Excited Delerium Syndrome (ExDS)

Order Description Format needs to be in" rel="nofollow">in report form for part 1. Part 2 needs to be a clin" rel="nofollow">inical practise guidelin" rel="nofollow">ine. Please refer to the task sheets attached for more in" rel="nofollow">information, this is for a paramedic coarse, the subject is "misuse & toxicology" Levels of Achievement Criteria High Distin" rel="nofollow">inction. Demonstrates evidence of key knowledge and concepts at an exceptional theoretical level Distin" rel="nofollow">inction. Demonstrates evidence of key knowledge and concepts at a comprehensive theoretical level. Credit. Applies knowledge and concepts sufficiently and demonstrates an awareness of their relevance Pass. Meets task requirements to a satisfactory st andard. Fail. Does not meet task requirements Criteria 1: Content Weight 20.00% 85 to 100 % Sophisticated fulfilment of terms of the question which uses a theoretical base of the highest standard chosen from the highest reputable scientific sources. 75 to 84 % Complete fulfilment of terms of the question; entirely appropriate theoretical base. 65 to 74 % Good fulfilment of terms of the question; good theoretical base. Most material wisely selected. 50 to 64 % Adequate fulfilment of terms of the qu estion; adequate theoretical base; min" rel="nofollow">inimal irrelevant material in" rel="nofollow">included. 0 to 49 % Failure to address the assignment questions or task; in" rel="nofollow">inadequate theoretical base; irrelevant material in" rel="nofollow">included. Criteria 2: Development Weight 25.00% 85 to 100 % Sophisticated identification and analysis of themes. Controversies are logically in" rel="nofollow">investigated; all material is highly relevant with an extraordin" rel="nofollow">inary depth and breadth of analysis. 75 to 84 % Strong theme, developed in" rel="nofollow">in a balanced way; high standard sustain" rel="nofollow">ined through de velopment of logical relationships and in" rel="nofollow">internal consistency; all material highly relevant; very good depth and breadth of analysis. 65 to 74 % Theme identification developed in" rel="nofollow">in a balanced way; good standard sustain" rel="nofollow">ined in" rel="nofollow">in developin" rel="nofollow">ing logical relationships an d in" rel="nofollow">internal consistency; good depth and breadth of analysis. 50 to 64 % Satisfactory development; many logical relationships in" rel="nofollow">indicated; consistent in" rel="nofollow">internally; good breadth of analysis, with appropriate depth. 0 to 49 % Weakness in" rel="nofollow">in the development of the a rguments; in" rel="nofollow">inclusion of irrelevant material; in" rel="nofollow">inadequate depth of analysis; absent or weak logical relationships; in" rel="nofollow">internal in" rel="nofollow">inconsistencies. Criteria 3: Evidence Weight 20.00% 85 to 100 % All arguments are fully and clearly supported by multiple sources of scientific evidence. All evidence is critically presented demonstratin" rel="nofollow">ing evaluation, comparison and relationships. 75 to 84 % All arguments are clearly supported by high level evidence; E vidence is frequently critically analysed and evaluated to determin" rel="nofollow">ine relevance and strength of evidence. 65 to 74 % All arguments are supported by appropriate research - based evidence; there is critical analysis of evidence cited. 50 to 64 % Most argument s are supported by appropriate evidence; some critical analysis of evidence from sources used. 0 to 49 % Little, if any of the evidence cited supports the arguments; Evidence from sources is treated uncritically; low level evidence in" rel="nofollow">included or in" rel="nofollow">included wi thout discussion of the limitations. Levels of Achievement Criteria High Distin" rel="nofollow">inction. Demonstrates evidence of key knowledge and concepts at an exceptional theoretical level Distin" rel="nofollow">inction. Demonstrates evidence of key knowledge and concepts at a comprehensive theoretical level. Credit. Applies knowledge and concepts sufficiently and demonstrates an awareness of their relevance Pass. Meets task requirements to a satisfactory st andard. Fail. Does not meet task requirements Criteria 4: Style and Structure Weight 10.00% 85 to 100 % Elegant and imagin" rel="nofollow">inative presentation and all presentation criteria met with no spellin" rel="nofollow">ing, syntax or grammatical errors. 7 5 to 84 % All presentation criteria met to a high standard; however there were up to three spellin" rel="nofollow">ing, syntax or grammatical errors. 65 to 74 % Good in" rel="nofollow">introduction with clear statement of in" rel="nofollow">intention, body and conclusion; prescribed structure used, however ther e were in" rel="nofollow">infrequent spellin" rel="nofollow">ing, syntax or grammatical errors. 50 to 64 % Acceptable in" rel="nofollow">introduction with clear statement of in" rel="nofollow">intention, body and conclusion; prescribed structure used, however there were frequent spellin" rel="nofollow">ing, syntax or grammatical errors. 0 to 49 % Badly designed; lack of discernible in" rel="nofollow">introduction and conclusion; lack of statement of in" rel="nofollow">intention; spellin" rel="nofollow">ing mistakes or grammatical errors; style is not appropriate for the task. Criteria 5:Clin" rel="nofollow">inical Practice Guidelin" rel="nofollow">ine (CPG) Weig ht 15.00% 85 to 100 % The CPG has been developed usin" rel="nofollow">ing multiple sources of scientific evidence highly relevant to ExDS. The CPG represents best practice in" rel="nofollow">in assessment and management of patients with ExDS. 75 to 84 % The CPG has been developed usin" rel="nofollow">ing sources of scientific evidence which are relevant to ExDS. The CPG represents best practice in" rel="nofollow">in assessment and management of patients with ExDS. 65 to 74 % The CPG has been developed usin" rel="nofollow">ing sources of scientific evidence whi ch are mostly relevant to ExDS. The CPG mostly represents best practice in" rel="nofollow">in assessment and management of patients with ExDS. 50 to 64 % The CPG has been developed usin" rel="nofollow">ing sources of evidence which have some relevance to ExDS. There were elements of the CPG t hat did not represent best practice in" rel="nofollow">in assessment and management of patients with ExDS. 0 to 49 % The CPG is not evidence based. It does not reflect best practice in" rel="nofollow">in assessment and management of patients with ExDS. Criteria 6: Referencin" rel="nofollow">ing and Citations Weight 10.00% 85 to 100 % All ideas are acknowledged where appropriate and all citations meet the prescribed style. The Vancouver referencin" rel="nofollow">ing style is presented with no errors in" rel="nofollow">in the in" rel="nofollow">in - text citations or reference list. 75 to 84 % Consistent and complete referencin" rel="nofollow">ing techniques; ho wever there were up to 3 citation errors found in" rel="nofollow">in the Vancouver referencin" rel="nofollow">ing style in" rel="nofollow">in - text citations or reference list. 65 to 74 % Consistent and complete Vancouver referencin" rel="nofollow">ing style techniques. However there were between 3 and 5 citation errors found in" rel="nofollow">in t he in" rel="nofollow">in - text citations or reference list. 50 to 64 % Some in" rel="nofollow">inconsistencies in" rel="nofollow">in in" rel="nofollow">in - text referencin" rel="nofollow">ing technique; in" rel="nofollow">incomplete bibliographic details; errors of style. 0 to 49 % Inadequate bibliographic details; in" rel="nofollow">inconsistent or absent in" rel="nofollow">in - text references; in" rel="nofollow">incorrect referencin" rel="nofollow">ing style.