Dissemination of EBP and research, such as presenting results at a conference or writing an article for a journal, is an important part of professional practice. Identify one professional journal and one nursing or health care conference where you might present your project. Discuss why each of your choices is the best option for you to disseminate your new knowledge.
You have been assigned 4 patients on an Intermediate Medical Care Unit. Two of the patients are post myocardial infarctions at various stages of their infarctions with multiple types of arrhythmias, the third patient is having drastic blood sugar fluctuations 218 down to 50 within minutes and its rebounds back up with changes in mentation and the fourth is reported to be having frequent TIA’s. One of the MI patients is having some dizziness and your TIA patient is presenting signs of impending stroke.
How would you prioritize your assessments and activities? How would you describe your critical thinking process and how do you organize and prioritize implementation of care?
Your initial response to the post should be 200 words in length and include proper APA formatting when referencing your resources.
•Locate the “DPI Proposal Template” located in the PI Workspace of the DC Network.
This assignment is to help you gain insight regarding the influence of an individual’s lifestyle and health-related practices, on their opportunities for health promotion. You are to obtain a lifestyle and health practices profile using yourself as the client, and then practice analyzing the data to formulate a health promotion nursing diagnosis.
This assignment enables the student to meet the following Course Outcomes.
CO1: Utilize prior knowledge of theories and principles of nursing and related disciplines to explain expected client behaviors, while differentiating between normal findings, variations, and abnormalities. (PO #1)
CO5: Explore the professional responsibilities involved in conducting a comprehensive health assessment and provide appropriate documentation. (PO #6)
Note: This assignment must be answered on the form in the attached. The description and format is on the form uploaded.
Not less 500 words.
Please see the grading criteria and rubrics on the attachment.
This assignment is worth a total of 200 points.
his week students will complete an APA paper to address the following case study.
Mr. Corley Case Study:
Walter and Sheila Corley were married on January 20, 1984. At the time, they lived in Texarkana, Arkansas. Their son Jerry was born in July 1985. Later that year, the Corleys separated and were divorced. Sometime thereafter, the Corleys reconciled and resumed living together, holding themselves out to others as a married couple. In February 1988, the Corleys moved to Mr. Corley’s hometown of Ferriday, Louisiana. The Corleys were remarried in December 1988.
Neurofibromatosis, a disease of the peripheral nerves of the body, is a condition marked by the presence of numerous neurofibromas, which are tumors or growths arising from the Schwann cells which form the covering membrane or sheath of a nerve fiber. Persons with neurofibromatosis frequently have café au lait spots of varying sizes on their bodies as well. In addition, people afflicted with neurofibromatosis experience a significantly increased risk of developing cancer.
In 1978, Mr. Corley was diagnosed with neurofibromatosis and had four neurofibromas removed from his head, arm, hip and leg by a physician in Texarkana. Thereafter, a few months prior to his return to Louisiana in 1988, Mr. Corley, who had no other known health problems, began experiencing low back pain.
On February 11, 1988, Mr. Corley sought medical treatment from Dr. Maurice Gremillion, a family practitioner in Ferriday. On that date, Mr. Corley complained that he had been experiencing low back pain and abdominal discomfort for approximately four months. He also noted that he had intermittent right shoulder pain and trouble sleeping. At Mr. Corley’s request, Dr. Gremillion ordered a total work-up which included x-rays of the lower spine, chest, kidneys and gall bladder, as well as an upper GI series. Dr. Gremillion also prescribed Flexeril, a muscle relaxer, and Anaprox, an anti-inflammatory pain medication. Dr. Gremillion, feeling that Mr. Corley should be seen by a specialist, then gave him a written referral to E.A. Conway Medical Center in Monroe for an orthopedic evaluation.
E.A. Conway, which is part of the L.S.U. system, is a teaching facility staffed by permanent, full-time physicians as well as by doctors who are employed on a temporary, rotating basis as interns and residents following their graduation from medical school. The general operating procedure of E.A. Conway at the time of Mr. Corley’s presentment was that all new patients, even those who have referrals to a specific service or department, first go through the emergency room. At that time, a patient is charted and evaluated by an emergency room physician. From there, the patient is either treated or referred to a specific clinic for further follow-up. In most cases, patients see different doctors each time they report to the hospital or one of its clinics.
On March 2, 1988, Mr. Corley, accompanied by Sheila Corley, reported to the E.A. Conway Emergency Room. The Corleys presented admitting personnel with all of Mr. Corley’s records from Dr. Gremillion, including the x-rays and other test reports. Dr. Bruce Fuller, an emergency room physician, took a history from Mr. Corley and reviewed Dr. Gremillion’s notes and the x-ray reports. He also conducted a routine physical examination and had x-rays made of Mr. Corley’s low back. Notwithstanding the presence of several growths and café au lait spots on Mr. Corley’s back and torso, Dr. Fuller was unaware that his patient had neurofibromatosis.
Dr. Fuller found everything to be within normal limits and it was his impression that Mr. Corley was suffering from low back pain based on minimal subjective complaints of pain. Dr. Fuller continued Mr. Corley on the medication prescribed by Dr. Gremillion and made an appointment for him with the Orthopedic Clinic on March 16, 1988.
