BMS5002 Research Techniques Tissues Organs And Systems : Health

Criterion

0 – 39%

Fail

40 – 49%

Third

50 – 59%

2:2

60 – 69%

2:1

70 – 79%

First

80 – 100%

First

Using deductive reasoning, correctly identify the causative agents in a range of food poisoning scenarios.

(LO2)

(25%)

Incorrectly identifies causative agents and shows no understanding of deductive processes. No references used to support conclusions.

Microbial names not included or mis-spelled. Names not formatted according to scientific convention.

0 – 9.9 marks

Poor understanding of the pathogens and symptoms. Little / no discussion of intoxication & infection or how it is established. Only mentions the 1 organism thought to be responsible. Little or no explanation of why certain organisms considered / excluded. Important clues have been missed resulting in incorrect conclusions. Microbial names not italicised or formatted correctly. Uses abbreviations of names without first using full names of organisms eg E. coli. Less than 4 microorganisms mentioned in assignment.

10 – 12 marks

Only discusses the organisms most likely to have caused the outbreak. Does not adequately explain why some organisms have been ruled-out. No discussion of intoxication & infection or how it is determined. May mention other organisms if there is >1 possibility but does not compare the possible causes and look carefully at all the evidence. Poor use of scientific literature to support arguments, relying on websites targeting the general public. Inconsistent writing of microbial names; some are correctly written / formatted but some not. Some microbial names are incorrectly spelled.

12.5 – 14.9 marks

Correctly concludes whether the outbreak is intoxication or infection with explanation. Correctly identifies the causative agent with good discussion on reasons for conclusions. However, does not discuss why some organisms have been ruled out. Microbial names correctly spelled but not formatted correctly (ie written in italics with capital letter for the Genus).

15 – 17.4 marks

Good analysis of the data provided to reach the correct conclusions about the causative agent responsible for the outbreaks. Discusses why organisms considered / excluded. Arguments supported by referencing to peer-reviewed literature

Microbial names correctly spelled. Names written in italics but genus not capitalised and / or species name is capitalised.

17.5 – 19.9 marks

Detailed explanation showing deductive processes used to rule-in / out possible pathogens. Excellent explanation of what methods could be used to confirm the source of the contamination is the same as the organisms isolated from affected patients.

Microbial names are written in italics and are observant of exceptions (serovar names). Genus names begin with a capital letter; species names are all lower-case.

20 – 25 marks

Discussion of foods likely to be implicated / excluded as sources of contamination

(LO2)

(25%)

No understanding about the relationship between certain foods & pathogens.

0 – 9.9 marks

Only discusses the food that is considered to be the source of the outbreak. No discussion about the properties & relationships of the food & pathogen. 

10 – 12 marks

Not all foods are discussed and the justification is again limited.  Limited mention about the properties of the food or organism. Limited explanation of why certain foods are associated with certain pathogens.

12.5 – 14.9 marks

Briefly discusses the foods most likely to be linked to the outbreak but does not discuss why some foods have been excluded. Discussion does not contain information about the nature of the food (e.g. intrinsic factors such as pH range) and properties of the organism that enable it to survive in such a food source (e.g. whether acid / heat tolerant).

15 – 17.4 marks

Discusses all foods consumed and why certain foods could be implicated. Discuss of intrinsic factors of foods and how these would encourage / discourage the growth / survival of certain organism needs more detail. Does explain how & why some foods are associated with certain pathogens eg poultry with Salmonella, Campylobacter)

17.5 – 19.9 marks

All foods are discussed as probable sources and detailed justification for the most probable sources given along with reasons for why others might be discounted.  Discussion contains information about the nature of the food (e.g. intrinsic factors such as pH range) and properties of the organism that enable it to survive in such a food source (e.g. whether acid tolerant).

20 – 25 marks

Lab tests used to ID the pathogen and confirm the link between the pathogen and the suspected source

(LO4)

(20%)

Not discussed or shows no understanding of the methods used

0 – 7.9 marks

Shows poor understanding of the methods used and how they are applied. Does not recognise why this important. 

