1. 400764 - Transition to Graduate Practice
Learning Guide – Spring 2014
©School of Nursing and Midwifery Page 15 of 33
University of Western Sydney
Assessment 4: Written Assessment—Case Study 2
Weighting: 60%
Word count: 1500 words
Submission details: Electronic submission. Refer to Submission
Requirements (p. 20)
Marking criteria and standards: See pages 17 - 19.
Aim of assessment
The aim of this assessment is provide students with an
opportunity for prioritising care through
ongoing consolidation of nursing theory to clinical practice.
Details
As a new graduate nurse on your last rotation, you are working

2. on a busy acute combined medical /
surgical ward. You have arrived for an evening shift and receive
handover from the staff from the
previous shift.
You have been allocated to care for the following five patients.
1. Steven is a 27 year old who presented with acute appendicitis
via the Emergency Department
that required emergency appendectomy overnight. He is
currently NBM and has IV 0.9%
Sodium Chloride infusing at 100mls per hour. Steven is
complaining of abdominal pain and
has a temperature of 39.2. He has been reviewed by the surgical
team and has been ordered
intravenous Metronidazole 500mg TDS.
2. Peter is a 55 year old male who had an ERCP today
(endoscopic retrograde
cholangiopancreatograghy) and removal of gall stones x 3 after
persistent epigastric pain for
2 days. He is currently complaining of nausea and mild right
shoulder tip pain.
3. Phillip is a 68 year old male who has been admitted for
infective exacerbation of his COPD.
He is currently on nasal prongs at 2 litres a minute and is due

3. for his IV hydrocortisone
(100mg BD) and Piperacillin with Tazobactam (Tazocin) IV
(4.5G TDS). His oxygen saturation
is 94%.
4. John is 75 year old male who was admitted with chest pain
via the Emergency Department
earlier on in the day. He has a background history of angina and
coronary heart disease. He
has been commenced on an intravenous heparin infusion and
aspirin 100mg daily. The APTT
is to be kept between 50 to 75 seconds.
5. Melinda is a 42 year old female who presented with sudden
onset of severe headache. She
has been admitted under neurosurgery. Her CT scan revealed a
small (Grade 1)
subarachnoid haemorrhage from a cerebral artery aneurysm
which was successfully coiled in
the interventional radiology suite 5 days ago. She is currently
prescribed Nimodipine 60mg
oral tablets. She has
400764 - Transition to Graduate Practice

4. Learning Guide – Spring 2014
©School of Nursing and Midwifery Page 16 of 33
University of Western Sydney
Q1. Discuss how you will initially prioritise your care
according to your patient’s conditions and
treatment (250 words).
Q2. When reviewing Peter in bed 2, he states that his nausea is
becoming worse. You review the
medication chart and no antiemetic is ordered. Discuss what
your actions would be in this
situation (250 words).
Q3: While assessing John in bed 4, you review his last
coagulation profile and note that his APTT
is > 150 seconds. What is the significance of this result?
Referring to the ward protocol
below, rationalise your actions. (250 words)
Q4. When reviewing Melinda in bed 5, she complains of feeling
faint when she gets out of bed to
mobilise to the bathroom. You assess her blood pressure and it

5. is 80/40. What is the
significance of this result and what could be contributing to the
hypotension? What would
be your response?
Resources
Prescribed textbooks and reading resources in Library list in
400764 vUWS site.
P
a
g
e
1
7
o
f 3
3
Marking criteria and standards: Written Assessment 4—Case

6. Study on essential skills for transitioning from student to RN
Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail
Q1: Prioritises
and justifies initial
assessment and
care of patients.
Outstanding, clear, concise
and expert identification and
critical discussion of the
prioritisation and initial
assessment and care of the
four patients.
Interesting, complex,
original, cogent, excellent
critical discussion related to
prioritisation and initial
assessment and care of the
four patients.
Comprehensive, varied, clear,
cogent and effective critical
analysis of the prioritisation
and initial assessment and
care of the four patients.
Evidence and arguments are
cogently presented, and very
well supported with literature,
a very good grasp of current
knowledge related to
prioritisation and initial
assessment and care of the

7. four patients
Good description and critical
discussion of Good
explanation of the
prioritisation and initial
assessment and care of the
four patients.
Evidence and arguments are
cogently presented, and well
supported with literature, a
good grasp of current
knowledge related to
prioritisation and initial
assessment and care of the
four patients.
Adequate explanation and
discussion of the prioritisation
and initial assessment and
care of the four patients.
Some attempt at critical
discussion noted, but
arguments, evidence and
discussion points may not be
consistently and clearly
presented in relation to the
initial assessment and care of
the four patients.
Inadequate identification and
critical discussion of the
prioritisation and initial
assessment and care of the

