Chat with us, powered by LiveChat WK2 NRNP 6675 | Gen Paper
+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Content

Name: NRNP_6675_Week2_Assignment1_Rubric

  Excellent

90%–100%

Good

80%–89%

Fair

70%–79%

Poor

0%–69%

In the E/M patient case scenario provided:

• Assign DSM-5 and ICD-10 codes to services based upon the patient case scenario.

Points:

Points Range:
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)

DSM-5 and ICD-10 codes assigned to the scenario are correct, with no more than a minor error.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

DSM-5 and ICD-10 codes assigned to the scenario are mostly correct, with a few minor errors.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

DSM-5 and ICD-10 codes assigned to the scenario contain several errors.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 13 (13%)

DSM-5 and ICD-10 codes assigned to the scenario contain significant errors, or response is missing.

Feedback:

In 1–2 pages, address the following:

• Explain what pertinent information, generally, is required in documentation to support DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding.

Points:

Points Range:
23 (23%) – 25 (25%)

The response accurately and concisely explains what pertinent documentation information is required to support DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
20 (20%) – 22 (22%)

The response accurately explains what pertinent documentation information is required to support DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
18 (18%) – 19 (19%)

The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately explains what pertinent documentation information is required to support DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 17 (17%)

The response vaguely or inaccurately explains what pertinent documentation information is required to support DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding, or the explanation is incomplete or missing.

Feedback:

• Explain what pertinent documentation is missing from the case scenario, and what other information would be helpful to narrow your coding and billing options.

Points:

Points Range:
23 (23%) – 25 (25%)

The response accurately and concisely identifies the pertinent misssing information from the case scenario and clearly identifies what additional information would narrow coding and billing options.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
20 (20%) – 22 (22%)

The response accurately identifies the pertinent misssing information from the case scenario and identifies what additional information would narrow coding and billing options.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
18 (18%) – 19 (19%)

The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately identifies the pertinent misssing information from the case scenario and identifies what additional information would narrow coding and billing options.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 17 (17%)

The response vaguely or inaccurately identifies the pertinent misssing information from the case scenario or partially identifies what additional information would narrow coding and billing options, or this information is incomplete or missing.

Feedback:

• Finally, explain how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement.

Points:

Points Range:
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

The response accurately and concisely explains how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

The response accurately explains how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
11 (11%) – 11 (11%)

The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately explains how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 10 (10%)

The response vaguely or inaccurately explains how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement, or response may be incomplete or missing.

Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization:

Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria.

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet are brief and not descriptive.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are vague or off topic.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity <60% of the time.

Purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion were not provided.

Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting – English Writing Standards:

Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains 1-2 grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Contains 3-4 grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Contains five or more grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding

Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting –

The paper follows correct APA format for parenthetical/in-text citations and reference list.

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct APA format with no errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains 1-2 APA format errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Contains 3-4 APA format errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Contains five or more APA format errors

Feedback:

Show Descriptions

Show Feedback

In the E/M patient case scenario provided:

• Assign DSM-5 and ICD-10 codes to services based upon the patient case scenario.

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)

DSM-5 and ICD-10 codes assigned to the scenario are correct, with no more than a minor error.

Good

80%–89%
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

DSM-5 and ICD-10 codes assigned to the scenario are mostly correct, with a few minor errors.

Fair

70%–79%
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

DSM-5 and ICD-10 codes assigned to the scenario contain several errors.

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 13 (13%)

DSM-5 and ICD-10 codes assigned to the scenario contain significant errors, or response is missing.

Feedback:

In 1–2 pages, address the following:

• Explain what pertinent information, generally, is required in documentation to support DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding.

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
23 (23%) – 25 (25%)

The response accurately and concisely explains what pertinent documentation information is required to support DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding.

Good

80%–89%
20 (20%) – 22 (22%)

The response accurately explains what pertinent documentation information is required to support DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding.

Fair

70%–79%
18 (18%) – 19 (19%)

The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately explains what pertinent documentation information is required to support DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding.

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 17 (17%)

The response vaguely or inaccurately explains what pertinent documentation information is required to support DSM-5 and ICD-10 coding, or the explanation is incomplete or missing.

Feedback:

• Explain what pertinent documentation is missing from the case scenario, and what other information would be helpful to narrow your coding and billing options.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
23 (23%) – 25 (25%)

The response accurately and concisely identifies the pertinent misssing information from the case scenario and clearly identifies what additional information would narrow coding and billing options.

Good

80%–89%
20 (20%) – 22 (22%)

The response accurately identifies the pertinent misssing information from the case scenario and identifies what additional information would narrow coding and billing options.

Fair

70%–79%
18 (18%) – 19 (19%)

The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately identifies the pertinent misssing information from the case scenario and identifies what additional information would narrow coding and billing options.

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 17 (17%)

The response vaguely or inaccurately identifies the pertinent misssing information from the case scenario or partially identifies what additional information would narrow coding and billing options, or this information is incomplete or missing.

Feedback:

• Finally, explain how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

The response accurately and concisely explains how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement.

Good

80%–89%
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

The response accurately explains how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement.

Fair

70%–79%
11 (11%) – 11 (11%)

The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately explains how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement.

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 10 (10%)

The response vaguely or inaccurately explains how to improve documentation to support coding and billing for maximum reimbursement, or response may be incomplete or missing.

Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization:

Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria.

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria.

Good

80%–89%
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet are brief and not descriptive.

Fair

70%–79%
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are vague or off topic.

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity <60% of the time.

Purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion were not provided.

Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting – English Writing Standards:

Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors

Good

80%–89%
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains 1-2 grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

Fair

70%–79%
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Contains 3-4 grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Contains five or more grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding

Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting –

The paper follows correct APA format for parenthetical/in-text citations and reference list.

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct APA format with no errors

Good

80%–89%
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains 1-2 APA format errors

Fair

70%–79%
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Contains 3-4 APA format errors

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Contains five or more APA format errors

Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NRNP_6675_Week2_Assignment1_Rubric

error: Content is protected !!