First off: apologies for the formatting of this, I have absolutely no idea how to make a table! Hopefully it'll still be clear enough.
$$
\begin{array}{cccc|cc|c}
p & q & ¬p & ¬q & (p\rightarrow ¬q) & (p\rightarrow¬q)∧q & (p\rightarrow¬q)∧q\rightarrow¬p\\
\hline
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1
\end{array}
$$
And so it's a tautology. Alternatively, if this is from a formal logic course, you're going to want to show $\vDash ((p\rightarrow ¬q)∧q)\rightarrow ¬p)$, which should be simple enough at least for propositional logic. However, I've not done any logic in a good while, so I wouldn't want to try and attempt that off the top of my head. Or if you're that far, you could do a formal proof using NNO to resemble a proof by contradiction and then use the completeness theorem to transfer that over.