For each assessment criterion, category score ranges corresponding to different standards of performance are reported below.
For each category, examples of
NURS4001 – Clinical Risk and Intervention
Project
CONTENT AND TASK FULFILMENT
Introduction
The Topic is clear,
Aim reported
Rationale reported
The NSQHS is reported (2.5)
Describes and defines the standard and its
relevance to clinical practice and patient
safety.
Describes and compares the problem
within different countries, provides
evidence of an ongoing issue within
Australia and/or Western Australia.
Uses 2-3 Safety in your hands reports as
evidence. Uses 3-5 or more countries to
determine the problem, using peer
reviewed journal articles or relevant
websites.
Identifies and critiques four human factors
and their influence on either pressure
injuries or falls.
Identifies two
interventions/equipment/techniques that
have been applied in nursing to improve
patient outcomes within the problem
identified.
Critique the strengths and weaknesses of
the two
interventions/equipment/techniques
(30)
Student uses a 20 relevant peer-reviewed
journal articles (research studies within 10
standards of performance MAY include but are not limited to:
UNACCEPTABLE
Introduction is missing, aim not
reported, rationale not reported.
Poor linking to body or paper. Not
clear.
Does not Describe and define the
standard or its relevance to clinical
practice and patient safety.
Poor evidence of countries given.
No evidence of problem does not
provide a clear account of the issue
within the Australian Context.
Does not accurately report from
peer reviewed journal articles or
relevant websites.
Poor Identification and critique of
four human factors and their
influence on either pressure injuries
or falls.
Only identified one intervention
and poorly critiqued strengths and
weaknesses.
Paper does not include the
minimum number of sources (1)
NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
Aim partially reported,
rationale Partially reported.
Some linking to body or
paper. Not clear.
Inadequately Describes and
define the standard or its
relevance to clinical practice
and patient safety.
Some evidence of countries
given as part of review. Does
provide a simple account of
the issue within the
Australian Context.
Does not accurately report
from peer reviewed journal
articles or relevant websites.
Some Identification and
critique of four human
factors and their influence
on either pressure injuries or
falls.
Identified one/two
interventions and poorly
critiqued strengths and
weaknesses.
Uses the minimum number
of sources and little else. If
SATISFACTORY
Aim reported, rationale
reported. Good linking to body
or paper. Some information is
provided linking the body of
the paper.
Describes and defines the
standard or its relevance to
clinical practice, clinical
governance and patient safety
Satisfactory evidence of
countries given in review,
Provides a simple and clear
account of the issue within the
Australian Context.
Has Reported from peer
reviewed journal articles or
relevant websites.
Adequate Identification and
critique of four human factors
and their influence on either
pressure injuries or falls.
Identified two interventions
and an adequate critique of
strengths and weaknesses.
Uses the minimum number of
sources. Also uses some
PROFICIENT
The introduction provides an
excellent description of what
will be discussed in the body
of the paper. Includes an
excellent rationale and aim.
Accurately Describes and
defines the standard and its
relevance to clinical practice
and patient safety. Is able to
connect the standard to
patient safety and clinical
governance.
Exceptional evidence of
countries given in review,
Provides a succinct and clear
account of the issue within
the Australian/West
Australian Context.
Excellent reporting from
peer reviewed journal
articles or relevant websites.
Excellent
Identification and critique of
four human factors and their
influence on either pressure
injuries or falls.
Identified two interventions
and an excellent appraisal
critique of strengths and
weaknesses.
.
In addition to including the
minimum number of
EXCEPTIONAL
The introduction provides an
exceptional description of
what will be discussed in the
body of the paper. Includes an
exceptional rationale and aim.
Exactly Describes and defines
the standard and its relevance
to clinical practice and patient
safety. Is able to connect the
standard to patient safety and
clinical governance.
Outstanding evidence of
countries given in review,
Provides a succinct and clear
account of the issue within the
Australian/West Australian
Context.
Exceptional reporting from
peer reviewed journal articles
or relevant websites.
Excellent
Identification and critique of
four human factors and their
influence on either pressure
injuries or falls.
Identified two interventions
and an exceptional appraisal
and critique of strengths and
weaknesses.
In addition to including the
minimum number of sources,
 years) (5) other resources are used,
they likely include the unit
readings, and/or poor
internet sources to support
ideas presented (2)
additional peer-reviewed
journal literature sourced by
the student to support ideas
presented (3)
sources, also uses a wide
range of relevant academic
literature (most of which is
peer-reviewed journal
literature) well exceeding
minimum requirements
sourced by the student to
support ideas presented (4)
also uses a wide and diverse
range of relevant academic
literature (most of which is
high-quality peer-reviewed
research study journal
literature) far exceeding
minimum requirements
sourced by the student to
support ideas presented (5)

Conclusion (2.5) Poor summary of the topic
knowledge and suggestion for
future research is evident.
No recommendation for a QI
project is evident.
APA (7th ed.) end-text and in-text format Three or more fundamental errors
and accurate acknowledgement of sources, in applying APA (7th ed.) format
paraphrases, and direct quotes (including AND/OR contains academic
from videos) throughout integrity breaches (0.5)
(2.5 Marks)
Poor summary of the topic
knowledge and suggestion
for future research is
evident.
A recommendation for a QI
project is evident.
Two fundamental errors in
applying APA (7th ed.)
format (1)
Adequate summary of the
topic knowledge and
suggestion for future research
is evident.
A recommendation for a QI
project is evident.
One fundamental error in
applying APA (7th ed.) format
(1.5)
Excellent summary of the Outstanding summary of the
topic knowledge and topic knowledge and
suggestion for future suggestion for future research
research is evident. is evident.
A recommendation for a QI A recommendation for a QI
project is evident. project is evident.
Minor typographical-type No errors or no more than 3
errors in APA (7th ed.) minor typographical-type
format (2) errors in APA (7th ed.) format
(2.5)

Formatting, paragraphing, fluency, and style of
formal academic English writing (1.5 line spacing
throughout including reference list; 11/12pt
Arial/Times New Roman font; left-justified;
abbreviations given in full the first time used and
in the beginning of a paragraph or sentence.
Australian English spelling. Word Count 2200 +/-
10%
(2.5 Marks)
Major errors in formatting, spelling,
logical progression, and/or
grammar to the extent that the
meaning of the words is unclear.
Language is unclear and difficult to
read/understand throughout the
paper. Content does not flow
smoothly and logically (0.5)
Significant formatting,
spelling, logical progression,
and/or grammatical errors
that distract the reader and
may obscure the meaning of
the words. Language is
unclear making the paper
difficult to read/understand.
Content generally does not
flow smoothly and logically
(1)
Some formatting, spelling,
logical progression, and/or
grammatical errors that
sometimes distract the reader.
Language is unclear in places;
however, meaning is generally
not lost (1.5)
Minor occasional formatting,
spelling, logical progression,
and/or grammatical errors.
Clear and effective formal
academic language used
throughout paper. Content
flows smoothly and logically
(2)
Free or almost free from
formatting, spelling, logical
progression, and/or
grammatical errors. Clear,
succinct, and effective formal
academic language used
throughout the paper. Content
flows smoothly and logically
(2.5)

Total Marks /45