CHIR20001- Advanced Clinical Neurology & Diagnosis
PRACTICAL ASSESSMENT MARKING RUBRIC & FEEDBACK
SUBMISSION DETAILS (student to complete)
Student Name: Chelsea Graving
SID:s0268698
First marker: Andrew Vitiello
EXCELLENT
MARKING DOMAIN
(100-85%)
 The student outlined the  There were some minor omissions
epidemiology, causes and
progression of the condition to an
exemplary degree
PATHOPHYSIOLOGY
 The amount of information provided  The amount of information provided was
was expertly crafted and conveyed
the appropriate message in a timely
manner
 The correct and complete
examination was performed for the
condition of interest without errors
 The examination was performed to
an exemplary degree displaying
certainty in the procedure and a high
degree of technical competency
 The examination was performed in a
timely manner, i.e., at a speed that
would be expected within a real
clinical encounter by a professional.
 Video demonstrated every aspect of
the neurological examination in a
clear and unambiguous manner
 The examination always took the
NEUROLOGICAL patient’s concerns/issues into
ASSESSMENT account, i.e., draping or
pain/discomfort
 The examination performed would
have clearly provided all the
necessary results to rule in/out the
condition of interest
 The equipment used during the
examination was professional and
always utilised in a manner that was
appropriate and highly diagnostic
 There was an exemplary degree of
infection control procedures
exhibited during the examination
 The examination was performed in a
manner that did not cause the
patient undue pain or discomfort
WEEBLY URL:
Submission for unit/course: CHIR20001- Advanced Clinical Neurology & Diagnosis
Second marker:
VERY GOOD ABOVE AVERAGE
(84-75%) (74-65%)
 There were some noticeable omissions
when outlining the epidemiology,
when outlining the epidemiology, causes
causes and progression of the
and progression of the condition.
condition.
 The amount of information provided was
reasonably developed and conveyed the
generally well crafted and conveyed the
appropriate message in a somewhat
appropriate message in a timely
timely manner
manner
 A somewhat correct and complete
 The correct examination was performed
examination was performed for the
for the condition of interest with some
condition of interest with some
minor omissions
omissions
 The examination was performed to a
 The examination was performed to a
good degree displaying some certainty
somewhat good degree displaying some
in the procedure and a good level of
hesitancy in the procedure and an above
technical competency
average degree of technical competency
 The examination was performed in a
 The examination was performed in a
reasonable manner, i.e., at a speed that
somewhat timely manner, i.e., at a speed
would be expected in a clinical
that would be expected by a novice prior
encounter by a junior intern.
to entering a clinical setting.
 Video demonstrated almost every
 Video demonstrated almost every aspect
aspect of the neurological examination
of the neurological examination in a
in a clear and unambiguous manner
somewhat clear manner
 The examination mostly took the
 The examination at times took the
patient’s concerns/issues into account,
patient’s concerns/issues into account,
i.e., draping or pain/discomfort
i.e., draping or pain/discomfort
 The examination performed would have
 The examination performed would have
almost certainly provided all the
potentially provided most of the
necessary results to rule in/out the
necessary results to rule in/out the
condition of interest
condition of interest
 The equipment used during the
 The equipment used during the
examination was mostly professional
examination was somewhat professional
and always utilised in a manner that
and almost always utilised in a manner
was appropriate and diagnostic
that was appropriate and diagnostic
 There was a good degree of infection
 There was a somewhat good degree of
control procedures exhibited during the
infection control procedures exhibited
examination
during the examination
 The examination was performed in a
 The examination was performed in a
manner that caused the patient almost
manner that caused the patient only
no unnecessary pain or discomfort
minor pain or discomfort
PASS BORDERLINE FAIL DOMAIN
(64-50%) (49-45%) (< 45%) TOTALS
 There were some major omissions  There were significant and major
 There were some significant omissions
when outlining the epidemiology, omissions noticed when outlining
when outlining the epidemiology,
causes and progression of the the epidemiology, causes and
causes and progression of the
condition progression of the condition
condition /20
 The amount of information provided,  The amount of information
 The amount of information provided,
and the time taken to deliver the provided was generally poor and
and the time taken to deliver the
message required significant below the standard set by the
message could have been refined
modification group
 An incorrect and incomplete
 A largely correct examination was
 A largely incorrect examination was examination was performed for the
performed for the condition of interest
performed for the condition of interest condition of interest
with some noticeable omissions
that also exhibited major omissions  The examination was performed to a
 The examination was performed to a
 The examination was performed to a very poor standard and exhibited
satisfactory degree displaying noticeable
sub-standard level displaying significant very significant uncertainty in the
hesitancy in the procedure and a
uncertainty in the procedure and a poor procedure and a very poor level of
satisfactory level of technical
degree of technical competency technical competency
competency
 The examination was performed in a  The examination was performed in a
 The examination was performed at a
manner that would be below the manner that could not be considered
speed that would be expected by a
standard expected of a student competent in any way
student embarking on a clinical program.
embarking on a clinical program.  Video demonstrated a very poor
 Video demonstrated some aspects of the
 Video demonstrated a poor neurological neurological examination in a very
neurological examination in an unclear
examination in an unclear manner unclear and ambiguous manner
manner
 The examination rarely took the patient’s  The examination failed to take the
 The examination generally took the
concerns/issues into account, i.e., patient’s concerns/issues into
patient’s concerns/issues into account, /45
draping or pain/discomfort account, i.e., draping or
i.e., draping or pain/discomfort
 The examination performed would have pain/discomfort
 The examination performed would have
unlikely provided most of the necessary  The examination performed would
potentially provided most of the
results to rule in/out the condition of not have provided any of the
necessary results to rule in/out the
interest necessary results to rule in/out the
condition of interest
 The equipment used during the condition of interest
 The equipment used during the
examination was of poor quality and  The equipment used during the
examination was professional and was at
utilised in a manner that was appropriate examination was inappropriately
times utilised in a manner that was
and possibly diagnostic used and unlikely to provide any
appropriate and possibly diagnostic
 There were significant omissions in the diagnostic information
 There was a reasonable degree of
degree of infection control procedures  There were no infection control
infection control procedures exhibited
exhibited during the examination procedures exhibited during the
during the examination
 The examination was performed in a examination
 The examination was performed in a
manner that caused the patient  The examination was performed in a
manner that caused the patient
significant pain or discomfort manner that held almost no regard
noticeable pain or discomfort
for the patient

