Skip to main content

iRubric: Peds Assessment 2 rubric

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

Peds Assessment 2

Rubric Code: SXC596

By wroach

Ready to use

Public Rubric

Subject: Health

Type: Project

Grade Levels: Graduate

Pedatric Assessment
	Poor 0 pts	Fair 1 pts	Good 3 pts	Very Good 5 pts
Subjective 5 % Criterea 1 Use of patient history in assessment Chief Complaint	Poor Needs improvement Inadequate content, key elements not included, rationale for diagnoses not explained poor literacy/grammar/ referencing	Fair Adequate Adequate coverage of differential diagnoses and final diagnoses and rationale for these, some reference to literature to support content	Good Above average Key history clearly presented, rationale explained, supported with reference to relevant literature and correctly referenced	Very Good Excellent Excellent presentation of required key history, with critical evaluation of literature and key resources on the topic and correctly referenced
Subjective 2 % Past Medical Hx Prenatal Health Care Diet/Nutrition Personal/Social Family History Growth and Development	Poor Needs improvement Inadequate content, key elements not included, rationale for diagnoses not explained poor literacy/grammar/ referencing	Fair Adequate Adequate coverage of differential diagnoses and final diagnoses and rationale for these, some reference to literature to support content	Good Above average Key history clearly presented, rationale explained, supported with reference to relevant literature and correctly referenced	Very Good Excellent Excellent presentation of required key history, with critical evaluation of literature and key resources on the topic and correctly referenced
Subjective 5 % ROS	Poor Needs improvement Inadequate content, key elements not included, rationale for diagnoses not explained poor literacy/grammar/ referencing	Fair Adequate Adequate coverage of differential diagnoses and final diagnoses and rationale for these, some reference to literature to support content	Good Above average Key history clearly presented, rationale explained, supported with reference to relevant literature and correctly referenced	Very Good Excellent Excellent presentation of required key history, with critical evaluation of literature and key resources on the topic and correctly referenced
Objective 5 % Use of physical examination in assessment General Skin Head Eyes Ears Mouth and Throat Neck	Poor Needs improvement Inadequate content, key elements not included, rationale for diagnoses not explained poor literacy/grammar/ referencing	Fair Adequate Adequate coverage of differential diagnoses and final diagnoses and rationale for these, some reference to literature to support content	Good Above average Key history clearly presented, rationale explained, supported with reference to relevant literature and correctly referenced	Very Good Excellent Excellent presentation of required key history, with critical evaluation of literature and key resources on the topic and correctly referenced
Objective 5 % Chest and Lungs	Poor Needs improvement Inadequate content, key elements not included, rationale for diagnoses not explained poor literacy/grammar/ referencing	Fair Adequate Adequate coverage of differential diagnoses and final diagnoses and rationale for these, some reference to literature to support content	Good Above average Key history clearly presented, rationale explained, supported with reference to relevant literature and correctly referenced	Very Good Excellent Excellent presentation of required key history, with critical evaluation of literature and key resources on the topic and correctly referenced
Objective 5 % Heart and Blood Vessels	Poor Needs improvement Inadequate content, key elements not included, rationale for diagnoses not explained poor literacy/grammar/ referencing	Fair Adequate Adequate coverage of differential diagnoses and final diagnoses and rationale for these, some reference to literature to support content	Good Above average Key history clearly presented, rationale explained, supported with reference to relevant literature and correctly referenced	Very Good Excellent Excellent presentation of required key history, with critical evaluation of literature and key resources on the topic and correctly referenced
Objective 5 % Abdomen Genitalia Anus and Rectum	Poor Needs improvement Inadequate content, key elements not included, rationale for diagnoses not explained poor literacy/grammar/ referencing	Fair Adequate Adequate coverage of differential diagnoses and final diagnoses and rationale for these, some reference to literature to support content	Good Above average Key history clearly presented, rationale explained, supported with reference to relevant literature and correctly referenced	Very Good Excellent Excellent presentation of required key history, with critical evaluation of literature and key resources on the topic and correctly referenced
