Order Instructions
This assignment is to be a maximum length of 2000 words (+ or – 10%).
This assessment task requires you to be able to relate the ‘theory’ covered in this course to your practice. To clearly ground your discussion in clinical practice, prepare a brief overview of a
‘case study’ from your clinical practice.
NB: If you are not currently working in a community setting, choose a ‘case study’ from yourclinical practice (e.g. a person you have worked with during their admission to an inpatient unit, who was then discharged to care in the community).
• Identify a model of care that you would use in your work with this person. Provide a brief critique of the evidence base for this model and discuss the model of care in relation to a recovery model of care.
• Describe how you would implement this model of care
• Identify potential barriers/impediments to effectiveness, including: o Service factors that may interfere with care delivery
o Clinician behaviours, attitudes, assumptions and judgments
o A potential ethical or moral dilemma associated with implementing community basedmental health care delivery within a recovery framework
• Critique options for effectively addressing the barriers/impediments you have identified
• Include in your discussion the collaborative processes by which you would engage the person and the additional services (e.g. NGO resources, Commonwealth funded programs, carer and family supports, consumer support groups) relevant to the needs of the person.
Grading for Assessment 3 contributes 40% to the overall assessment score.
Assessment 3 will be graded in terms of both completing the minimum task required and undertaking a reasoned, knowledgeable and scholarly approach to the essay topic. This assessment contributes 40% to the overall grade.
Please use UK English and organize the essay using the marking guide. Also answer each section of the marking criteria.
You can use any case study that will help you to answer all questions appropriately. If you are having trouble finding a good case study, I can provide you with one.
Criteria Marks Score
Structure and 0 points 1 point 3 points 4 points 6 points 6
Lacks Inadequate Well organised Very well Outstanding
cohesion of paper
organisation of organisation argument with organised with organisation ,
overall
ideas and of ideas, poor good links strong clearly
argument. linking of between argument, good articulated
Lacks links ideas and sections. flow and good strong
between poor flow of linkages, argument.
sections. argument. Ideas very well
argued with
excellent
linkage and
flow.
Introduction of 0 points 1 point 2 points 3 points 4 points
No introduction/ Inadequate Well-articulated Very well- Outstanding /4
essay and
Case study not introduction/ introduction/ articulated introduction
succinct case
apparent inadequate or case study introduction/ and
study
verbose case succinct and very succinct description of
study relevant and relevant community
case study setting
Model of care 0 points 2points 4 points 6 points 8 points
Model of care Inadequate Outline of Well-articulated Outstanding /8
identified and
not outlined description of model of care outline of model outline of
critique of
and no model of adequate but of care with model of care
evidence base for
evidence of care. needed to be well-articulated with,
model.
critique Incorrect or more critique of comprehensive
Relationship of
irrelevant comprehensive. evidence base critique of
model of care to
material. No Critique of evidence base
recovery
evidence of evidence
framework for
critique limited,
care
Implementation 0 points 2 points 4 points 6 points 8 points
No description Material is Material was High level of Outstanding
description and
of wholly adequate and description of description /8
barriers/
implementation descriptive, accurate but implementation, with superior
impediments
and barriers or Included needed to be with articulation of
described
impediments incorrect or more comprehensive barriers and
not included irrelevant comprehensive. identification of impediments to
material Identification of potential implementation
/excluded impediments barriers and
relevant apparent impediments
material
Critique of 0 points 2 points 4points 6 points 8 points
No critique of Descriptive Critique Well-articulated Outstanding /8
options for
options to only included adequate with critique with critique with
addressing
address irrelevant some specificity well-articulated superior
barriers and
barriers and material or of options for options for articulation of
relevant
collaborative excluded addressing addressing options and
collaborative
processes not relevant barriers and barriers and collaborative
processes
included material some collaborative processes
included
collaborative processes
processes identified
identified
Use of evidence 0 points 2 points 3 points 4 points 6 points
Discussion Inadequate Sources cited Sources cited Sources cited /6
to support
supported sources cited, showed showed were relevant
discussion
mostly by too few, or of relevance to relevance to to the topic
personal poor quality, the topic, but the topic and and showed
opinion. Very little evidence were limited in were scope and
poor use of of scope and scope and/or developing in quality
resources depth of quality scope and/or
reading quality
10% deducted 5% 4% deducted 0% deducted
Major problems deducted Occasional problems with spelling
throughout with Recurring or grammar Mainly error
many spelling problems with free
Academic mistakes or spelling and/or 6
grammatical mistakes or
Literacy
errors grammatical Occasional poor sentence or
6
