Assignment: Use of AI in Evidence-Based Plan Management
This assignment integrates clinical reasoning with the ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI) to develop an evidence-based management plan for a neurological or psychiatric condition. You will use AI tools to assist in generating differential diagnoses, identifying a final diagnosis, and creating a comprehensive management plan—then verify all information using current clinical practice guidelines and your own clinical judgment.
Through this activity, you will strengthen your ability to apply advanced documentation, diagnostic reasoning, and ethical decision making while evaluating the accuracy and limitations of AI in clinical care.
Level 4: AI as a Learning Partner
AI use is
required
and may be used to help generate, analyze, or refine responses
Often paired with reflective or practice‑focused assignments
Resources
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this assessment.
Required Resources
To prepare:
Review all Week 9 Learning Resources, including materials on ethical AI use and evidence-based practice guidelines for neurological and psychiatric conditions.
Download and review the Assignment Template
Your instructor will assign a neurological or psychiatric case study scenario found in course Announcements.
Review current clinical practice guidelines (e.g., APA, AAN, AAFP, CDC, or USPSTF) relevant to your assigned condition.
The Assignment (Template)
Analyze your assigned patient scenario (posted in Week 9 Announcements) and use an AI tool (such as ChatGPT, GROK, etc.) to assist in creating the following:
Differential Diagnoses (3–5):
List and provide a rationale for each diagnosis, using subjective, objective, and pertinent history findings to rule out each differential diagnosis.
Final Diagnosis:
Identify the final diagnosis with a rationale supported by subjective, objective, and pertinent history findings that rule in the diagnosis according to evidence-based guidelines.
Final Problem Statement:
Write a problem statement with positive, negative, subjective and objective findings and pertinent history.
Evidence-Based Management Plan:
Include diagnostics, medications, referrals/consults, patient education, and follow-up, verified against evidence-based clinical guidelines. Use a minimum of 3–5 peer-reviewed, scholarly sources published within the last 5 years. Cite all sources used with in-text citations and a corresponding list of references.
Complete and appropriate first-line medication orders (dose, route, frequency, duration, quantity, refills); thorough patient education including diagnosis explanation, medication teaching, lifestyle guidance, and red-flag symptoms; appropriate referrals with clear justification; and specific follow-up instructions including timeframe, purpose, and ED/urgent care precautions.)
Reflection on AI US:
Write a brief paragraph discussing the accuracy, usefulness, and limitations of AI in developing your management plan.
Use of AI:
Ensure all AI-generated recommendations are verified and adjusted based on clinical judgment and guideline validation.
Appendix:
Include copies of prompts entered and outputs generated.
Assignment: Use of AI in Evidence-Based Plan Management
By Sunday of Week 9
Submit
the Assignment.
Submission Information
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the
Turnitin Drafts
from the
Start Here
area.
To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as
MD4Assgn_LastName_FirstInitial
Then, click on
Start Assignment
near the top of the page.
Next, click on
Upload File
and select
Submit Assignment
for review.
Rubric
NURS_6512_Module4_Assignment
NURS_6512_Module4_Assignment
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Differential Diagnoses (3–5): List and provide a rationale for each diagnosis, using subjective, objective, and pertinent history findings to rule out each differential diagnosis.
20
to >
17.88
pts
Excellent
Lists 3–5 differential diagnoses; provides a fully developed rationale for each diagnosis, using subjective, objective, and pertinent history findings to rule out each differential diagnosis.
17.88
to >
15.88
pts
Good
Lists 3–5 differential diagnoses; provides an adequately developed rationale for each diagnosis, using subjective, objective, and pertinent history findings to rule out each differential diagnosis.
15.88
to >
13.88
pts
Fair
Lists 3–5 differential diagnoses; provides a minimally developed rationale for each diagnosis, using subjective, objective, and pertinent history findings to rule out each differential diagnosis.
13.88
to >
0
pts
Poor
Does not list at least 3 differential diagnoses.
20
pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Final Diagnosis: Identify the final diagnosis with a rationale supported by subjective, objective, and pertinent history findings that rule in the diagnosis according to evidence-based guidelines.
15
to >
13.41
pts
Excellent
Identifies the correct final diagnosis with a fully supported rationale with subjective, objective, and pertinent history findings that rule in the diagnosis according to evidence-based guidelines.
13.41
to >
11.91
pts
Good
Identifies the correct final diagnosis with adequately supported rationale with subjective, objective, and pertinent history findings that rule in the diagnosis according to evidence-based guidelines.
11.91
to >
10.41
pts
Fair
Identifies the correct final diagnosis with minimally supported rationale with subjective, objective, and pertinent history findings that rule in the diagnosis according to evidence-based guidelines.