On that date, Mr. Corley was seen in the Orthopedic Clinic by fourth year resident McIntyre Bridges. Dr. Bridges does not recall looking at or reading the x-rays or reports from Mr. Corley’s previous examinations. Dr. Bridges conducted a physical exam, which was normal, and started Mr. Corley on a conservative course of treatment for low back pain. Dr. Bridges’ notes from this date indicate his awareness of Mr. Corley’s neurofibromatosis.
Mr. Corley was next seen on April 20, 1988 by Dr. David Mehta. At the time, Dr. Mehta was doing a surgical internship and was rotating through the Orthopedic Department. Dr. Mehta’s notes reflect that his physical exam of Mr. Corley was normal, but that he felt that Mr. Corley had a posture problem and referred him to physical therapy for correction of his posture. Again, the notes do not reflect whether Dr. Mehta reviewed any of Mr. Corley’s previous medical records, x-rays or reports.
On September 14, 1988, Mr. Corley was seen by fourth year surgical resident Keith White. On that date, Mr. Corley noted that his pain had worsened and was occasionally affecting his walking. Dr. White’s examination yielded no objective findings of low back pain, but he did notice several café au lait spots indicative of neurofibromatosis so he ordered a CT scan of Mr. Corley’s low back to rule out any neurofibroma changes in the nerve roots. Dr. Ellis, a radiologist at E.A. Conway, interpreted the CT scan as showing arthritis consistent with fibrosis or spinal stenosis and possible edema of the right L-5 nerve root, which, according to Dr. White, may or may not have been the cause of Mr. Corley’s back pain. As with Drs. Bridges and Mehta, Dr. White did not review any of the previous medical records, x-rays or reports. Mr. Corley’s last visit to E.A. Conway was September 21, 1988. On that date, Dr. White reviewed the results of the CT scan with Mr. Corley, continued him on an anti-inflammatory drug and encouraged him to continue his back exercises. Dr. White instructed Mr. Corley to return to the clinic in three months.
Thereafter, on October 26, 1988, Mr. Corley, plagued by constant back pain and beginning to experience difficulty breathing, consulted Dr. Rick Maxwell, a chiropractor, who did a full spinal x-ray which revealed a markedly diminished right lung area. Dr. Maxwell sent Mr. Corley to his father, also a chiropractor, who confirmed that there was a potential problem with Mr. Corley’s right lung and recommended that he see a pulmonary specialist.
On October 31, 1988, Mr. Corley presented to Dr. Gremillion complaining of chest congestion and shortness of breath. Dr. Gremillion diagnosed him with bronchitis and implemented treatment accordingly. Mr. Corley returned to Dr. Gremillion on November 14, 1988 with complaints of shortness of breath and marked weight loss. Subsequent diagnostic testing confirmed the presence of a very large mass in Mr. Corley’s right chest.
Prior to his death on January 23, 1990, Mr. Corley received radiation and chemotherapy treatment at LSU Medical Center in Shreveport.
For the case study, an APA formatted paper should be used, and needs to include a title page, level headings, references and citations. This assignment should include at least 2 references and should be at least five pages in length. Students should address the proposed questions providing ample detail, examples, and additional support.
Assignment Expectations:
hi dear,
can help me to finish this assignment with good quality and be on time please?
The example is attached below to review.
Please follow the structure;
Health Promotion Strategies and Tactics Paper (Signature Assignment)
Health Promotion Strategies and Tactics Paper (Signature Assignment):
Students will identify and describe appropriate strategies and tactics to influence behavioral, environmental, and public policy change to address the health needs of a specific target audience in a 5-7 page paper. For example, a tactic used to influence behavior would be an educational intervention to increase condom use within a target audience. A tactic or method to influence environmental change would be to develop an easily accessible system of walking trails within a community in order to improve physical activity levels and combat obesity. A policy to improve injury rates would be primary seatbelt laws. An additional tactic to influence policy would be legislative advocacy focusing on securing funding for cancer research. The examples above address different target audiences (CLO 2, 5, 7; PLO 2, 6).
The signature assignment paper is 100 points,
Strategies and Tactics Paper Complete Assignment Description – Word Document (77.1 KB)
· Strategies and Tactics Paper Rubric – Word Document (79.5 KB)
· Example tactics and topics for the paper – Review this document to help generate direction and ideas for the paper
· Sample “What Not To Do” Strategies and Tactics Paper – Review this paper to see what direction should not be taken for the paper
· Sample Strategies and Tactics Paper – Word Document (33.8 KB)
o Please note, this is not a perfect paper. There may be some APA errors. The rubric used for this paper is slightly differs from the rubric for this course. Review the current rubric prior to writing the paper.
Thanks,
Diversity Areas -Race
Instructions
Now that you have selected your area of diverse concentration, you are now tasked with designing a plan to aid your selected group in one of the following countries: China
The new organizational strategic initiative is to expand into the selected country. The executive leadership team has asked you for a report on the diversity area (RACE) and the country (CHINA). 2/3 page report. 2 references APA format. The report should address the following questions:
To Prepare:
The Assignment:
Complete the following items and incorporate them into the final version of your Academic Success and Professional Development Plan.
