Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: PRAC_6675_Week7_Discussion_Presenter_Rubric
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Photo ID Display and Professional Attire | Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Photo ID is displayed. The student is dressed professionally with a lab coat. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Photo ID is not displayed. Student must remedy this before grade is posted. The student is not dressed professionally with a lab coat. Feedback: |
| Time | Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) The video does not exceed the 8-minute time limit. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) The video exceeds the 8-minute time limit. (Note: Information presented after the 8 minutes will not be evaluated for grade inclusion.) Feedback: |
| Objectives for the Presentation | Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) 3–4 objectives provided and written in terms of what the audience will know or be able to do after viewing. Appropriate Bloom’s verbs are used. Objectives are targeted and clear. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) 3–4 objectives provided and written in terms of what the audience will know or be able to do after viewing. Appropriate Bloom’s verbs are used. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) At least 3 objectives provided and written in terms of what the audience will know or be able to do after viewing, but are somewhat vague or unclear. Appropriate Bloom’s verbs may be missing. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Fewer than 3 objectives provided. Objectives for the presentation are vague, unclear, or missing. Feedback: |
| Discuss subjective data:• Chief complaint
• History of present illness (HPI) • Medications • Psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis • Pertinent histories and/or ROS |
Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) The video is a Kaltura video and accurately and concisely presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) The video is not a Kaltura video but easily opened and accurately presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) The video is not a Kaltura video and did not open without needing to reach the student. The 2nd attempt video presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis but is somewhat vague or contains minor inaccuracies. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) There is no video submission or video presents an incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose description of the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Or subjective documentation is missing. Feedback: |
| Discuss objective data:• Physical exam documentation of systems pertinent to the chief complaint, HPI, and history
• Diagnostic results, including any labs, imaging, or other assessments needed to develop the differential diagnoses |
Points: Points Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) The video accurately and concisely documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Pertinent diagnostic tests and their results are documented, as applicable. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) The response accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are documented, as applicable. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Documentation of the patient’s physical exam is somewhat vague or contains minor inaccuracies. Diagnostic tests and their results are documented but contain inaccuracies. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) The response provides incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose documentation of the patient’s physical exam. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed, or objective documentation is missing. Feedback: |
| Discuss results of assessment:• Results of the mental status examination
• Provide a minimum of three possible diagnoses in order of highest to lowest priority and explain why you chose them. What was your primary diagnosis and why? Describe how your primary diagnosis aligns with DSM-5 diagnostic criteria and is supported by the patient’s symptoms. |
Points: Points Range: 18 (18%) – 20 (20%) The video accurately documents the results of the mental status exam. Video presents at least 3 differentials in order of priority for a differential diagnosis of the patient, and a rationale for their selection. Response justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) The video adequately documents the results of the mental status exam. Video presents 3 differentials for the patient and a rationale for their selection. Response adequately justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The video presents the results of the mental status exam, with some vagueness or inaccuracy. Video presents 3 differentials for the patient and a rationale for their selection. Response somewhat vaguely justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 13 (13%) The response provides an incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose description of the results of the mental status exam and explanation of the differential diagnoses. Or assessment documentation is missing. Feedback: |
| Discuss treatment plan:• A treatment plan for the patient that addresses psychotherapy; one health promotion activity and one patient education strategy; plan for treatment and management, including alternative therapies; pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters; and a rationale for the approaches selected. | Points: Points Range: 18 (18%) – 20 (20%) The video clearly and concisely outlines an evidence-based treatment plan for the patient that addresses psychotherapy, health promotion and patient education, treatment and management, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters. A clear and concise rationale for the treatment approaches recommended is provided. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) The video clearly outlines an appropriate treatment plan for the patient that addresses psychotherapy, health promotion and patient education, treatment and management, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters. A clear rationale for the treatment approaches recommended is provided. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately outlines a treatment plan for the patient and provides a rationale for the treatment approaches recommended. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 13 (13%) The response does not address the diagnosis or is missing elements of the treatment plan. Feedback: |
