Categories
Dietetics

Assignment description: this assignment will allow you to apply basic concepts of digestion and absorption, nutritional concerns of and nutrition intervention for patient’s with crohn’s disease.

Assignment Description: This assignment will allow you to apply basic concepts of digestion and absorption, nutritional concerns of and nutrition intervention for patient’s with Crohn’s disease.
Percentage of Final Grade: ~9%
Instructions
First, read the case study instructions and scenario here: GI Case Study InstructionPlease review the rubric located at the bottom of this page.
Download and complete the case study questions: Module 4 GI Case Study template
Upload your completed template to Canvas in either .doc/.docx or PDF file format
Resources to help you complete the assignment:
Primary/Secondary sources, plagiarism and level of evidence resources located in Module 0.
ASU Library: https://lib.asu.edu/ (Links to an external site.)
ASU Graduate Writing Tutoring: https://tutoring.asu.edu/content/graduate-writing-tutoring AMA Citation Help: http://library.stkate.edu/assets/library-uploads/files/citeAMA.pdfLinks to an external site.
Learning Objectives
By the end of this assignment, students will be able to:
Identify digestion and absorption issues related to short bowel syndrome
Identify potential nutritional consequences for individuals with short bowel syndrome and potential medical nutrition therapy treatment.
Analyze dietary intake information in relation to nutrition recommendation for short bowel syndrome patients.
Analyze nutritional considerations in the diagnosis of malnutrition.
Rubric
Assignment 4: GI Case Study
Assignment 4: GI Case Study
CriteriaRatingsPts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQ1
4 to >3.0 ptsMeets
Response fully addresses the question utilizing insightful & sophisticated content descriptions. The topic is explored in depth with relevant and specific examples. Response contained no more than two errors in writing mechanics.
3 to >1.0 ptsNearly Meets
Response mostly addresses the question but lacks in-depth insight. Examples may lack connection and/or relevancy to the topic. The writing contained 3-4 errors in writing mechanics.
1 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet
Response might be vague, somewhat basic, or off-topic. The writing contained more than 4 errors in writing mechanics.
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQ2
4 to >3.0 ptsMeets
Response fully addresses the question utilizing insightful & sophisticated content descriptions. The topic is explored in depth with relevant and specific examples. Response contained no more than two errors in writing mechanics.
3 to >1.0 ptsNearly Meets
Responses addresses the question but lacks in-depth insight. Examples may lack connection and/or relevancy to the topic. The writing contained 3-4 errors in writing mechanics.
1 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet
Response might be vague, somewhat basic, or off-topic. The writing contained more than 4 errors in writing mechanics.
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQ3
4 to >3.0 ptsMeets
Response fully addresses the question utilizing insightful & sophisticated content descriptions. The topic is explored in depth with relevant and specific examples. Response contained no more than two errors in writing mechanics.
3 to >1.0 ptsNearly Meets
Responses addresses the question but lacks in-depth insight. Examples may lack connection and/or relevancy to the topic. The writing contained 3-4 errors in writing mechanics.
1 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet
Response might be vague, somewhat basic, or off-topic. The writing contained more than 4 errors in writing mechanics.
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQ4
4 to >3.0 ptsMeets
Response fully addresses the question utilizing insightful & sophisticated content descriptions. The topic is explored in depth with relevant and specific examples. Response contained no more than two errors in writing mechanics.
3 to >1.0 ptsNearly Meets
Responses addresses the question but lacks in-depth insight. Examples may lack connection and/or relevancy to the topic. The writing contained 3-4 errors in writing mechanics.
1 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet
Response might be vague, somewhat basic, or off-topic. The writing contained more than 4 errors in writing mechanics.
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQ5
2 to >1.0 ptsMeets
Response fully addresses the question utilizing insightful & sophisticated content descriptions. The topic is explored in depth with relevant and specific examples. Response contained no more than two errors in writing mechanics.
1 to >0.5 ptsNearly Meets
Responses addresses the question but lacks in-depth insight. Examples may lack connection and/or relevancy to the topic. The writing contained 3-4 errors in writing mechanics.
0.5 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet
Response might be vague, somewhat basic, or off-topic. The writing contained more than 4 errors in writing mechanics.
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQ6
3 to >2.0 ptsMeets
Response fully addresses the question utilizing insightful & sophisticated content descriptions. The topic is explored in depth with relevant and specific examples. Response contained no more than two errors in writing mechanics.
2 to >1.0 ptsNearly Meets
Responses addresses the question but lacks in-depth insight. Examples may lack connection and/or relevancy to the topic. The writing contained 3-4 errors in writing mechanics.
1 to >0 ptsDoes not meet
Response might be vague, somewhat basic, or off-topic. Two or more sources used were not primary or secondary sources. The writing contained more than 4 errors in writing mechanics.
3 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCitations
4 to >3.0 ptsMeets
Appropriate primary and secondary sources were used to support responses. Sources were correctly cited both in-text and in the reference section in AMA format.
3 to >2.0 ptsNearly Meets
The primary and secondary sources used to support responses were mostly appropriate. Sources were mostly correctly cited both in-text and in the reference section in AMA format.
2 to >0 ptsDoes not meet
More than two primary and secondary sources used to support responses were not appropriate and/or citations were missing or incorrectly cited.
4 pts
Total Points: 25

Categories
Dietetics

Assignment description: this assignment will allow you to apply basic concepts of digestion and absorption, nutritional concerns of and nutrition intervention for patient’s with crohn’s disease.

