Can you mark my assignment with the rubric

I’ve uploaded them x

Can you redo it and make it 75 per cent but keep most my assignment the same

Mark this one critically and properly with the marking rubric and give me a mark

Assignment Brief: Module: Podiatric Pathology Assignment: Comparative Analysis of Acute and Chronic Diseases in Podiatry: Risk Factors and Management Word Count: 2000 words (±10%) Submission Deadline: [May 5th, 2026] Assignment Overview: This essay requires you to analyse and compare a range of acute and chronic systemic diseases commonly encountered in podiatry. You will interpret relevant risk factors and justify evidence-based podiatric management plans for these conditions. Learning Outcomes Assessed: LO1: Compare and contrast the characteristics, clinical implications, and podiatric relevance of a range of acute and chronic systemic diseases commonly encountered in podiatry. LO2: Interpret a range of risk factors and rationalise their use in podiatric assessment and clinical decision-making. LO3: Justify evidence-based podiatric management plans for systemic disorders commonly encountered in podiatry clinics. Case Study Scenario: Mr Patel’s Foot Health Crisis Patient Details: • Name: Mr Rajesh Patel • Age: 67 • Background: South Asian, retired bus driver Medical History: • Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (12 years) – HbA1c: 78 mmol/mol • Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) (diagnosed 2 years ago) • Hypertension • BMI: 32 (obese) • History of gout • Past myocardial infarction (3 years ago) • Ex-smoker (quit 5 years ago) • Lives alone with limited mobility Presenting Complaint: Mr Patel attends the podiatry clinic with a painful, swollen, and red right foot that developed rapidly over 1–2 days. He reports a small blister on the ball of the foot caused by walking barefoot indoors. He describes burning pain especially at night. Assessment Findings: • Temp: 37.9°C • Right foot swollen, warm, erythematous with inflamed blister at 1st MTPJ • Reduced monofilament and vibration sense bilaterally • Weak dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial pulses • Capillary refill >5 seconds on right foot • Non-weightbearing due to pain • Wears thin-soled slippers Assignment Tasks: Using Mr Patel’s case, write a 2000-word essay that: 1. (LO1) Compare and contrast the acute and chronic systemic diseases present or relevant to Mr Patel. Discuss their clinical features, podiatric implications, and how they interact. 2. (LO2) Identify and interpret the systemic and local risk factors affecting Mr Patel’s foot health. Explain how these influence podiatric assessment and clinical decision-making. 3. (LO3) Justify an evidence-based podiatric management plan for Mr Patel, addressing both immediate and long-term care, multidisciplinary involvement, and patient education. Assessment Criteria: • Clear differentiation of acute vs chronic systemic diseases • Comprehensive interpretation of risk factors relevant to podiatry • Well-justified, evidence-based management plan • Use of up-to-date clinical guidelines and research evidence • Academic writing quality, structure, and Harvard referencing Formatting and Submission Guidelines: • Typed, 12-point font (Arial or Calibri), double spaced • Standard margins (2.54 cm / 1 inch) • Title page with your name, student ID, word count, and essay title • Use subheadings to structure your essay • In-text citations and reference list in Harvard style (references excluded from word count) • Submit via [CANVAS] by [MAY 5th 2026] Support and Resources: • Academic writing workshops and tutorials • Clinical placement reflections (anonymised) • University library resources and databases • National guidelines (NICE, SIGN), RCOP Core Capabilities, HCPC standards Suggested Essay Title: "Managing Acute and Chronic Systemic Diseases in Podiatry: A Comparative Analysis of Risk and Evidence-Based Care" Rubric- Student ​ ​ Grade Marking criteria MARK /100 Fail (0-29%) Fail (30-39%) Sufficient (40-49%) Good (50-59%) Very good (60-69%) Excellent (70-79%) Outstanding (80-89%) Exceptional (90-100%) Introduction Demonstrates the correct use of an introduction for an assignment. (10%) No evidence to demonstrate the correct use of an introduction. 0 Insufficient evidence to demonstrate the correct use of an introduction 1 - 2 Not very detailed evidence demonstrating the correct use of an introduction. 3 - 4 Satisfactory evidence of the correct use of an introduction 5 - 6 Evidence of good understanding of the correct use of an introduction 7 - 8 Evidence of clear understanding of the correct use of an introduction 9 - 10 Feedback :- Main body Compare and contrast the acute and chronic systemic diseases present or relevant to Mr Patel. Discuss their clinical features, podiatric implications, and how they interact. (20%) (LO1) No evidence to demonstrate knowledge in the range of acute and chronic conditions that may present the symptoms in the case study. No discussion seen around different heart conditions displaying the signs and symptoms in the case study Inadequate, no evidence of independent reading and with inaccuracies or incompleteness Largely incoherent and/or lacking in logical development. 0 Insufficient evidence to demonstrate knowledge in the range of acute and chronic conditions that may present the symptoms in the case study. 1 conditions and no differential diagnosis to other medical conditions displaying the symptoms in the case study. Inadequate, no evidence of independent reading and with inaccuracies or incompleteness Largely incoherent and/or lacking in logical development. 