Order DescriptionFormat needs to be in report form for part 1. Part 2 needs to be a clinical practise guideline.
Please refer to the task sheets attached for more information, this is for a paramedic coarse, the subject is “misuse & toxicology”
Levels of Achievement
Criteria
High Distinction.
Demonstrates evidence of
key knowledge and
concepts at an exceptional
theoretical level
Distinction. Demonstrates
evidence of key knowledge
and concepts at a
comprehensive theoretical
level.
Credit. Applies knowledge
and concepts sufficiently
and demonstrates an
awareness of their
relevance
Pass. Meets task
requirements to a
satisfactory st
andard.
Fail. Does not meet task
requirements
Criteria 1:
Content
Weight 20.00%
85 to 100 %
Sophisticated fulfilment of
terms of the question
which uses a theoretical
base of the highest
standard chosen from the
highest reputable scientific
sources.
75 to 84 %
Complete fulfilment of terms
of the question; entirely
appropriate theoretical base.
65 to 74 %
Good fulfilment of terms of
the question; good
theoretical base. Most
material wisely selected.
50 to 64 %
Adequate fulfilment of terms
of the qu
estion; adequate
theoretical base; minimal
irrelevant material included.
0 to 49 %
Failure to address the
assignment questions or
task; inadequate
theoretical base; irrelevant
material included.
Criteria 2:
Development
Weight 25.00%
85 to 100 %
Sophisticated
identification
and analysis of themes.
Controversies are logically
investigated; all material is
highly relevant with an
extraordinary depth and
breadth of analysis.
75 to 84 %
Strong theme, developed in a
balanced way; high standard
sustained through
de
velopment of logical
relationships and internal
consistency; all material
highly relevant; very good
depth and breadth of
analysis.
65 to 74 %
Theme identification
developed in a balanced
way; good standard
sustained in developing
logical relationships an
d
internal consistency; good
depth and breadth of
analysis.
50 to 64 %
Satisfactory development;
many logical relationships
indicated; consistent
internally; good breadth of
analysis, with appropriate
depth.
0 to 49 %
Weakness in the
development of the
a
rguments; inclusion of
irrelevant material;
inadequate depth of
analysis; absent or weak
logical relationships;
internal inconsistencies.
Criteria 3:
Evidence
Weight 20.00%
85 to 100 %
All arguments are fully and
clearly supported by
multiple sources of
scientific evidence. All
evidence is critically
presented demonstrating
evaluation, comparison
and relationships.
75 to 84 %
All arguments are clearly
supported by high level
evidence; E
vidence is
frequently critically analysed
and evaluated to determine
relevance and strength of
evidence.
65 to 74 %
All arguments are
supported by appropriate
research
–
based evidence;
there is critical analysis of
evidence cited.
50 to 64 %
Most argument
s are
supported by appropriate
evidence; some critical
analysis of evidence from
sources used.
0 to 49 %
Little, if any of the evidence
cited supports the
arguments; Evidence from
sources is treated
uncritically; low level
evidence included or
included wi
thout discussion
of the limitations.
Levels of Achievement
Criteria
High Distinction.
Demonstrates evidence of
key knowledge and
concepts at an exceptional
theoretical level
Distinction. Demonstrates
evidence of key knowledge
and concepts at a
comprehensive theoretical
level.
Credit. Applies knowledge
and concepts sufficiently
and demonstrates an
awareness of their
relevance
Pass. Meets task
requirements to a
satisfactory st
andard.
Fail. Does not meet task
requirements
Criteria 4: Style
and Structure
Weight 10.00%
85 to 100 %
Elegant and imaginative
presentation and all
presentation criteria met
with no spelling, syntax or
grammatical errors.
7
5 to 84 %
All presentation criteria met
to a high standard; however
there were up to three
spelling, syntax or
grammatical errors.
65 to 74 %
Good introduction with
clear statement of
intention, body and
conclusion; prescribed
structure used, however
ther
e were infrequent
spelling, syntax or
grammatical errors.
50 to 64 %
Acceptable introduction with
clear statement of intention,
body and conclusion;
prescribed structure used,
however there were frequent
spelling, syntax or
grammatical errors.
0 to 49 %
Badly designed; lack of
discernible introduction
and conclusion; lack of
statement of intention;
spelling mistakes or
grammatical errors; style is
not appropriate for the
task.
Criteria
5:Clinical
Practice
Guideline (CPG)
Weig
ht 15.00%
85 to 100 %
The CPG has been
developed using multiple
sources of scientific
evidence highly relevant to
ExDS. The CPG represents
best practice in assessment
and management of
patients with ExDS.
75 to 84 %
The CPG has been developed
using sources of scientific
evidence which are relevant
to ExDS. The CPG represents
best practice in assessment
and management of patients
with ExDS.
65 to 74 %
The CPG has been
developed using sources of
scientific evidence whi
ch
are mostly relevant to
ExDS. The CPG mostly
represents best practice in
assessment and
management of patients
with ExDS.
50 to 64 %
The CPG has been developed
using sources of evidence
which have some relevance
to ExDS. There were
elements of the CPG t
hat did
not represent best practice in
assessment and management
of patients with ExDS.
0 to 49 %
The CPG is not evidence
based. It does not reflect
best practice in assessment
and management of
patients with ExDS.
Criteria 6:
Referencing
and Citations
Weight 10.00%
85 to 100 %
All ideas are acknowledged
where appropriate and all
citations meet the
prescribed style. The
Vancouver referencing
style is presented with no
errors in the in
–
text
citations or reference list.
75 to 84 %
Consistent and complete
referencing techniques;
ho
wever there were up to 3
citation errors found in the
Vancouver referencing style
in
–
text citations or reference
list.
65 to 74 %
Consistent and complete
Vancouver referencing
style techniques. However
there were between 3 and
5 citation errors found in
t
he in
–
text citations or
reference list.
50 to 64 %
Some inconsistencies in in
–
text referencing technique;
incomplete bibliographic
details; errors of style.
0 to 49 %
Inadequate bibliographic
details; inconsistent or
absent in
–
text references;
incorrect
referencing style.