 The list of differentials was insightful  The list of differentials was generally
and fit the clinical case precisely
 The rationale for each of the
differentials was well reasoned and
DIFFERENTIAL
underpinned by an excellent amount
DIAGNOSIS
of evidence
 The discussion surrounding the
choice of differentials was very clear
and informative
 The list of differentials was somewhat
correct and could have fit the clinical
correct and mostly fit the clinical case
case better
 The rationale for each of the
 The rationale for each of the differentials  The rationale for each of the differentials
differentials was well reasoned and
was reasonably well reasoned and
underpinned by a reasonably good
underpinned by a somewhat good
amount of evidence
amount of evidence
 The discussion surrounding the choice
 The discussion surrounding the choice of
of differentials was clear and
differentials was somewhat clear and
informative
informative
 The list of differentials was incomplete
 The list of differentials was incomplete and barely related to the clinical case
and marginally fit the clinical case
 The rationale for each of the differentials
was very poorly reasoned and
was poorly reasoned and underpinned
underpinned by almost no evidence
by barely any evidence
 The discussion surrounding the choice of
 The discussion surrounding the choice of
differentials was very unclear and not
differentials was unclear and not
helpful
informative
 The list of differentials did not relate
to the clinical case at all
 There was almost no coherent
rationale for any of the differentials
/15
and it was not underpinned by any
evidence
 The discussion surrounding the choice
of differentials was generally absent

 There were ample references from
well-respected peer-reviewed
sources.
REFERENCING
 All references fully adhered to the
prescribed CQU Vancouver style
guide with no errors
 Overall, the video was developed to
an exemplary level and would be
considered of a publishable
VIDEO PRODUCTION standard
VALUE & OVERALL  The student demonstrated an
PRESENTATION exemplary degree of ownership
with regards to the way in which
the video was recorded, produced,
and presented
 There were a somewhat good number  There were ample references, but they
of references from well-respected
peer-reviewed sources.
 All references fully adhered to the  Most references adhered to the
prescribed CQU Vancouver style guide
with some minor errors
 Overall, the video was developed to a
high level and would be considered of
a publishable standard with some
minor modifications
 The student demonstrated a good
degree of ownership with regards to
the way in which the video was
recorded, produced, and presented
were mostly not from well-respected
peer-reviewed sources.
prescribed CQU Vancouver style guide
with significant errors
 Overall, the video was developed to an
above average degree and could be
considered of a publishable standard
with some alteration
 The student demonstrated an above
average degree of ownership with
regards to the way in which the video
was recorded, produced, and presented
 There were only a few references, and
they were mostly not from well-
respected peer-reviewed sources
 Only a few references fully adhered to
the prescribed CQU Vancouver style
guide
 Overall, the video was developed to a
satisfactory level and would be
considered of a publishable standard
with some considerable modifications
 The student demonstrated a
satisfactory degree of ownership with
regards to the way in which the video
was recorded, produced, and presented
 There were hardly any references
supporting the assessment
 Almost no references adhered to the
prescribed CQU Vancouver style guide
 Overall, the video was developed to an
unsatisfactory level and would not be
considered of a publishable standard
 The student demonstrated a poor
degree of ownership with regards to
the way in which the video was
recorded, produced, and presented
 There were none or almost no
references supporting the
assessment
/10
 None of the references adhered to
the prescribed CQU Vancouver
style guide
 Overall, the video was developed to
a very poor level and would not be
considered of a publishable
standard
/10
 The student demonstrated a very
poor degree of ownership with
regards to the way in which the
video was recorded, produced, and
presented

ADDITIONAL
FOCUSED FEEDBACK

Markers to complete

DOMAINS FIRST MARKER SECOND MARKER FINAL AGREED MARK

1. PATHOPHYSIOLOGY (20)
2. NEUROLOGICAL ASSESSMENT (45)
3. DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS (15)
4. REFERENCING (10)
5. VIDEO PRODUCTION VALUE & OVERALL PRESENTATION (10)
TOTAL ( /100)