1 - 4 Not very detailed evidence to demonstrate knowledge in the range of acute and chronic conditions that may present the symptoms in the case study. Range of 2 different conditions and a differential diagnosis to other medical conditions displaying the symptoms in the case study. Adequate but superficial, with little evidence of independent reading and with some omissions or inaccuracies. Coherent and logically developed but with some areas of weakness in terms of ambiguity and/or repetition. 5-8 Satisfactory evidence to demonstrate knowledge in the range of acute and chronic conditions that may present the symptoms in the case study. Range of 3 different conditions and a differential diagnosis to other medical conditions displaying the symptoms in the case study. Sound, adequately assimilated, with some evidence of independent reading, but lacking important detail and with occasional inaccuracies. Coherent, logical structure consistently and effectively developed. 9-12 Evidence of good to demonstrate knowledge in the range of acute and chronic conditions that may present the symptoms in the case study. Range of 4 different conditions and a differential diagnosis to other medical conditions displaying the symptoms in the case study. Extensive and detailed, mostly well assimilated, with clear evidence of independent reading. Fully coherent, logically consistent structure clearly developed. 13-16 Excellent evidence to demonstrate knowledge in the range of acute and chronic conditions that may present the symptoms in the case study. Range of 4 different conditions and a differential diagnosis to other medical conditions displaying the symptoms in the case study. Very extensive, very well assimilated and with strong evidence of independent reading. Logically sophisticated, fully coherent structure fluently developed. 17-20 Feedback :- Identify and interpret the systemic and local risk factors affecting Mr Patel’s foot health. Explain how these influence podiatric assessment and clinical decision-making. Main body (15%) (LO2) No differential diagnosis of acute and chronic conditions seen. 0 Partially identified a differential diagnosis of acute or chronic conditions. 1-5 Majority of the differential diagnoses of acute or chronic conditions seen. 4-6 All of the differential diagnoses of acute or chronic conditions are seen. 7 - 9 All the differential diagnoses of acute or chronic conditions are seen. With good detail to show extended reading 10-12 All the differential diagnoses of acute or chronic conditions are seen. With excellent detail showing a deep in depth understanding 13- 15 Feedback :- Main body Justify an evidence-based podiatric management plan for Mr Patel, addressing both immediate and long-term care, multidisciplinary involvement, and patient education. (35%) (LO3) No evidence to demonstrate an understanding of the management required for the acute or chronic pathology. Inadequate, no evidence of independent reading and with inaccuracies or incompleteness Largely incoherent and/or lacking in logical development. 0 Insufficient evidence to demonstrate an understanding of the management required for the acute or chronic pathology. Inadequate, no evidence of independent reading and with inaccuracies or incompleteness Largely incoherent and/or lacking in logical development. 1 - 7 Not very detailed evidence demonstrating an understanding of the management required for the acute and chronic pathology. Adequate but superficial, with little evidence of independent reading and with some omissions or inaccuracies. Coherent and logically developed but with some areas of weakness in terms of ambiguity and/or repetition. 8 - 14 Satisfactory evidence to demonstrate an understanding of the management required for the acute and chronic pathology. Sound, adequately assimilated, with some evidence of independent reading, but lacking important detail and with occasional inaccuracies. Coherent, logical structure consistently and effectively developed. 9 – 21 Evidence of good understanding of the management plans required for the acute and chronic pathology. Extensive and detailed, mostly well assimilated, with clear evidence of independent reading. Fully coherent, logically consistent structure clearly developed. 22 - 28 Excellent evidence of clear understanding of management plans required for the acute or chronic pathology. Very extensive, very well assimilated and with strong evidence of independent reading. Logically sophisticated, fully coherent structure fluently developed. 29 – 35 Feedback :- Conclusion Provides statements of the main conclusions (10%) No statements of the main conclusions 0 Incorrect statements of the main conclusions 1 - 2 Some attempt to give statements of the main conclusions 3 - 4 Appropriate statements of the main conclusions 5 - 6 Very good statements of the main conclusions 7 - 8 Excellent statements of the main conclusions - 10 Feedback :- References Provided as appropriate (10%) Very poorly referenced, with clear failing in accuracy, consistency, and judgement. Including near or complete absence. 0 Very poorly referenced, with clear failing in accuracy, consistency, and judgement. 1 - 2 Inconsistent in formulation of references and in decisions about when a reference is appropriate. 3 - 4 Mainly accurate and consistent, but with occasional anomalies in referencing. 5-6 Accurate, consistent, and mainly well-judged and appropriate, but possibly some omissions, and occasional misjudgement as to where a reference is necessary. 7 - 8 Accurate, consistent, well-judged, and appropriate throughout. 9 -10 Feedback :- Now write me a detailed plan for this please.