Objective 5 % Lymphatic	Poor Needs improvement Inadequate content, key elements not included, rationale for diagnoses not explained poor literacy/grammar/ referencing	Fair Adequate Adequate coverage of differential diagnoses and final diagnoses and rationale for these, some reference to literature to support content	Good Above average Key history clearly presented, rationale explained, supported with reference to relevant literature and correctly referenced	Very Good Excellent Excellent presentation of required key history, with critical evaluation of literature and key resources on the topic and correctly referenced
Objective 5 % Musculoskeletal	Poor Needs improvement Inadequate content, key elements not included, rationale for diagnoses not explained poor literacy/grammar/ referencing	Fair Adequate Adequate coverage of differential diagnoses and final diagnoses and rationale for these, some reference to literature to support content	Good Above average Key history clearly presented, rationale explained, supported with reference to relevant literature and correctly referenced	Very Good Excellent Excellent presentation of required key history, with critical evaluation of literature and key resources on the topic and correctly referenced
Objective 5 % Neurologic	Poor Needs improvement Inadequate content, key elements not included, rationale for diagnoses not explained poor literacy/grammar/ referencing	Fair Adequate Adequate coverage of differential diagnoses and final diagnoses and rationale for these, some reference to literature to support content	Good Above average Key history clearly presented, rationale explained, supported with reference to relevant literature and correctly referenced	Very Good Excellent Excellent presentation of required key history, with critical evaluation of literature and key resources on the topic and correctly referenced
Objective 5 % Denver II Development Test	Poor Needs improvement Inadequate content, key elements not included, rationale for diagnoses not explained poor literacy/grammar/ referencing	Fair Adequate Adequate coverage of differential diagnoses and final diagnoses and rationale for these, some reference to literature to support content	Good Above average Key history clearly presented, rationale explained, supported with reference to relevant literature and correctly referenced	Very Good Excellent Excellent presentation of required key history, with critical evaluation of literature and key resources on the topic and correctly referenced
Assessment 10 % Criteria 3 Use of pathology and immunizations	Poor Needs improvement Inadequate content, key elements not included, rationale for diagnoses not explained poor literacy/grammar/ referencing	Fair Adequate Adequate coverage of differential diagnoses and final diagnoses and rationale for these, some reference to literature to support content	Good Above average Key history clearly presented, rationale explained, supported with reference to relevant literature and correctly referenced	Very Good Excellent Excellent presentation of required key history, with critical evaluation of literature and key resources on the topic and correctly referenced
Management Plan 10 % Criteria 4 Diagnosis/ differential diagnoses and rationale for these	Poor Needs improvement Inadequate content, key elements not included, rationale for diagnoses not explained poor literacy/grammar/ referencing	Fair Adequate Adequate coverage of differential diagnoses and final diagnoses and rationale for these, some reference to literature to support content	Good Above average Key history clearly presented, rationale explained, supported with reference to relevant literature and correctly referenced	Very Good Excellent Excellent presentation of required key history, with critical evaluation of literature and key resources on the topic and correctly referenced

Subjects:

Health

Types:

Project

Discuss this rubric

You may also be interested in:

More rubrics by this author

More Health rubrics

More Project rubrics

Do more with this rubric:

Preview

Preview

Preview this rubric.

Edit

Edit

Modify this rubric.

Copy

Copy

Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.

Print

Print

Show a printable version of this rubric.

Categorize

Categorize

Add this rubric to multiple categories.

Bookmark

Bookmark

Bookmark this rubric for future reference.

Assess

Test run

Test run

Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.

Grade

Grade

Build a gradebook to assess students.

Collaborate

Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.

Share

Publish

Publish

Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.

Email

Email

Email this rubric to a friend.

Discuss

Discuss

Discuss this rubric with other members.

Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.

Only with iRubric^tm.

n224