Assignment: Pathophysiology of T2DM
Assignment: Pathophysiology of T2DM
Excellent description of the pathophysiology of T2DM. Excellent discussion of pathogenesis, complications and/ or treatment options. Clear links to Emily’s case.
Very Good description of the pathophysiology of T2DM. Thorough discussion of pathogenesis, complications and/ or treatment options. Clear links to Emily’s case.
Adequate description of the pathophysiology of T2DM. Adequate discussion of pathogenesis, complications and/ or treatment options. Clear links to Emily’s case.
Poor description of the pathophysiology of T2DM but accurate. Poor discussion of pathogenesis, complications and treatment options. Poor links to Emily’s case
Lack of understanding of T2DM demonstrated. Poor or absent discussion of pathogenesis, complications and/ or treatment options, no links to Emily’s case.
No discussion
Part 1.2 5%
Excellent differentiation between T2DM and T1DM in students own words (at least 5 differences).
Very Good differentiation between T2DM and T1DM in students own words (at least 5 differences).
Clear differentiation between T2DM and T1DM (at least 5 differences).
Poor differentiation between T2DM and T1DM. Lacks students own words (at least 4 differences).
Unclear differentiation between T2DM and T1DM (less than 4 differences)
No differentiation between T2DM and T1DM
Part 1.3 10%
At least 3 reasons for high BGL identified with excellent rationale and clear links to Emily’s case
At least 2 reasons for high BGL identified with thorough rationale and clear links to Emily’s case
At least 2 reasons for high BGL identified with adequate rationale and links to Emily’s case
At least 2 reasons for high BGL identified with poor rationale and lacks clear links to Emily’s case
Few reasons for high BGL identified with poor rationale and lacks clear links to Emily’s case
No reasons for high BGL discussed
Part 2.1 20%
Excellent Discussion the use of medication linked to Emily. All Assignment: Pathophysiology of T2DM
Very Good discussion the use of medication linked to
Discussion the use of medication linked to Emily.
Poor discussion of the medication linked to Emily.
Poor discussion of the medication linked to Emily.
No discussion. No benefits or
Total marks /100
High Distinction (>80%)
Distinction (70- 79%)
Credit (60 -69%) Pass (50-59%) Limited (45-49%) Not demonstrated (44%-0%)
complications/side effects and/or nursing considerations discussed at length
Emily. Most benefits complications/side effects and/or nursing considerations discussed at length.
Most complications/side effects and/or nursing considerations discussed at length
Some complications/side effects and/or nursing considerations discussed at length.
Few actions, complications/side effects and/or nursing considerations discussed at length.
risks. No links to Emily
Part 2.2 10%
Excellent discussion of blood tests with excellent rationale and clear links to Emily’s case.
Very good discussion of blood tests with good rationale and clear links to Emily’s case.
Adequate discussion of blood test and rationale and links to Emily’s case.
Poor discussion of Blood tests with some rationale and links to Emily’s case
Poor discussion of Blood tests with poor rationale and lacks clear links to Emily’s case
No reasons for blood tests identified
Part 3.1 15%
Excellent discussion of renal function test with excellent rationale for appropriate treatment and clear links to Emily’s case.
Very good discussion of renal function tests with good rationale for appropriate treatment and clear links to Emily’s case
Adequate discussion of renal function tests with rationale for appropriate treatment and links to Emily’s case
Poor discussion of renal function tests and rationale for treatment and limited links to Emily’s case
Poor discussion of renal function tests and rationale for treatment and lacks links to Emily’s case
No reasons for blood tests identified
Referencing 10%
APA style correctly used, no errors. Excellent recent (5-7 years old) and relevant sources used that demonstrated wide reading. Minimum of 10 peer reviewed sources
APA style correctly used. Recent (5-7 years old) and relevant sources used that demonstrated wide reading. Minimum of 9 peer reviewed sources
APA style correctly used. Recent (5-7 years old) and relevant sources used. Minimum of 7 peer reviewed sources Assignment: Pathophysiology of T2DM
Minor mistakes with referencing. Few recent (5-7 years old) or relevant sources
Major mistakes with referencing. Lack of recent (5-7 years old) relevant sources
No Referencing.
Presentation Writing,
Excellent layout. Writing is concise but thorough. No spelling or grammatical
Very Good layout. Writing may be concise but
Clear layout. Writing may be concise but
Unclear layout. Writing is not concise or
Unclear layout. Writing is not concise or
Writing can not be followed. Poor or absent use of
Total marks /100
High Distinction (>80%)
Distinction (70- 79%)
Credit (60 -69%) Pass (50-59%) Limited (45-49%) Not demonstrated (44%-0%)
Has introduction and conclusion with main points 10%
errors. Excellent introduction and conclusion provided, No new reference included in the conclusion
thorough. No spelling or grammatical errors. Very good introduction and conclusion provided. No new reference included in the conclusion
thorough. Few minor spelling or grammatical errors. Good introduction and conclusion provided. New reference included in the conclusion
thorough. Many spelling or grammatical errors. Introduction and conclusion were not well written. New reference included in the conclusion
thorough. Many major spelling or grammatical errors. No introduction and conclusion were included.