8. four patients.
Poor or inadequate
substantiation from current,
research and evidence-based
literature noted.
The work fails to adequately
address discussion topic and
criteria as set.
Mark /15 13-15 11.5-12.5 10-11 7.5-9.5 ≤7.0
Q2. Rationalises
action for
additional
medication order
Outstanding, clear, concise
and expert identification and
critical discussion of the
significance of the
medication and rational for
intervention.
Interesting, complex,
original, cogent, excellent
critical discussion related to
the significance of the
medication order and
rational for intervention.
Comprehensive, varied, clear,
cogent and effective critical
analysis of the significance of
the medication and rational for

9. intervention.
Evidence and arguments are
cogently presented, and very
well supported with literature,
a very good grasp of current
knowledge related to the
significance of the medication
and rational for intervention.
Good description and critical
discussion of the significance
of the medication and
rational for intervention.
Evidence and arguments are
cogently presented, and well
supported with literature, a
good grasp of current
knowledge related to the
significance of the
medication and rational for
intervention.
Adequate explanation and
discussion of the significance
of the medication and rational
for intervention.
Some attempt at critical
discussion noted, but
arguments, evidence and
discussion points may not be
consistently and clearly
presented in relation to the

10. significance of the medication
and rational for intervention.
Inadequate identification and
critical discussion of the
significance of the medication
and rational for intervention.
Poor or inadequate
substantiation from current,
research and evidence-based
literature noted.
The work fails to adequately
address discussion topic and
criteria as set.
Mark /15 13-15 11.5-12.5 10-11 7.5-9.5 ≤7.0
P
a
g
e
1
8
o
f 3
3

11. Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail
Q3. Relates
significance of
Heparin with
APTT result and
rationalises
intervention.
Outstanding, clear, concise
and expert identification and
critical discussion of the
significance of the
medication and rational for
intervention.
Interesting, complex,
original, cogent, excellent
critical discussion related to
the significance of the
medication order and
rational for intervention.
Comprehensive, varied, clear,
cogent and effective critical
analysis of the significance of
the medication and rational for
intervention.
Evidence and arguments are
cogently presented, and very
well supported with literature,
a very good grasp of current
knowledge related to the
significance of the medication

12. and rational for intervention.
Good description and critical
discussion of the
significance of the
medication and rational for
intervention.
Evidence and arguments are
cogently presented, and well
supported with literature, a
good grasp of current
knowledge related to the
significance of the
medication and rational for
intervention.
Adequate explanation and
discussion of the significance
of the medication and rational
for intervention.
Some attempt at critical
discussion noted, but
arguments, evidence and
discussion points may not be
consistently and clearly
presented in relation to the
significance of the medication
and rational for intervention.
Inadequate identification and
critical discussion of the
significance of the medication
and rational for intervention.

13. Poor or inadequate
substantiation from current,
research and evidence-based
literature noted.
The work fails to adequately
address discussion topic and
criteria as set.
Mark /15 13-15 11.5-12.5 10-11 7.5-9.5 ≤7.0
Q4. Evaluates
clinical situation
and prioritises
patient
intervention and
calls for
assistance
Outstanding, clear, concise
and expert identification and
critical discussion on the
prioritisation of care and
calling for assistance.
Interesting, complex,
original, cogent, excellent
critical discussion related to
prioritisation of care and
calling for assistance.
Comprehensive, varied, clear,
cogent and effective critical
analysis on the prioritisation of

14. care and calling for
assistance.
Evidence and arguments are
cogently presented, and very
well supported with literature,
a very good grasp of current
knowledge related to
prioritisation of care and
calling for assistance.
Good description and critical
discussion on the
prioritisation of care and
calling for assistance.
Evidence and arguments are
cogently presented, and well
supported with literature, a
good grasp of current
knowledge related to
prioritisation of care and
calling for assistance.
Adequate explanation and
discussion on the prioritisation
of care and calling for
assistance.
Some attempt at critical
discussion noted, but
arguments, evidence and
discussion points may not be

15. consistently and clearly
presented in relation to
prioritisation of care and
calling for assistance.
Inadequate identification and
critical discussion on
prioritisation of care and
calling for assistance.
Poor or inadequate
substantiation from current,
research and evidence-based
literature noted.
The work fails to adequately
address discussion topic and
criteria as set.
Mark /10 8.5-10 7.5-8 6.5-7 5-6 ≤4.5
P
a
g
e
1
9
o

