SNAPPS is a learner-centered approach to case presentation in the clinical setting. This model allows the student to take an active role in their educational encounter by discussing the patient encounter beyond the facts, verbalizing their clinical reasoning, asking questions, and engaging in follow-up learning pertinent to the educational encounter. This exercise is designed to develop the student’s ability to organize patient information in a meaningful way and guide the student in their oral patient presentations in the clinical setting

Requirements:

1. Using a patient seen in their clinical setting, students will give an oral presentation (via Kaltura) using the 6-step learner-centered SNAPPS model to mimic a real life presentation to the preceptor by:

· Briefly summarizing the relative history and findings;

· Narrowing the differential to three relevant possibilities using the pertinent positive and negative findings;

· Analyzing the differential by comparing and contrasting the possibilities;

· Probing the preceptor by asking questions about uncertainties, difficulties, or alternative approaches;

· Identifying a treatment plan for the patient; and

· Select a case-related issue for self-directed learning

2. In addition to the oral presentation, the student will submit the written findings of their research for the case-related, self-directed learning topic that was identified in the presentation.

ONLY DO THE WRITING PORTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT AS THE SAMPLE PROVIDED

3. The written portion of this assignment will be submitted on the “SNAPPS Template for Written Assignment” using appropriate evidence-based, scholarly references and using appropriate APA reference and in-text citations.

4.

The written portion of this assignment should be prepared using the following guidelines:

· The student’s findings of the self-directed learning topic must be completed on the “SNAPPS WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT TEMPLATE”

· The report should be between 5-7 paragraphs in length, discussing something learned from the student’s research about the self-directed learning topic.

· Correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling should be observed.

· In-text citations and reference page should be written in APA format and scholarly evidence-based medicine (EBM) references must be used.

NR511 W5 SNAPPS Presentation Rubric

NR511 W5 SNAPPS Presentation Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummarize the H&P in a brief and concise manner. The summary includes the chief complaint (CC), history of present illness (HPI), and subjective and objective findings that are relevant to the case. The summary should not contain additional unnecessary data (4 critical elements required).
10.0 pts

Exceptional- Student presents a brief and concise oral summary AND All 4 critical elements are present.

9.0 pts

Exceeds- Student presents a brief and concise oral summary AND 1 critical element is missing.

8.0 pts

Meets- Student presents a brief and concise oral summary AND 2 critical elements are missing.

4.0 pts

Needs Improvement- Student presents a wordy or scanty oral summary OR 3 critical elements missing.

0.0 pts

Developing- The presentation is difficult to follow or not logical OR 4 critical elements are missing.

10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeNarrow the differential diagnosis. The student identifies 3-4 reasonable diagnoses as part of the differential
20.0 pts

Exceptional- A minimum of 3 but no more than 4 reasonable diagnoses are presented in the differential.

18.0 pts

Exceeds-3-4 diagnoses are presented in the differential BUT 1 diagnosis is not relevant to the scenario.

16.0 pts

Meets- 3-4 diagnoses are presented in the differential BUT 2 diagnoses are not relevant to the scenario.

8.0 pts

Needs Improvement- A broad (>5) or insufficient (<3) number of diagnoses are presented in the differential OR 3 or more of the diagnoses are not relevant to the scenario.

0.0 pts

Developing- There are no identified or specific diagnoses that are presented as part of the differential.

20.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalyze the differential using key positive and negative findings to argue for or against a diagnosis, and rank diagnoses in order from most to least likely in the oral presentation (2 critical elements required)
20.0 pts

Exceptional- Student uses both key positive and negative findings to argue for or against each diagnostic hypothesis AND The differential is appropriately ranked from most likely to least likely.

18.0 pts

Exceeds-Student uses only key positive or negative findings (not both) to argue for or against each diagnostic hypothesis AND The differential is appropriately ranked from most to least likely.

16.0 pts

Meets- Student uses unrelated findings (non-key data) to argue for or against each diagnostic hypothesis OR The differential is not appropriately ranked from most to least likely.

8.0 pts

Needs Improvement- Student uses unrelated findings (non-key data) to argue for or against each diagnostic hypothesis AND The differential is not appropriately ranked from most to least likely.

0.0 pts

Developing- Diagnostic hypotheses are not supported with any data

20.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProbe the preceptor/instructor with self-identified knowledge gaps, points of confusion or dilemmas in the oral presentation. Student verbalizes three (3) questions that were addressed to preceptor regarding knowledge gaps, points of confusion or dilemmas AND All questions are directly related to the case study (2 critical elements required).
10.0 pts

Exceptional- Student verbalizes knowledge gaps, points of confusion or dilemmas by identifying three (3) appropriate questions for the preceptor AND All questions are directly related to the case study.