Assignment Description: This assignment will allow you to apply basic concepts of digestion and absorption, nutritional concerns of and nutrition intervention for patient’s with Crohn’s disease.
Percentage of Final Grade: ~9%
Instructions
First, read the case study instructions and scenario here: GI Case Study InstructionPlease review the rubric located at the bottom of this page.
Download and complete the case study questions: Module 4 GI Case Study template
Upload your completed template to Canvas in either .doc/.docx or PDF file format
Resources to help you complete the assignment:
Primary/Secondary sources, plagiarism and level of evidence resources located in Module 0.
ASU Library: https://lib.asu.edu/ (Links to an external site.)
ASU Graduate Writing Tutoring: https://tutoring.asu.edu/content/graduate-writing-tutoring AMA Citation Help: http://library.stkate.edu/assets/library-uploads/files/citeAMA.pdfLinks to an external site.
Learning Objectives
By the end of this assignment, students will be able to:
Identify digestion and absorption issues related to short bowel syndrome
Identify potential nutritional consequences for individuals with short bowel syndrome and potential medical nutrition therapy treatment.
Analyze dietary intake information in relation to nutrition recommendation for short bowel syndrome patients.
Analyze nutritional considerations in the diagnosis of malnutrition.
Rubric
Assignment 4: GI Case Study
Assignment 4: GI Case Study
CriteriaRatingsPts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQ1
4 to >3.0 ptsMeets
Response fully addresses the question utilizing insightful & sophisticated content descriptions. The topic is explored in depth with relevant and specific examples. Response contained no more than two errors in writing mechanics.
3 to >1.0 ptsNearly Meets
Response mostly addresses the question but lacks in-depth insight. Examples may lack connection and/or relevancy to the topic. The writing contained 3-4 errors in writing mechanics.
1 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet
Response might be vague, somewhat basic, or off-topic. The writing contained more than 4 errors in writing mechanics.
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQ2
4 to >3.0 ptsMeets
Response fully addresses the question utilizing insightful & sophisticated content descriptions. The topic is explored in depth with relevant and specific examples. Response contained no more than two errors in writing mechanics.
3 to >1.0 ptsNearly Meets
Responses addresses the question but lacks in-depth insight. Examples may lack connection and/or relevancy to the topic. The writing contained 3-4 errors in writing mechanics.
1 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet
Response might be vague, somewhat basic, or off-topic. The writing contained more than 4 errors in writing mechanics.
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQ3
4 to >3.0 ptsMeets
Response fully addresses the question utilizing insightful & sophisticated content descriptions. The topic is explored in depth with relevant and specific examples. Response contained no more than two errors in writing mechanics.
3 to >1.0 ptsNearly Meets
Responses addresses the question but lacks in-depth insight. Examples may lack connection and/or relevancy to the topic. The writing contained 3-4 errors in writing mechanics.
1 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet
Response might be vague, somewhat basic, or off-topic. The writing contained more than 4 errors in writing mechanics.
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQ4
4 to >3.0 ptsMeets
Response fully addresses the question utilizing insightful & sophisticated content descriptions. The topic is explored in depth with relevant and specific examples. Response contained no more than two errors in writing mechanics.
3 to >1.0 ptsNearly Meets
Responses addresses the question but lacks in-depth insight. Examples may lack connection and/or relevancy to the topic. The writing contained 3-4 errors in writing mechanics.
1 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet
Response might be vague, somewhat basic, or off-topic. The writing contained more than 4 errors in writing mechanics.
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQ5
2 to >1.0 ptsMeets
Response fully addresses the question utilizing insightful & sophisticated content descriptions. The topic is explored in depth with relevant and specific examples. Response contained no more than two errors in writing mechanics.
1 to >0.5 ptsNearly Meets
Responses addresses the question but lacks in-depth insight. Examples may lack connection and/or relevancy to the topic. The writing contained 3-4 errors in writing mechanics.
0.5 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet
Response might be vague, somewhat basic, or off-topic. The writing contained more than 4 errors in writing mechanics.
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQ6
3 to >2.0 ptsMeets
Response fully addresses the question utilizing insightful & sophisticated content descriptions. The topic is explored in depth with relevant and specific examples. Response contained no more than two errors in writing mechanics.
2 to >1.0 ptsNearly Meets
Responses addresses the question but lacks in-depth insight. Examples may lack connection and/or relevancy to the topic. The writing contained 3-4 errors in writing mechanics.
1 to >0 ptsDoes not meet
Response might be vague, somewhat basic, or off-topic. Two or more sources used were not primary or secondary sources. The writing contained more than 4 errors in writing mechanics.
3 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCitations
4 to >3.0 ptsMeets
Appropriate primary and secondary sources were used to support responses. Sources were correctly cited both in-text and in the reference section in AMA format.
3 to >2.0 ptsNearly Meets
The primary and secondary sources used to support responses were mostly appropriate. Sources were mostly correctly cited both in-text and in the reference section in AMA format.
2 to >0 ptsDoes not meet
More than two primary and secondary sources used to support responses were not appropriate and/or citations were missing or incorrectly cited.
4 pts
Total Points: 25

Categories
Dietetics

Review the grading rubric before you begin.

Learning Goal: I’m working on a dietetics discussion question and need a sample publish to help me learn.
Consider this activity as a web quest. Access Healthy People 2030 (Links to an external site.). Open the Objectives and Data section. Review the Leading Health Indicators, the Social Determinants of Health, and the Overall Health and Well-Being Measures areas. Review the grading rubric before you begin.
1. (20pts) Which Leading Health Indicators (LHIs) relate directly to this module’s topic of Diet and Health? Explain why.
2. (20pts) Which Social Determinant of Health (SDOH) do you believe most directly aligns with this module’s topic of Diet and Health? Explain why? Could one or more of the other SDOHs align, too? Which?
3. (10pts) Access the “How has Healthy People Changed” area. What has changed regarding “nutrition” from Healthy People 2020 to Healthy People 2030?