal, but the meaning is generally clear.
|
The sections is missing or there is limited application of learning from the module to evaluate how change management may be difficult. There may be no reference to the topic. Referencing may be missing or not using conventional style. Writing is informal or the errors may impair the communication of meaning.
|
|
30/100
Audit and recommendations
|
Audit is presented with clear reference to theory and the theory is applied precisely to the quality issues. Stakeholder involvement is detailed accurately with clear connection to the case scenario. The recommendations and standards set demonstrate exceptional appreciation of the needs of staff and service users
|
Audit is presented with reference to theory and the theory is applied to the quality issues. Stakeholder involvement is detailed with connection to the case scenario. The recommendations and standards set demonstrate an appreciation of the needs of staff and service users
|
Audit is presented with some reference to theory and some of the theory is applied to the quality issues although there be some errors. Stakeholder involvement is detailed with some accuracy and connection to the case scenario. The recommendations and standards set demonstrate some appreciation of the needs of staff and service users
|
Audit is presented with brief reference to theory and limited theory is applied with to the quality issues. Stakeholder involvement is detailed with limited accuracy and connection to the case scenario. The recommendations and standards set demonstrate a limited appreciation of the needs of staff and service users
|
The section is missing or there is limited application of learning from the module to demonstrate knowledge of audit. Stakeholder involvement is not detailed and there is no connection to the case scenario. The recommendations and standards set do not demonstrate an appreciation of the needs of staff and service users.
|
|
Use of information to analyse and evaluate
15/100
|
There is an exceptional fluent writing style and organisation and coherence that clearly enhances the argument. All claims are supported with high-quality sources. The relevance of the information is clearly analysed and evaluations are made. References are correctly formatted using the OBU Harvard style as per the guidance.
|
There is a fluent writing style and strong logical organisation that enhances the argument. Claims are supported with high-quality sources although there may be one or two errors or omissions. The relevance of the information is analysed and evaluations are made. The reference list uses a different referencing style or has a small number of errors. But all references should be included.
|
In some parts, there is a fluent writing style and some logic to the organisation. There are references to support claims, but these may be lower-quality or there may be some omissions. There is some analysis of the relevance of the information and limited evaluations are made. The reference list may have multiple errors, but it will be complete, and it should be possible to identify the sources used.
|
Writing has limited fluency and organisation to support arguments. There are minimal references to support claims and they are of a low-quality with omissions. There is limited analysis of the relevance of the information and minimal/no evaluations are made. The reference list may be incomplete or have errors which misses information needed to find sources.
|
Writing is incoherent and disorganized. There is no analysis of the relevance of the information and no evaluations are made. Referencing may be missing or may not match sources used. The errors are found in nearly all references.
|
|
Conclusion
10/100
|
The key points are summarised concisely. No new information is introduced, and the reader is left with a clear message which addresses the task of the assignment.
|
Key points are summarised. Information should be nearly all drawn from the earlier sections. The reader is left with a message which addresses the task of the assignment although this section may not be always concise.
|
Key points are summarised although the writing may introduce new information or messages. The reader is left with a message that is relevant to the tasks in the assignment but there may not be a concise ending to the work.
|
The conclusion summarises some points from the assignment, but it may also introduce new information. The conclusion does not leave the reader with a clear message which addresses the task of the assignment
|
There is no conclusion, or it does not summarise the assignment. The final section may not give the reader a message that relates to the task of the assignment.
|