8 – 9.9 marks

Mentions a few of the older methods of typing organisms eg serotyping, phage-typing but lacks an awareness of their limitations. Only mentions cultural methods, no confirmatory methods for pathogen ID.

10 – 11.9 marks

Refers to some of the older typing methods such as serotyping, phage typing and shows awareness of their limitations. Where newer molecular methods eg VNTR, MLST, whole-genome sequencing are sometimes used for typing a particular pathogen, these are not mentioned. Mentions cultural methods for isolation of pathogen and rapid methods like ELISA for toxin detection.

12 – 13.9 marks

Good understanding of all epidemiological tools that can be used to link the source of an outbreak to the organisms isolated from patients but has limited discussion of pros & cons of the methods. Good discussion of cultural methods for isolation of pathogen and rapid methods like ELISA for toxin detection.

14 – 15.9 marks

Excellent understanding of all epidemiological tools that can be used to link the source of an outbreak to the organisms isolated from patients and discusses pros & cons of the methods. Shows an excellent, critical understanding of lab methods for isolating and IDing pathogen.

16 – 20 marks

Discussion on measures to prevent future outbreaks.

(LO4)

(20%)

Shows no understanding of how the outbreak occurred, what failures must have happened and how to prevent such incidents happening in the future. No references used to support arguments.

0 – 7.9 marks

Shows little understanding of factors that could lead to outbreaks. Little or no supporting evidence in references. No discussion of basic hygiene measures. No recognition of specific failures in this scenario. No mention of HACCP principles or how they are applied.

8 – 9.9 marks

Limited non-specific guidance is provided as to how this might be prevented in future eg hand washing, handling raw & cooked foods separately. No discussion of relationships between intrinsic properties of foods and how this supports / inhibits growth / survival of pathogens. No mention of HACCP principles or how they are applied.

10 – 11.9 marks

Good general advice is provided as to how outbreaks might be prevented in future however this is rather more general eg hand-washing, cooking properly. References to websites targeting the general public. Little commentary on measures that could prevent this specific type of outbreak occurring. No mention of HACCP principles or how they are applied.

12 – 13.9 marks

Case-specific guidance is provided as to how such outbreaks might be prevented in future. Student shows a good awareness of how and why failures could have led to the outbreak. Reference to external sources such as primary research articles or reported outbreak reports are used to substantiate the reasoning. Mentions HACCP as a control system but does not explain how it works or is applied.

14 – 15.9 marks

Shows an excellent understanding of what failures resulted in outbreak and precautions that must be taken to minimise it happening. Supported by good quality references in journal articles. Discusses role of HACCP and how it is applied in food manufacture / retail.

16 – 20 marks

Referencing

(10%)

Few references used (

0 – 3.9 marks

Little or no reference to external sources. If present, likely just lecture notes or low-quality websites eg Wikipedia, NHS.org, Mayoclinics.com etc..  External sources are not cited within the text and a limited reference list is present containing multiple errors. Bibliography is untidy containing multiple fonts, formatting of references is not consistent and does not conform to BCU referencing specifications.

4 – 4.9 marks

Few peer-reviewed articles used. Mostly relies upon low-quality internet references designed for members of the public with low scientific background. Some citations included in text but  several citations missing. Bibliography contains poorly formatted references including multiple fonts and inconsistent formatting.

5 – 5.9 marks

References contain some errors eg missing page numbers. Some formatting inconsistencies. Some (

6 – 6.9 marks

Excellent use of peer-reviewed articles and high quality web-sites. No low-quality websites intended for a non-scientific readership used eg Wikipedia, NHS.org, Mayoclinics.com etc. Good use of correctly formatted citations in the text. Good formatting of references in the bibliography.

7 – 7.9 marks

Reference to external sources such as primary research articles or reported outbreak reports are used to substantiate the reasoning.  All external sources are cited appropriately within the text and a full reference list is provided at the end of the document.

8 – 10 marks