Rubric Collapse All Two Legal Issues Presented in the Case Study

Rubric Collapse All Two Legal Issues Presented in the Case Study 12.75 points Criteria Description Two Legal Issues Presented in the Case Study 5. 5: Excellent 12.75 points A description of two legal issues presented in the case study is thorough. 4. 4: Good 11.09 points A description of two legal issues presented in the case study is detailed. 3. 3: Satisfactory 10.07 points A description of two legal issues presented in the case study is included. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 9.44 points A description of two legal issues presented in the case study is included, but lack details or are incomplete. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points A description of two legal issues presented in the case study is not included. Ethical Duty to the Patient 12.75 points Criteria Description Ethical Duty to the Patient 5. 5: Excellent 12.75 points A description of how the hospital failed in its ethical duty to the patient is thorough. 4. 4: Good 11.09 points A description of how the hospital failed in its ethical duty to the patient is detailed. 3. 3: Satisfactory 10.07 points A description of how the hospital failed in its ethical duty to the patient is included. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 9.44 points A description of how the hospital failed in its ethical duty to the patient is included but lacks detail or is incomplete. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points A description of how the hospital failed in its ethical duty to the patient is not included. Role and Importance of Credentialing and Privileging Process 17 points Criteria Description Role and Importance of Credentialing and Privileging Process 5. 5: Excellent 17 points A description of the role and importance of the credentialing and privileging process is thorough. 4. 4: Good 14.79 points A description of the role and importance of the credentialing and privileging process is detailed. 3. 3: Satisfactory 13.43 points A description of the role and importance of the credentialing and privileging process is included. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 12.58 points A description of the role and importance of the credentialing and privileging process is included but lacks detail or is incomplete. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points A description of the role and importance of the credentialing and privileging process is not included. Application of Credentialing and Privileging Process 17 points Criteria Description Application of Credentialing and Privileging Process 5. 5: Excellent 17 points A discussion of the application of the credentialing and privileging process to the case study scenario is thorough. 4. 4: Good 14.79 points A discussion of the application of the credentialing and privileging process to the case study scenario is detailed. 3. 3: Satisfactory 13.43 points A discussion of the application of the credentialing and privileging process to the case study scenario is included. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 12.58 points A discussion of the application of the credentialing and privileging process to the case study scenario is included but lacks detail or is incomplete. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points A discussion of the application of the credentialing and privileging process to the case study scenario is not included. Thesis Development and Purpose 5.95 points Criteria Description Thesis Development and Purpose 5. 5: Excellent 5.95 points Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. 4. 4: Good 5.18 points Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. 3. 3: Satisfactory 4.7 points Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 4.4 points Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Argument Logic and Construction 6.8 points Criteria Description Argument Logic and Construction 5. 5: Excellent 6.8 points Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. 4. 4: Good 5.92 points Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. 3. 3: Satisfactory 5.37 points Argument is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 5.03 points Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 4.25 points Criteria Description Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5. 5: Excellent 4.25 points Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. 4. 4: Good 3.7 points Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. 3. 3: Satisfactory 3.36 points Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 3.15 points Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 4.25 points Criteria Description Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 5. 5: Excellent 4.25 points All format elements are correct. 4. 4: Good 3.7 points Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. 3. 3: Satisfactory 3.36 points Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 3.15 points Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Documentation of Sources 4.25 points Criteria Description Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5. 5: Excellent 4.25 points Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. 4. 4: Good 3.7 points Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. 3. 3: Satisfactory 3.36 points Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 3.15 points Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Sources are not documented.
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Looking for a similar assignment? Get help from our qualified experts!

"Our Prices Start at $9.99. As Our First Client, Use Coupon Code GET15 to claim 15% Discount This Month!!":

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper