Get Original Solution – Assessment 3: PHAR2001 INTRODUCTORY PHARMACOLOGY - EssayQuest

PHAR2001 INTRODUCTORY PHARMACOLOGY
Assessment 3: Case Study
ASSESSMENT 1 BRIEF
Assessment Summary Assessment title
Assessment 3: Case study Due Date
Thursday Week 6, 17 April at 11:59 Length
•
The suggested number of words (not a word limit) for the individual questions within the case study is as indicated at the end of each individual question. Weighting
50% Submission
Word document submitted to Turnitin Unit Learning Outcomes
By completing this assessment, you will achieve the following Unit Learning Outcomes:
ULO 2. Describe the mechanism of action, pharmacological effects, therapeutic uses, contraindications, safety issues and side effects of major drug classes and commonly used therapeutic agents.
ULO 3: Discuss drug toxicity and interactions between drugs using specific examples of drugs and considering individual variability of drug response
ULO 4. Investigate and evaluate medications in case-based contexts and accurately communicate the findings in a timely manner.
Task Description
This case study workbook involves:
•
A case study set in a multi-disciplinary clinic that addresses ULO’s 2, 3 and 4 and is worth a total of 50% of your grade in the unit.
Each individual question within the case study has its own individual weighting and suggested word count, which are found directly after the question.
Rationale
•
The case study helps you develop the SKILL associated with knowing where to look to find accurate information about medications and using those resources to provide accurate and clear information about administration of medications.
The case study will ultimately form a solid foundation in pharmacology that will help you to:
•
Ensure safe monitoring of a client’s medication
•
Increase confidence in performing drug administration
•
Provide accurate patient education
•
Communicate professionally about medications to colleagues
Task Instructions
Students will download the word document referred to as Assessment 3: Case study. There will be:
•
A five-week evolution of the case study:
o
Engage in the unit content within Modules 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 which will allow you to understand information about pharmacology that you will research.
o
Research each individual question using the strategies that you developed in Tutorial 1.
Formatting
There are no restrictions on the font or spacing used, although the word document must be in a format acceptable to Turnitin (i.e. no hand-written answers, but Microsoft Word® (.doc/.docx), OpenOffice Text (.odt), WordPerfect® (.wpd), PostScript (.ps), HTML and others are acceptable).
Resources
•
Week 1 tutorial discusses the most useful and accurate resources
•
The information in the unit content folder on the Blackboard site will allow you to understand the material you are researching
•
The discussion board in Blackboard
Referencing style
On the case study questions, you will be asked to provide the resource that you found most beneficial in completing your answer to the individual questions. You will need to insert the reference in the box provided for that specific question. APA not required. This can simply involve pasting the URL into the box. Please note:
•
Answers obtained from Artificial Intelligence sources like ChatGPT or the artificial intelligence-based Google searches will be awarded no (0) credit.
•
Answers that cite a source which does not provide the information that correlates to the answer in the workbook will receive no (0) credit.
•
You may include more than one reference if you obtained your answer from multiple sources, but it is suggested that you cite no more than two references per question.
Submission
Workbooks should be submitted using the Turnitin activity titled “Assessment 3: Case study” in the Assessments Tasks & Submission section on the BlackBoard PHAR2001 site. You must label your submission with your surname and initials and Case study, e.g. SmithJ_Case Study.doc
Assessment Criteria
The case study has a series of short answer questions, each of which are weighted differently. Weightings for each question are indicated in parentheses after the question.
General guidelines for the workbook (specific rubrics for each part are below)
High Distinction:
The student’s performance, demonstrates distinctive insight and ability in researching, analysing and applying relevant skills and concepts, and shows exceptional ability to synthesise, integrate and evaluate knowledge and respond appropriately to safety issues. The student’s performance could be described as outstanding, has not exceeded the word limit for each relevant question and the descriptions are coherent sentences, with no dot points.
Distinction:
The student’s performance, demonstrates distinctive insight and ability in researching, analysing and applying relevant skills and concepts, and shows a well-developed ability to synthesise, integrate and evaluate knowledge and respond appropriately to safety issues. The student’s performance could be described as distinguished, has not exceeded the word limit for each relevant question and the descriptions are coherent sentences, with no dot points.
Credit:
The student’s performance demonstrates insight and ability in researching, analysing and applying relevant skills and concepts. The student’s performance could be described as competent, is very close to the word limit, making sense to the reader, and using few dot points.
Pass:
The student’s performance satisfies all of the basic learning requirements and provides a sound basis for proceeding to higher-level studies in the subject area. The student’s performance could be described as satisfactory, is very close to the word limit, making sense to the reader, and using few dot points.
Fail:
The student’s performance fails to satisfy the learning requirements.
Individual questions within this case study will receive zero marks (0) if:
•
The student has used ANY Artificial Intelligence (AI) source like ChatGPT.
•
The student uses material directly from any source.
•
The link to the site in which the material has been sourced
o
Does not contain the information the student provided in the answer
o
Is an AI source
Rubric for Assessment 1
Marking Criteria and % allocation
High Distinction +
100%
High Distinction
(85–99%)
Distinction
(75–84%)
Credit
(65–74%)
Pass
(50–64%)
Marginal Fail
(35-49%)
Fail
(1-34%)
Not Addressed
(0%)
Criterion 1 (Case study part A)

Evidence of understanding the questions, and answering them in your own words, correctly, concisely and with consideration of safety issues. (ULO 1, 2, 4)

Evidence of understanding the questions, and answering them in your own words, correctly, concisely and with consideration of safety issues. (ULO 2, 4)

consideration of safety issues. (ULO 1, 2, 4)

20%
incomplete or incorrect answers.
fairly well addressed.
incoherent answers.
Criterion 4 (Case study part D)

Evidence of understanding the questions, and answering them in your own words, correctly, concisely and with consideration of safety issues. (ULO 2, 4)

20%
Achieves all the criteria for a High Distinction to an exemplary standard, without any errors.
Safety issues are correctly and comprehensively addressed.
Deep understanding of the case study with no incomplete or incorrect answers.
Safety issues are correctly addressed. Well-developed understanding of the case study. Some detail missing or incorrect.
Moderate understanding of the case study. Some details missing or safety issues not fully addressed.
Basic understanding of most of the questions, some incomplete answers, wrong answers, but the safety issues are fairly well addressed.
Does not meet the requirements for a Pass, due to recommendations that are not safe, answers that do not address the question, and/or incoherent answers.
Does not meet the requirements for a pass due to major omissions (i.e. references) or mistakes.
No assessment submitted.
Criterion 5 (Case study part E)
Evidence of understanding the questions, and answering them in your own words, correctly, concisely and with consideration of safety issues. (ULO 2, 4)
10%
Achieves all the criteria for a High Distinction to an exemplary standard, without any errors.
Safety issues are correctly and comprehensively addressed.
Deep understanding of the case study with no incomplete or incorrect answers.
Safety issues are correctly addressed. Well-developed understanding of the case study. Some detail missing or incorrect.
Moderate understanding of the case study. Some details missing or safety issues not fully addressed.
Basic understanding of most of the questions, some incomplete answers, wrong answers, but the safety issues are fairly well addressed.
Does not meet the requirements for a Pass, due to recommendations that are not safe, answers that do not address the question, and/or incoherent answers.
Does not meet the requirements for a pass due to major omissions (i.e. references) or mistakes.
No assessment submitted.
Criterion 6: Quality of references.
10%
Highest quality of references, using only peer reviewed material.
Mostly peer reviewed references and some high-quality practitioner references.
Some use of peer reviewed material with the balance referenced from reliable practitioner resources.
Mostly reliable practitioner resources.
Generally lower quality references with some use of peer reviewed material.
Very low-quality references (general search engine searches, or mostly Wikipedia, etc.)
Very low-quality references. (If references are completely missing, see directly above)
No assessment submitted. (Note that the absence of references affects all criteria.)
6
End of Assessment Brief
7

The post Assessment 3: PHAR2001 INTRODUCTORY PHARMACOLOGY appeared first on Universal Assignment.