[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-388526-105":59,"doc-detail-388526-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","emt-cpc-case-study-marking-rubic-version-2-november-2019","EMT CPC Case Study Marking Rubic - Version 2 - November 2019","","EMT CPC case study marking rubric - Version 2 - November 2019 evaluates written submissions across several assessed areas. It scores how well EMTs justify choosing a case, outline scene details and vital signs, and explain working diagnosis in relation to presented signs and symptoms. The rubric also grades pre-hospital management and rationale aligned with CPGs, key learning outcomes and competence benefits, and the appropriateness of references. Each criterion is rated as Good, Average, or Poor, totaling up to /36.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":20,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/emt-cpc-case-study-marking-rubic-version-2-november-2019/388526/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/emt-cpc-case-study-marking-rubic-version-2-november-2019/388526.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Dipper","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-09-25",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":19},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What does the rubric assess in the Introduction section?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It checks whether EMTs clearly outline why they chose the specific case study, including appropriate reasoning. Average indicates some reference without detail, while Poor indicates no reference to the reasoning.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How are Case Details and vital signs evaluated?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Good requires a clear outline of the situation, including correct differential diagnosis thought process on route, the scene, vital signs, and patient condition. Average omits some vital signs or key scene details, and Poor provides little or no outline and may include no differential diagnosis.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What is required for Pre Hospital Management to score as Good?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Good must clearly outline treatments provided and the rationale for each treatment aligned with CPGs. Average includes incomplete rationale or inaccurate details, and Poor omits pre-hospital treatment details and rationale.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},388526,1791491359,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":19,"category_name":20,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":19,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":8,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":81,"preview_page_count":4},1374404997633,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_a8503ba1806abce46bf441b54a3ca4cd","| EMT CPC Case Study Marking Rubic – Version 2 – November 2019 |  |  |  |  |  |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n|  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|  | Good |  | Average |  | Poor |\n| Introduction | EMT clearly outlines why they choose this particular case study |  | EMT makes reference to why they choose this particular case but does not go into detail. |  | No reference made to the reasoning why this case was chosen. |\n| Case Details\u003Cbr>Important scene details and Vital signs | Clearly outlines the situation presented to them including correct differential diagnosis thought process on route, the scene presented to them, vital signs and the condition of the patient. |  | Omits vital signs or important scene details relevant for the incident.\u003Cbr>Expected vital signs for presented condition not included. |  | Poor or no outline of patient’s vital signs.\u003Cbr>Poor or no outline of important scene details.\u003Cbr>No differential diagnosis (where one is expected) |\n| Working Diagnosis\u003Cbr>explained in reference to specific condition presented | EMT should clearly explain how the signs and symptoms relate to their patient and how they came to decide on their working diagnosis.\u003Cbr>EMT should present a detailed review of the condition through research |  | EMT does not relate signs and symptoms correctly for the presented condition.\u003Cbr>Review of condition missing some key details. Research not fully completed |  | Shows no understanding of the relationship between S&S and the condition.\u003Cbr>No research of condition completed. No explanation of thought process. |\n| Pre Hospital Management\u003Cbr>By you and any ALS provider | Clearly outlines treatment given by practitioner and their rational for providing such treatment in line with CPGs |  | Omits some rational for providing such treatment to patient.\u003Cbr>Appears to give inaccurate details on treatment or rational |  | Omits any detail on pre hospital treatment.\u003Cbr>Omits rational for treatment. |\n| Key Learning outcomes\u003Cbr>What the EMT has learned | Key learning points clearly outlined and benefit to EMTs competence has been explained |  | Some key learning points given. Assessor able to identify key learning points that should have been listed.\u003Cbr>Minimal benefit to competence shown. |  | No key learning points given. No benefit to practitioners competence shown. |\n| References | References used and are appropriate for the case. |  | References used but some omitted |  | No references used. |\n| Score per box | 6 marks |  | 3marks |  | 1 Mark |\n|  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Exemplary total |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Good total |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Poor total |  |  |  |  |  |\n|  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Overall result |  | /36 |  |  |  |","cbCaidKzjgeDE6tw","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaidKzjgeDE6tw","pdf",73911,"English","# Introduction\n## Case Details (Important scene details and vital signs)\n## Working Diagnosis (explained in reference to specific condition)\n## Pre Hospital Management (by you and any ALS provider)\n## Key Learning Outcomes\n## References","[{\"question\":\"What does the rubric assess in the Introduction section?\",\"answer\":\"It checks whether EMTs clearly outline why they chose the specific case study, including appropriate reasoning. Average indicates some reference without detail, while Poor indicates no reference to the reasoning.\"},{\"question\":\"How are Case Details and vital signs evaluated?\",\"answer\":\"Good requires a clear outline of the situation, including correct differential diagnosis thought process on route, the scene, vital signs, and patient condition. Average omits some vital signs or key scene details, and Poor provides little or no outline and may include no differential diagnosis.\"},{\"question\":\"What is required for Pre Hospital Management to score as Good?\",\"answer\":\"Good must clearly outline treatments provided and the rationale for each treatment aligned with CPGs. Average includes incomplete rationale or inaccurate details, and Poor omits pre-hospital treatment details and rationale.\"}]","EMT CPC Case Study Marking Rubic - Version 2 - November 2019 | PDF",1790305559]