1. AUTHENTICITY AND AUTHENTICATION:
Edexcel regulations state: “Students MUST authenticate the evidence that they provide for assessment.”
Therefore, it is mandatory that a cover sheet (template can be found on ABI Learn) clearly stating name, surname and student number, together with the statement of authenticity is attached in the front of your assignment.
If you do not submit this cover page with your assignment (including statement), your assignment will not be marked.
Your signature is required on this cover sheet.
2. Assignments must be submitted to Turnitin by the date specified in the assignment brief. The maximum Turnitin plagiarism % allowed is 19%.
3. ASSESSMENT AND GRADING:
Formal opportunity to provide final formative assessment feedback will be given by ABI College where students will have the opportunity to provide evidence towards all the assessment criteria targeted. Formative Assessment involves both the Assessor and the student in a conversation about their progress and takes place prior to summative assessment. The main function of formative assessment is to provide feedback to enable student to make improvements to consolidate a Pass, or attain a higher grade.
Summative Assessment is a final assessment decision on an assignment tasks in relation to the assessment criteria of each unit. It is the definitive assessment and recording of the student’s achievement.
4. MARKING SPELLING, PUNCTUATION AND GRAMMAR:
Mistakes in spelling and grammar should not influence assessment decisions unless:
• The mistakes are so problematic that they undermine the evidence of student understanding, or
• Specific assessment criteria require good communication, spelling and grammar and/or correct use of technical language.
If student work has consistently poor spelling, grammar or language it will not be accepted for marking and it will be marked as referred.
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION can be found in Student Handbook and Programme Handbook for your HND course available on ABI Learn.
CASE STUDY SCENARIO:
Mrs. Ruth Simmons is a right-handed, 65-year-old, English-speaking widow who lives alone in her own home in Colchester UK, Her house is a two-storey single-family home. The kitchen, living, and powder rooms (i.e., 2 piece bathrooms) are on the main floor, the laundry and storage facilities are in the basement, and the bedroom and full bathroom are on the second floor. Mrs. Simmons drives her own car. She enjoys needlework and reading, and is an active member of a local handicraft guild.
Mrs. Simmons has two adult children. Her daughter, who lives in Manchester, phones weekly to talk to her mother. Her son lives in Colchester, although Mrs. Simmons hears from him once or twice per month.
Mrs. Simmons called 111 in the early morning hours of May 6th after discovering that she was having difficulty walking and speaking. She was admitted to a primary care hospital on May 6. She was diagnosed with a left anterior occlusive cerebral vascular accident (CVA). Mrs. Simmons suffers from hypertension and is taking prescribed diuretics. She also is taking hormone replacement medication (i.e., oestrogen).
Four days post-admission, the first Stroke-Rehabilitation Team meeting took place to discuss Mrs. Simmons’s case. Members of the team included a physiatrist (i.e., medical specialist in rehabilitative medicine), a nurse (who happened to be the randomly assigned case manager), an occupational therapist, a physiotherapist, a speech-language pathologist, a neuropsychologist, a social worker, a dietician, and a recreation therapist. Team members agreed that multiple assessments of Mrs. Simmons’s skills were necessary including those by the speech-language pathologist, the occupational therapist, the physical therapist (all of their reports follow), and the social worker. Additional consults for screening of skills were requested by the case manager for audiology, recreation therapy, podiatry/orthotics (shoe fitting, foot lifts, arch supports, etc.), and neuropsychology. During the first week post-admission, Mrs. Simmons was assessed fully by the speech-language pathologist, the occupational therapist, the physical therapist, and the audiologist.
Learning Outcome 1: Understand the principles behind complementary therapies and their current Usage.
1.1 Explains various therapies and treatments widely available for Mrs. Ruth Simmons to address her problems of speaking and walking. (AC 1.1 & M1)
1.2 Mrs. Ruth Simmons has admitted in a hospital for treatment. Assess the advantages and disadvantages of the complementary therapies used for Mrs. Ruth’s case study. (AC 1.2)
1.3 Analyse the various factors (choose at least 3 factors) locally influencing access to complementary therapies in when Mrs. Ruth’s admitted in a hospital. (AC 1.3)
Learning Outcome 2: Understand the role of complementary therapies in relation to orthodox treatments.
2.1 Review the important roles of complementary therapies and orthodox treatment. Also analyse the role of complementary therapies in relation to orthodox treatments in the care of musculo-skeletal, metabolic and cardio-respiratory needs in relation with case study scenario. (AC 2.1 & M3)
2.2. Evaluate people’s attitudes towards complementary therapies in relation with Mrs. Ruth’s Case Study Scenario. (AC 2.2)
2.3 Four days post-admission, the first Stroke-Rehabilitation Team meeting took place to discuss Mrs. Simmons’s case. Assess the psychological effects of complementary Therapies of Mrs. Simmons’s scenario. (AC 2.3)
2.4 Compare the contra- indications between orthodox and complementary therapies have done by Rehabilitation Team when she admitted first stroke rehabilitation team. (AC 2.4 & D1)
Learning Outcome 3: Be able to analyses evidence for the efficacy of complementary therapies in Sustaining health and wellbeing.
3.1 Carry out an analysis of the reliability and validity of information sources and analyse the effectiveness of complementary therapies available for given case scenario. A brochure (200 words) including a bibliography in the appropriate format. The brochure should include relevant research materials. (AC 3.1 & M2)
3.2 Evaluate evidence which claims the benefits of complementary therapies for sustaining health and wellbeing of given scenario. (AC 3.2 & D2)
3.3 Make recommendations based on the evidence gathered for the use of complementary therapies within Mrs. Ruth’s Case. (AC 3.3 & D3)
Learning Outcome 4: Be able to carry out an evaluation of the systems for regulating the use of complementary therapies.
4.1 Evaluate the effectiveness of current regulation, code of practice, code of ethics and systems for the use of complementary therapies in relation with Mrs. Ruth’s Case study. (AC 4.1)
4.2. Make recommendations, supported by evidence, for improving regulatory systems for the use of complementary therapies in relation with case study. (AC 4.2 & D3)