| Reflect on this case. Discuss what you learned and what you might do differently.Pose 3 questions or discussion prompts, based on your presentation, that your colleagues can respond to after viewing your video. | Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking. Questions or prompts for colleagues are thought-provoking and will require substantive responses and critical thinking. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Reflections demonstrate critical thinking. Questions or prompts for colleagues are appropriate and will require substantive responses. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking. Questions or prompts for colleagues are somewhat general and may not require substantive responses. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Reflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing. Questions or prompts for colleagues are general, inappropriate, or missing. Feedback: |
| Focused SOAP Note | Points: Points Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly follows the SOAP format to document the selected patient case. 2 SOAP notes are submitted one in word and one pdf/images of preceptor signature. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) The response accurately follows the SOAP format to document the selected patient case. Only word document SOAP note submitted, no pdf/images of preceptor signature submitted. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) The response follows the SOAP format to document the selected patient case, with some vagueness and inaccuracy. Only pdf/images of preceptor signature submitted, no word document SOAP note submitted. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) The response incompletely and inaccurately follows the SOAP format to document the selected patient case. No word document or pdf/images of preceptor signature submitted. Feedback: |
| Presentation Style | Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Presentation style is exceptionally clear, professional, and focused. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Presentation syle is clear, professional, and focused. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Presentation style is unclear, unprofessional, and/or unfocused. Feedback: |
| Discussion Facilitation | Points: Points Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) Presenters effectively lead, sustain, and engage the discussion from Day 4 through Day 7. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Presenters lead, sustain, and engage the discussion from Day 4 through Day 7. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Presenters lead, sustain, and engage the discussion at least three out of four days between Days 4 and 7. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Presenters did not sustain and engage the discussion through Day 7. Feedback: |
Show Descriptions Show Feedback
Photo ID Display and Professional Attire–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Photo ID is displayed. The student is dressed professionally with a lab coat. Good 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Fair 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Poor 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Photo ID is not displayed. Student must remedy this before grade is posted. The student is not dressed professionally with a lab coat. Feedback:
Time–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) The video does not exceed the 8-minute time limit. Good 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Fair 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Poor 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) The video exceeds the 8-minute time limit. (Note: Information presented after the 8 minutes will not be evaluated for grade inclusion.) Feedback:
Objectives for the Presentation–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) 3–4 objectives provided and written in terms of what the audience will know or be able to do after viewing. Appropriate Bloom’s verbs are used. Objectives are targeted and clear. Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) 3–4 objectives provided and written in terms of what the audience will know or be able to do after viewing. Appropriate Bloom’s verbs are used. Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) At least 3 objectives provided and written in terms of what the audience will know or be able to do after viewing, but are somewhat vague or unclear. Appropriate Bloom’s verbs may be missing. Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Fewer than 3 objectives provided. Objectives for the presentation are vague, unclear, or missing. Feedback:
Discuss subjective data:
• Chief complaint
• History of present illness (HPI)
• Medications
• Psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis
• Pertinent histories and/or ROS
— Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) The video is a Kaltura video and accurately and concisely presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) The video is not a Kaltura video but easily opened and accurately presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) The video is not a Kaltura video and did not open without needing to reach the student. The 2nd attempt video presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis but is somewhat vague or contains minor inaccuracies. Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) There is no video submission or video presents an incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose description of the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Or subjective documentation is missing. Feedback:
Discuss objective data:
• Physical exam documentation of systems pertinent to the chief complaint, HPI, and history
• Diagnostic results, including any labs, imaging, or other assessments needed to develop the differential diagnoses
— Levels of Achievement: Excellent 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) The video accurately and concisely documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Pertinent diagnostic tests and their results are documented, as applicable. Good 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) The response accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are documented, as applicable. Fair 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Documentation of the patient’s physical exam is somewhat vague or contains minor inaccuracies. Diagnostic tests and their results are documented but contain inaccuracies. Poor 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) The response provides incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose documentation of the patient’s physical exam. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed, or objective documentation is missing. Feedback:
Discuss results of assessment:
• Results of the mental status examination
• Provide a minimum of three possible diagnoses in order of highest to lowest priority and explain why you chose them. What was your primary diagnosis and why? Describe how your primary diagnosis aligns with DSM-5 diagnostic criteria and is supported by the patient’s symptoms.