16. f 3
3
Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail
Presentation and
Referencing
Flawless referencing, with all
references adequately and
correctly given, both in text
and in final reference list
according to designated APA
style.
Outstanding, publishable
level of writing style and use
of language evidenced.
Publishable or outstanding
level of clarity of expression
and scholarly writing style,
with no evidence of any
discriminatory use of
language noted in the work.
Expert, coherent, logical
organised sequencing.
Very good referencing, with
adequate and correct
references given both in text

17. and in final reference list
according to designated APA
style.
Excellent writing style and use
of language. No errors in
spelling, grammar, punctuation
or writing style
Very good, concise, clear,
academic writing style, with no
ambiguity issues and no
evidence of discriminatory
language noted in the work.
Very good, cogent, focused,
structured sequencing with
logically ordered flow of ideas.
Concise and orderly
Good, adequate referencing,
using a reasonable range of
current academic reference.
Very few minor referencing
style errors and following
designated APA conventions
both in text and in final
reference list.
Effective expression and

18. writing style. Minimal errors
in grammar, punctuation,
sentence construction,
paragraph construction or
spelling.
Clear concise clarity of
expression and scholarly
writing style, with no use of
discriminatory language
throughout.
Effective, structured
sequencing with logically
ordered flow of ideas.
Some minor referencing style
errors, but following
designated APA conventions
both in text and in final
reference list.
Adequate, sound writing style.
Limited vocabulary, with minor
errors in grammar, or spelling,
or sentence structure, or
paragraph structure that do not
impede meaning.
Satisfactory clarity of
expression and academic
writing style, but there may be
evidence of limited use of

19. language or areas of the work
which could have been more
clearly or better expressed.
No use of discriminatory
language throughout.
Adequate organisation and
logical sequencing of material
and major points.
Absent or unsatisfactory,
incorrect or inadequate
referencing.
More than 10% of the work
involves direct quotes.
Incorrect referencing style
used.
Poor writing style with errors in
expression, sentence
structure, paragraph structure,
spelling and punctuation that
impede meaning and
discussion.
Poor clarity, with ambiguity
issues noted. The writing style
impedes clarity of meaning
and adequate communication
of ideas and discussion. There
may be evidence of
discriminatory language in the
work.

20. Inadequate organisation and
logical sequencing, illogical
flow to presentation of ideas
and arguments.
Mark /5 5 4–4.5 3–3.5 2.5 ≤2
Comments:
Lecturer’s Signature: Date:
Weighting: /60 Grade:
6 pages
Apa
Sources:12
This is a case study not an essay.
STRICTLY:
-Follow the instructions on the learning guide (pages 15-19) for
assessment details.
NOTE: Question 1 is mistakenly written as 250 words instead of
750 words in the attached learning guide.
- Question 1 is 750 words NOT 250 words. It should explain the
care prioritised and rationalise why? It should also talk a bit
about the primary survey (ABCDEFG) as a initial response after
prioritisation

21. THE RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS SHOULD BE
ACCORDINGLY TO THE WEIGHT OF QUESTION. AS:
-Question 1 (750 words) weighs 15 marks.
-Question 2 (250 words) weighs 15 marks.
-Question 3 (250 words) weighs 15 marks.
-Question 4 (250 words) weighs 10 marks.
-All response should be NURSING based not medical officer or
doctors.
-The response should be in Australian context of nursing.
REFERENCES:
-Should include Text Books and Journal articles after year
2009. Must have intext referencing.
-Text Book references I would like you to include are:
Perry, A. G., Potter, P. A. & Ostendowf, W.A. (2010). Clinical
nursing skills and techniques (8th ed.). Missouri, MO:
Mosby/Elsevier.
Brown, D., & Edwards, H. (Eds.). (2012). Lewis’s medical-
surgical nursing: Assessment and management of clinical
problems (3rd ed.).Sydney, Australia: Elsevier
Le Mone, P., & Burke, K. (2011). Medical- surgical nursing:
Critical thinking in client care (Vol. 1). French’s Forest,
Australia: Pearson.
Bullock, S., Manias, E. & Galbraith, A., (2011). Fundamentals
of pharmacology. (6th ed.). Sydney, Australia: Pearson
Education Australia
THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE WRITTEN IN
AUSTRALIAN ENGLISH AND I WILL NOT ACCEPT THE
GRAMMATICAL ERRORS