9.0 pts

Exceeds- Student verbalizes knowledge gaps, points of confusion or dilemmas by identifying two (2) appropriate questions for the preceptor AND All questions are directly related to the case study.

8.0 pts

Meets-Student verbalizes knowledge gaps, points of confusion or dilemmas by identifying one (1) appropriate question for the preceptor AND The question is directly related to the case study.

4.0 pts

Needs Improvement- Student verbalizes knowledge gaps, points of confusion or dilemmas by identifying one (1) or more inappropriate questions for the preceptor OR The nature of one (1) or more of the questions were not relevant to the case study.

0.0 pts

Developing- Student does not verbalizes knowledge gaps, points of confusion or dilemmas by asking questions of the preceptor.

10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAt a novice level, the student proposes an appropriate management Plan in the oral presentation. The plan addresses: 1) how the student confirmed or established the diagnosis, 2) medications chosen (OTC or RX) with dosages noted, 3) patient education and 4) follow-up for the problem AND 5) Consideration to cost, availability, or patient preferences are mentioned in regards to treatment considerations. (5 critical elements required).
20.0 pts

Exceptional- All 5 critical elements are present and the plan is presented clearly

18.0 pts

Exceeds- 1 of the critical elements are missing BUT The plan is presented clearly.

16.0 pts

Meets- 2 critical elements are missing BUT The plan is presented clearly.

8.0 pts

Needs Improvement- 3-4 critical elements are missing OR Student proposes a plan that is unclear or irrelevant to the problem.

0.0 pts

Developing- All 5 critical elements are missing.

20.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentify a self-directed learning topic. Student verbalizes at least one issue for self-directed learning in the oral presentation AND Provides written research on the self-directed learning topic AND Research is fully supported by at least three (3) appropriate, EBM, scholarly references (3 critical elements required)
10.0 pts

Exceptional- Student identifies at least one issue for self-directed learning related to the case study in the oral presentation AND The student provides written research on the self-directed learning topic AND The student’s research is fully supported by using at least three (3) appropriate, EBM, scholarly references.

9.0 pts

Exceeds- Student identifies at least one issue for self-directed learning related to the case study in the oral presentation AND The student provides written research on the self-directed learning topic BUT The student’s research is only partially supported (i.e., contains at least two (two) appropriate, EBM, scholarly references).

8.0 pts

Meets- Student identifies at least one issue for self-directed learning related to the case study in the oral presentation AND The student provides written research on the self-directed learning topic BUT The student’s research is only partially supported (i.e., contains only one (1) appropriate, EBM, scholarly reference).

4.0 pts

Needs Improvement- Student identifies at least one issue for self-directed learning related to the case study in the oral presentation AND The student provides written research on the self-directed learning topic BUT The student’s research is not supported with any appropriate, EBM and scholarly references.

0.0 pts

Developing- Student does not identify at least one issue for self-directed learning related to the case study in the oral presentation OR The student does not provide written research on the self-directed learning topic.

10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe student’s oral presentation is a minimum of five (5) but no more than seven (7) minutes in length AND The written research of the self-directed learning topic is five (5) to seven (7) paragraphs in length AND The research is submitted on the SNAPPS written template AND All in-text citations and references are written in correct APA format (4 critical elements required).
10.0 pts

Exceptional- The student’s oral presentation is a minimum of five (5) but no more than seven (7) minutes in length AND The written research of the self-directed learning topic is five (5) to seven (7) paragraphs in length AND The research is submitted on the SNAPPS written template AND In-text citations and references are all written in correct APA format.

9.0 pts

Exceeds- The student’s oral presentation a minimum of five (5) but no more than seven (7) minutes in length AND The written research of the self-directed learning topic is five (5) to seven (7) paragraphs in length AND The research is submitted on the SNAPPS written template BUT There are one to two (1-2) errors in APA format.

8.0 pts

Meets- The student’s oral presentation is a minimum of five (5) but no more than seven (7) minutes in length AND The written research of the self-directed learning topic is five (5) to seven (7) paragraphs in length AND The research is submitted on the SNAPPS written template with three (3) or less errors in APA format.

4.0 pts

Needs Improvement- Oral presentation is less than five (5) or more than seven (7) minutes in length OR The written research of the self-directed learning topic is less than five (5) or more than seven (7) paragraphs in length BUT The research is submitted on the SNAPPS written template with five (5) or less errors in APA format.

0.0 pts

Developing-Oral presentation is less than five (5) or more than seven (7) minutes in length OR The written research of the self-directed learning topic is less than five (5) or more than seven (7) paragraphs in length AND The written research is not submitted on the SNAPPS written template.

10.0 pts
0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *