Nursing and midwifery
Assessment 2: Guided Professional Case Study Analysis
Weighting: 40% Word count: 1000 words Due date: Week 7 Wednesday 2nd September 2015, by 5pm Submission details: Online, Refer to Submission Requirements (p.24) Marking criteria and standards: See p.18 Aim of assessment The purpose of this assessment is to facilitate student learning and critical reflection through the use of guided questions that assist the student in identifying how the regulatory framework for nursing and midwifery applies to professional practice. The assessment provides students with a discipline specific case study drawn from the Nurses and Midwives Tribunal of New South Wales professional disciplinary proceedings. Details The assessment requires students to use a set of guided questions to analyse a discipline specific case study drawn from the Nurses and Midwives Board of New South Wales publication, Adrian, A., &Chiarella, M. (2010). Professional Conduct: A case book of disciplinary decisions relating to professional conduct matters (2nd ed.), which is available on the vUWS site for the unit. Nursing discipline specific case study: NICHOLLS –NT260600CVN. See the following sections of the Case Book (2010): Appendix Part A. Tribunal case summary: pp. 410-411 Chapter 5. Professional misconduct: Knowledge, pp. 184-186; Judgment, pp. 212-213; Organisational culture, p. 314-315. Midwifery discipline specific case study: LECKY-THOMPSON #1 –NT71298DMGWLT. See the following sections of the Case Book (2010): Appendix Part A. Tribunal case summary: pp. 389-390. See also pp.390-393. Chapter 5. Professional misconduct: Skill, pp. 199-204; Judgment, pp. 213-214; Deceptive conduct, pp. 246-248. 401021 – Being a Professional Nurse or Midwife Learning Guide – Spring 2015 ©School of Nursing and Midwifery Page 17 of 37 University of Western Sydney Guided questions:
1. What were the consequences of action/inaction in this case? Your answer should include:
• A concise summary outline from the Case Book (2010) of the consequences of the actions or inactions by the nurse or midwife concerned in relation to professional practice.
• The Case Book (2010) describes professional conduct under sub-headings in each chapter such as knowledge, skill, judgment, care, boundary violations and ethical conduct. Students may find these sub-headings useful in writing their summary of the case.
2. What professional standards apply/were breached in this situation?
• Your answer will involve reading through the NMBA Codes, Standards and Guides to identify the relevant statements that apply in the discipline specific case study.
• Provide a clear and concise rationale for your selection. Your answer must be specific to the case study context. The NMBA documents are available on the vUWS site for the unit.
3. What professional behaviours may have made a difference in this situation?
• Your discussion needs to be focused and relevant to the case study. In writing your answer, consider such contributory factors as their level of engagement, personal attributes, knowledge base, clinical experience, and evidence of clinical reasoning, their clinical actions, and whether the nurse or midwife involved evaluated or reflected on the care they provided.
• See Dempsey et al. (2014) Chapter 14, and read through the sections on the ‘context of thoughtful practice’ and ‘clinical reasoning’ pp. 254-263. See also the strategies that nurses and midwives can apply that are listed in the Case Book (2010) p. 323.
4. What do you learn from this case study about your own preparedness for professional practice? Your answer should relate to the scope of practice for a graduate nurse or midwife.
• Read through the answer you provided to Question 2. Think about how the relevant statements from the NMBA Codes, Standards and Guides might apply to a graduate nurse or midwife. The NMBA discipline specific ‘Guide to Professional Boundaries’ must be used.
• Your answer to this final question can be written in the first person, where appropriate, as you are reflecting on your own preparedness for professional practice. Reference list and in-text referencing
• List the references to the Case Book (2010), Dempsey et al (2014) and the NMBA Codes, Standards and Guides, and any other resources that you have discussed in support of your answers using the correct APA (6th ed.) referencing conventions. • Your answer to all questions must include relevant in-text references that fit the context of your discussion at the appropriate place in the paragraph of your text. Student Directions The marking criteria and standards have been developed to guide you through the assessment process. Please read the criteria and standards carefully. There is a word limit of 1000 words. Use your computer to total the number of words used in your assignment. However, do not include the reference list at the end of your assignment in the word count. In-text citations will be included in the additional 10% word count. If you exceed the word limit by more than 10% the marker will stop marking at 1000 words plus 10%. Resources
• There are a number of textbooks and resources available through the UWS Library that may assist you. Please refer to the unit’s vUWS site for specific unit resources. Page 18 of 37 Marking criteria and standards: Assessment 2 – Guided Professional Case Study
Analysis Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail Question 1 Provides a concise summary of the case Outstanding, clear and concise summary of the consequences of action or inaction in the case study context.Cogent discussion that engages the descriptions of professional conduct in the Case Book (2010).
Very good, clear, concise summary of the consequences of action or inaction in the case study context.Succinct discussion that engages the descriptions of professional conduct in the Case Book (2010).Relevant, clear, concise summary of the consequences of action or inaction in the case study context.