10.41
to >
0
pts
Poor
Does not identify the correct diagnosis; lacks rationale with subjective, objective, and pertinent history findings that rule in the diagnosis according to evidence-based guidelines.
15
pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Write a problem statement with positive, negative, subjective, and objective findings and pertinent history.
15
to >
13.41
pts
Excellent
Provides a fully developed problem statement with positive, negative, subjective, and objective findings and pertinent history.
13.41
to >
11.91
pts
Good
Provides an adequately developed problem statement with positive, negative, subjective, and objective findings and pertinent history.
11.91
to >
10.41
pts
Fair
Provides a minimally developed problem statement with positive, negative, subjective, and objective findings and pertinent history.
10.41
to >
0
pts
Poor
Does not provide a problem statement with positive, negative, subjective, and objective findings and pertinent history.
15
pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Management Plan: Include diagnostics, medications, referrals/consults, patient education, and follow-up, verified against evidence-based clinical guidelines. Complete and appropriate first-line medication orders (dose, route, frequency, duration, quantity, refills); thorough patient education including diagnosis explanation, medication teaching, lifestyle guidance, and red-flag symptoms; appropriate referrals with clear justification; and specific follow-up instructions including time frame, purpose, and ED/urgent care precautions Assignment: Use of AI in Evidence-Based Plan Management.)
20
to >
17.88
pts
Excellent
Provides a fully developed, evidence-based management plan that includes diagnostics, medications, referrals/consults, patient education, and follow-up, verified against evidence-based clinical guidelines.
17.88
to >
15.88
pts
Good
Provides an adequately developed, evidence-based management plan that includes diagnostics, medications, referrals/consults, patient education, and follow-up, verified against evidence-based clinical guidelines.
15.88
to >
13.88
pts
Fair
Provides a minimally developed management plan that includes some diagnostics, medications, referrals/consults, patient education, and follow-up, verified against evidence-based clinical guidelines. Lacks evidence-based approach in some or most sections.
13.88
to >
0
pts
Poor
Does not provide a management plan; plan is vague, incomplete, inaccurate, and/or not sufficiently supported by evidence.
20
pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Reflection: Write a brief paragraph discussing the accuracy (verified against evidence-based resources), usefulness, and limitations of AI in developing your management plan.
10
to >
8.94
pts
Excellent
Provides a fully developed reflection demonstrating strong critical analysis of the accuracy (verified against evidence-based resources), usefulness, and limitations of AI in developing their management plan.
8.94
to >
7.94
pts
Good
Provides an adequately developed reflection demonstrating sufficient critical analysis of the accuracy (verified against evidence-based resources), usefulness, and limitations of AI in developing their management plan.
7.94
to >
6.94
pts
Fair
Provides a minimally developed reflection demonstrating minimal critical analysis of the accuracy (not verified against evidence-based resources), usefulness, and limitations of AI in developing their management plan.
6.94
to >
0
pts
Poor
Reflection lacks critical analysis; or reflection not provided.
10
pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Use a minimum of 3–5 sources published within the last 5 years. Cite all sources used with in-text citations and a corresponding list of references.
10
to >
8.94
pts
Excellent
Uses 3 peer-reviewed scholarly sources.
8.94
to >
7.94
pts
Good
Uses 2 peer-reviewed scholarly sources.
7.94
to >
6.94
pts
Fair
Uses 1 peer-reviewed scholarly source.
6.94
to >
0
pts
Poor
Does not use peer-reviewed scholarly sources.
10
pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Source Attribution and APA Formatting
5
to >
4.46
pts
Excellent
All sources are cited in APA format without any errors… Includes a complete AI template in the appendix… Student work is original– no AI-generated text is presented as student’s own, independent work.
4.46
to >
3.96
pts
Good
All sources are cited in APA format with some minor errors… Includes a mostly complete AI template in the appendix… Student work is original– no AI-generated text is presented as student’s own, independent work.
3.96
to >
3.47
pts
Fair
All sources are cited with frequent APA formatting errors… Includes an incomplete AI template in the appendix… Student work is original– no AI-generated text is presented as student’s own, independent work.
3.47
to >
0
pts
Poor
Missing source citations and/or minimal adherence to APA formatting rules… AI template missing… Student work is not original– AI-generated text is presented as student’s own, independent work.
5
pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Grammar, Mechanics, and Punctuation Assignment: Use of AI in Evidence-Based Plan Management
5
to >
4.46
pts
Excellent
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
4.46
to >
3.96
pts
Good
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with few errors.
3.96
to >
3.47
pts
Fair
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with frequent errors.
3.47
to >
0
pts
Poor
Post contains frequent errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation that interfere with comprehension.
5
pts
Total Points:
100