— Levels of Achievement: Excellent 18 (18%) – 20 (20%) The video accurately documents the results of the mental status exam. Video presents at least 3 differentials in order of priority for a differential diagnosis of the patient, and a rationale for their selection. Response justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria. Good 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) The video adequately documents the results of the mental status exam. Video presents 3 differentials for the patient and a rationale for their selection. Response adequately justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria. Fair 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The video presents the results of the mental status exam, with some vagueness or inaccuracy. Video presents 3 differentials for the patient and a rationale for their selection. Response somewhat vaguely justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria. Poor 0 (0%) – 13 (13%) The response provides an incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose description of the results of the mental status exam and explanation of the differential diagnoses. Or assessment documentation is missing. Feedback:
Discuss treatment plan:
• A treatment plan for the patient that addresses psychotherapy; one health promotion activity and one patient education strategy; plan for treatment and management, including alternative therapies; pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters; and a rationale for the approaches selected.
— Levels of Achievement: Excellent 18 (18%) – 20 (20%) The video clearly and concisely outlines an evidence-based treatment plan for the patient that addresses psychotherapy, health promotion and patient education, treatment and management, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters. A clear and concise rationale for the treatment approaches recommended is provided. Good 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) The video clearly outlines an appropriate treatment plan for the patient that addresses psychotherapy, health promotion and patient education, treatment and management, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters. A clear rationale for the treatment approaches recommended is provided. Fair 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately outlines a treatment plan for the patient and provides a rationale for the treatment approaches recommended. Poor 0 (0%) – 13 (13%) The response does not address the diagnosis or is missing elements of the treatment plan. Feedback:
Reflect on this case. Discuss what you learned and what you might do differently.
Pose 3 questions or discussion prompts, based on your presentation, that your colleagues can respond to after viewing your video.
— Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking. Questions or prompts for colleagues are thought-provoking and will require substantive responses and critical thinking. Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Reflections demonstrate critical thinking. Questions or prompts for colleagues are appropriate and will require substantive responses. Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking. Questions or prompts for colleagues are somewhat general and may not require substantive responses. Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Reflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing. Questions or prompts for colleagues are general, inappropriate, or missing. Feedback:
Focused SOAP Note–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly follows the SOAP format to document the selected patient case. 2 SOAP notes are submitted one in word and one pdf/images of preceptor signature. Good 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) The response accurately follows the SOAP format to document the selected patient case. Only word document SOAP note submitted, no pdf/images of preceptor signature submitted. Fair 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) The response follows the SOAP format to document the selected patient case, with some vagueness and inaccuracy. Only pdf/images of preceptor signature submitted, no word document SOAP note submitted. Poor 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) The response incompletely and inaccurately follows the SOAP format to document the selected patient case. No word document or pdf/images of preceptor signature submitted. Feedback:
Presentation Style–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Presentation style is exceptionally clear, professional, and focused. Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Presentation syle is clear, professional, and focused. Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Presentation style is unclear, unprofessional, and/or unfocused. Feedback:
Discussion Facilitation–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) Presenters effectively lead, sustain, and engage the discussion from Day 4 through Day 7. Good 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Presenters lead, sustain, and engage the discussion from Day 4 through Day 7. Fair 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Presenters lead, sustain, and engage the discussion at least three out of four days between Days 4 and 7. Poor 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Presenters did not sustain and engage the discussion through Day 7. Feedback:
| Total Points: 100 |
|---|