The discussion engages the descriptions of professional conduct in the Case Book (2010). Adequate summary of the consequences of action or inaction in the case study context. The answer includes some discussion of the descriptions of professional conduct in the Case Book (2010).
Fails to summarise the consequences of action or inaction in the case study context.Insufficient discussion of the descriptions of professional conduct in the Case Book (2010). Mark /5 4.5-5 4 3.5 2.5-3 =2 Question 2 Identifies the relevant professional standards that apply to the case Comprehensive identification of the relevant NMBA statements that apply in the discipline specific case study. Outstanding, clear, concise rationale for selection that is well matched to the context of the case study with considerable insight.
Thorough identification of the relevant NMBA statements that apply in the discipline specific case study.Very good, clear, concise rationale for selection that is well matched to the context of the case study.Adequate identification of the relevant NMBA statements that apply in the discipline specific case study.Relevant, clear, concise rationale for selection that is mostly matched to the context of the case study.
Attempts to identify the relevant NMBA statements that apply in the discipline specific case study.Adequate rationale for selection that is mostly matched to the context of the case study. The relevant NMBA statements that apply in the discipline specific case study are insufficiently identified.
Inadequate rationale for selection and fails to match answer to the context of the case study. Mark /10 8.5-10 7.5-8 6.5-7 5-6 =4.5 Question 3 Discusses professional behaviours that may have made a difference to the case Outstanding, clear, concise discussion of the professional behaviours that may have made a difference in the case study situation.
A comprehensive range of contributory factors is identified with excellent support from the literature. Very good, clear, concise discussion of the professional behaviours that may have made a difference in the case study situation.
A thorough range of contributory factors is identified with very good support from the literature. Relevant, clear, concise discussion of the professional behaviours that may have made a difference in the case study situation. An adequate range of contributory factors is identified with good support from the literature. Adequate attempt to discuss the professional behaviours that may have made a difference in the case study situation. A number of contributory factors are identified but with limited support from the literature. Inadequate discussion of the professional behaviours that may have made a difference in the case study situation. Fails to adequately identify contributory factors and the answer lacks support from the literature. Mark /10 8.5-10 7.5-8 6.5-7 5-6 =4.5 Page 19 of 37 Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail Question 4 Learning about preparedness for professional graduate practice Outstanding, clear, concise insight into preparedness for graduate practice. Draws on relevant NMBA statements and makes particular reference to how the discipline specific ‘Guide to Professional Boundaries’ applies to their own practice in an expert and innovative manner. Very good, clear, concise insight into preparedness for graduate practice. Draws on relevant NMBA statements and makes reference to how the discipline specific ‘Guide to Professional Boundaries’ applies to their own practice in a very good manner. Relevant, clear, concise insight into preparedness for graduate practice. Draws on relevant NMBA statements and makes some reference to how the discipline specific ‘Guide to Professional Boundaries’ applies to their own practice in an above average manner. Adequate insight into preparedness for graduate practice. Draws on a limited number of NMBA statements and may not refer to how the discipline specific ‘Guide to Professional Boundaries’ applies to their own practice in an adequate but minimal manner. Inadequate discussion of own preparedness for graduate practice.Inadequate substantiation of answer from NMBA statements and fails to refer to how the discipline specific ‘Guide to Professional Boundaries’ applies to their own practice. Mark /10 8.5-10 7.5-8 6.5-7 5-6 =4.5 Presentation and Referencing Publishable level or outstanding, fluent, writing style and use of language. Flawless referencing, with all references adequately and correctly given, both in text and in final reference list according to designated APA style. Extensive, relevant current academic reference list effectively utilized. A minimum of six references is provided and consistently used to support all four answers. Excellent writing style and use of language. No errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation or writing style. Very good referencing, with adequate and correct references given both in text and in final reference list according to designated APA style. Comprehensive, relevant, list of current academic references effectively used. A minimum of six references is provided and consistently used to support all four answers. Effective expression and writing style.Minimal errors in grammar, punctuation, sentence construction, paragraph construction or spelling. Good, adequate referencing, using a reasonable range of current academic references. Minimal referencing style errors, following designated APA conventions both in text and in final reference list. A minimum of six references is provided and mostly used to support all four answers. Adequate, basic, sound writing style.Limited vocabulary, with minor errors in grammar, or spelling, or sentence structure, or paragraph structure that do not impede meaning. Satisfactory referencing, using a reasonable range of current academic, research/evidence-based references. Some referencing style errors, but following designated APA conventions both in text and in final reference list. A minimum of six references is provided but not consistently used to support all four answers. Poor writing style with errors in expression, sentence structure, paragraph structure, spelling and punctuation that impede meaning Unsatisfactory referencing, insufficient, current academic, research/evidence-based references. Absent, inadequate or incorrect referencing style noted. Less than six references provided and insufficiently used to support answers. Mark /5 4.5-5 4 3.5 2.5-3
