CAD and Coronary Calcium Scores

• CAD and Coronary Calcium Scores- “Comparing Risk Scores in the Prediction of Coronary and Cardiovascular Deaths
Coronary Artery Calcium Consortium” https://imaging.onlinejacc.org/content/early/2020/01/09/j.jcmg.2019.12.010?_ga=2.90312605.668797815.1598608758-1168239501.1593205363
• Medline articles (patient education resource):
o Aging Changes in the Lungs: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/004011.htm
o Aging Changes in the Heart and Blood Vessels: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/004006.htm

Rubric Title:
MSN 10 point Discussion Rubric

Criteria 1 Level III Max Points
Points: 4 Level II Max Points
Points: 3 Level I Max Points
Points: 2 Not Present
0 Points
Identification
(20%)
● Thorough identification of the importance of the subject matter to the individual, clinical, and professional.
● Supports discussion concepts through personal experience and evidence-based information.
● Submits a minimum of three posts, one initial and two responses to either the course faculty or peers, with thorough reflection and content. ● Reflection of subject to self, clinical, and professional importance with minimal integration of evidence-based information.
● Submits two or more posts with some reflection and content. ● Minimal reflection without reference to personal, clinical, or profession.
● Submits one or more posts that have minimal reflection or content. No Posts
Criteria 2 Level III Max Points
Points: 3 Level II Max Points
Points: 2 Level I Max Points
Points: 1 Not Present
0 Points
Reflection/Participation/Knowledge
(60%) ● Provides a well-written reflection that is clearly connected to the outcomes and clinical insight.
● Responds to at least two other student postings with a response that advances the discussion.
● Clear critical thinking acknowledges application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.
● Replies move the conversation forward. Makes a reply to a question asked in response to their own posting.
● Builds a focused argument.
● Asks new or related questions.
● Makes an oppositional or congruent statement that is supported by experience or research.
● Provides a well-written reflection and there is a clear connection to outcomes, but lacks clinical insight.
● Replies partially move the conversation forward. Makes a reply to question asked in response to their own posting.
● Some clear critical thinking acknowledges application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.
● Affirms statements or references to relevant research.
● Asks similar or related questions within the context of the conversation.
● Provides short reflection and there is a slight connection to outcomes.
● Student does not move the conversation forward within their own post or in their response to peer/faculty.
● Minimal critical thinking that acknowledges application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.
● Does not affirm or oppose statements in conversation.
● Does not pose or ask related question in the context of DB conversation. No Posts
Criteria 3 Level III Max Points
Points: 3 Level II Max Points
Points: 2 Level I Max Points
Points: 1 Not Present
0 Points
Format/Style/APA/ Citations
(20%) ● No grammar, word usage, or punctuation errors. Overall style is consistent with professional work.
● Writing style facilitates communication.
● Provides three references that are relevant to the content and published within the last five years.
● Fewer than three grammatical errors.
● Provides less than three references that are relevant to the content and published within the last five years.
● Writing style facilitates some communication.
● More than three grammatical errors.
● Provides less than three references that are relevant to the content and published within the last five years.
● Writing style does not facilitate communication.
No Posts
Maximum Total Points 10 7 4 0
Minimum Total Points 8 points minimum 5 points minimum 1 point minimum 0

Updated 9/4/2020