iRubric: Case Study CE II rubric

(draft) edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...

Case Study CE II

4-5 pages, double-spaced, HIPAA-compliant in paragraph form. It is acceptable to have data in the form of a chart or table.

Rubric Code: GXXBBWX

By MargaretDecker

Draft

Public Rubric

Subject: (General)

Type: (Other)

Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Case Study
	Poor (N/A)	Fair (N/A)	Good (N/A)	Very Good (N/A)
Length 5 pts	Poor 3 pages or less. Includes use of excel spreadsheet type data. (not including references) 0 points	Fair >5.5 pages 2 points	Good 3.5 pages 4 points	Very Good EXACTLY 4-5 pages (not including references) 5 points
Appropriateness of research article 15 pts High Level research from peer-reviewed sources	Poor Non peer reviewed article (i.e. dissertation, general interest publication, expert opinion such as a CI interview), or no explanationof how the article influenced your clinical decision-making 5 points	Fair Research article from a peer-reviewed journal that is two of the following: older than 2000, not pertinent to your patient, or not submitted with case study 8 points	Good Research article from a peer-reviewed journal that is one of the following: older than 2000, not pertinent to your patient, or not submitted with case study 12 points	Very Good Multiple research articles from peer-reviewed journals, (published after 2000) that are pertinent to your patient, submitted on-time, with case study. Clear explanation of how information in the article influenced your clinical decision-making 15 points
Organization 15 pts Logical flow of infomation and clinical thought process	Poor Disorganized and contains unnecessary information (repeated or too many details). Requires re-reading to follow thought process. May raise more questions than it answers 5 points 5 points	Fair	Good Information regarding your thought process is present, but may not be clear. This may reflect only partial understanding of the big picture or the pt's situation 11 points	Very Good Clearly organized sections (i.e. introduction, patient information, brief summary of the patient's problem that you searched, brief clear summary of how the research relates to your pt's situation) 15 points
Typos and grammatical errors 5 pts Any errors of spelling, key stroke or grammar. Plan to proof read, and then proof read again, then have someone else proof read it!	Poor >5 errors, or any first-person language 1 points	Fair 3-5 errors, written in third-person language 2 points	Good 1-3 errors, written in third-person language 4 points	Very Good No typos or grammatical errors, written in professional, third-person voice 5 points
On time 10 pts	Poor >12 hours late: 0 points	Fair	Good <12 hours: 5 points	Very Good By deadline: 10 points
HIPAA compliant 5 pts	Poor Full name used anywhere in the paper, email (i.e. subject line) 0 points	Fair First name only used 2 points	Good Fake or silly name used 4 points	Very Good Only initials used 5 points
Past Medical History & demographics 5 pts medical & surgical history, age, job and/or activity, prior level of function information, and patient's chief complaint	Poor Vague or incomplete information that may conflict with other parts of the paper 0 points	Fair Partial or vague history and minimial info regarding activity 2 points	Good Rambling or excess information in addition to PMH & surgical history 4 points	Very Good Thorough (yet concise) medical & surgical history. If this is pt's first illness or injury, then that is clearly stated. Thorough info on pt's activity level 5 points
Medical and physical therapy dx 10 pts	Poor Neither diagnosis 0 points	Fair Only one of the diagnoses 5 points	Good Medical and Physical Therapy diagnosis without ICD-9 code 8 points	Very Good Thorough Medical and Physical Therapy diagnosis, written out and including the ICD 9 code 10 points
Goals & Discussion of discharge 20 pts did pt meet goals, were outcome measures used	Poor Goals listed in vague terms, or no functional outcome measures. No meaningful discussion in body of paper No discussion of dischage options or status 5 points	Fair Minimal list of goals, or not in measurable terms, some discussion of discharge in paper 10 points	Good Less than 3 short & long term goals, in objective, measureable terms, or minimal discussion 15 points	Very Good Discharge discussed with short and long term goals written in objective, measurable terms. Includes use of functional outcome measures (i.e. TUG, 6MWT, Berg Balance, etc) . Both of these are discussed , not just listed 20points
Interventions 10 pts	Poor no CPT codes 1 pt	Fair 4	Good Only some CPT codes for the interventions 7	Very Good CPT code for each intervention 10 points

Subjects:

(General)

Types:

(Other)

Discuss this rubric