Note: Your final version of the Academic Success and Professional Development Plan should include all components as presented the Academic Success and Professional Development Plan template.
The purpose of this assignment is to analyze the role of managed care organizations within health care and risk management programs.
Reflect on and evaluate the role that the managed care organization (MCO) plays in today’s health care environment by developing a 250‐500-word response that addresses the following:
In addition to your textbook, you are required to support your analysis with a minimum of two peer‐reviewed references.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance.
As a professional nurse, you are expected to apply your expertise to patient care. On occasion, you will also be expected to share that expertise.
With evolving technology and continuous changes to regulations designed to keep up these changes, there is usually a need to share information and expertise to inform colleagues, leadership, patients, and other stakeholders.
In this Assignment, you will study a recent nursing informatics-related healthcare policy, and you will share the relevant details via a fact sheet designed to inform and educate.
To Prepare:
The Assignment: (1 page)
Create a 1-page fact sheet that your healthcare organization could hypothetically use to explain the health or nursing informatics policy/regulation you selected. Your fact sheet should address the following:
The collection of evidence is an activity that occurs with an endgame in mind. For example, law enforcement professionals collect evidence to support a decision to charge those accused of criminal activity. Similarly, evidence-based healthcare practitioners collect evidence to support decisions in pursuit of specific healthcare outcomes.
In this Assignment, you will identify an issue or opportunity for change within your healthcare organization and propose an idea for a change in practice supported by an EBP approach.
To Prepare:
The Assignment: (Evidence-Based Project)
Part 5: Recommending an Evidence-Based Practice Change
Create an 8- to 9-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:
Rurbic:
Part 5: Recommending an Evidence-Based Practice Change
Create an 8- to 9-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:
· Briefly describe your healthcare organization, including its culture and readiness for change.
· Describe the current problem or opportunity for change. Include in this description the circumstances surrounding the need for change, the scope of the issue, the stakeholders involved, and the risks associated with change implementation in general.–Levels of Achievement:Excellent 18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
The presentation clearly and accurately describes in detail a healthcare organization, including a detailed explanation of its culture and readiness for change.
The presentation clearly and accurately describes in detail a current problem or opportunity for change.
An accurate, specific, and detailed description of the circumstances surrounding the need for change, the scope of the issue, the stakeholders involved, and the risks associated with change implementation in general is provided.
Good 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
The presentation accurately describes a healthcare organization, including an accurate explanation of its culture and readiness for change.
The presentation accurately describes a current problem or opportunity for change.
An accurate description of the circumstances surrounding the need for change, the scope of the issue, the stakeholders involved, and the risks associated with the change implementation in general is provided.
Fair 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes a healthcare organization, including an inaccurate or vague explanation of its culture and readiness for change.
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes a current problem or opportunity for change.
An inaccurate or vague description of the circumstances surrounding the need for change, the scope of the issue, the stakeholders involved, and the risks associated with the change implementation in general is provided.
Poor 0 (0%) – 13 (13%)
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes a healthcare organization, including an inaccurate and vague explanation of its culture and readiness for change, or is missing.
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes a current problem or opportunity for change or is missing.
An inaccurate and vague description of the circumstances surrounding the need for change, the scope of the issue, the stakeholders involved, and the risks associated with the change implementation in general is provided or is missing.Feedback:
· Propose an evidence-based idea for a change in practice using an evidence-based practice approach to decision making. Note that you may find further research needs to be conducted if sufficient evidence is not discovered.
· Describe your plan for knowledge transfer of this change, including knowledge creation, dissemination, and organizational adoption and implementation.
· Describe the measurable outcomes you hope to achieve with the implementation of this evidence-based change.
· Be sure to provide APA citations of the supporting evidence-based peer-reviewed articles you selected to support your thinking.–Levels of Achievement:Excellent 32 (32%) – 35 (35%)
The presentation clearly and accurately proposes in detail an evidence-based idea for a change in practice that is fully aligned to an evidence-based practice approach for decision making.
The presentation clearly and accurately describes in detail a plan for knowledge transfer of this change, including a detailed plan for knowledge creation, dissemination, and organizational adoption and implementation that is specific.
The presentation clearly and accurately describes in detail the measurable outcomes desired for the implementation of the evidence-based change.
The presentation includes accurate, complete, and full APA citations of the supporting evidence-based peer-reviewed articles selected.
Good 28 (28%) – 31 (31%)
The presentation accurately proposes an evidence-based idea for a change in practice that is adequately aligned to an evidence-based practice approach for decision making.
The presentation accurately describes a plan for knowledge transfer of this change, including a plan for knowledge creation, dissemination, and organizational adoption and implementation that is adequate.
The presentation accurately describes the measurable outcomes desired for the implementation of the evidence-based changes.
The presentation includes accurate APA citations of the supporting evidence-based peer-reviewed articles selected.
Fair 25 (25%) – 27 (27%)
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely proposes an evidence-based idea for a change in practice that may be aligned to an evidence-based practice approach for decision making.
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes a plan for knowledge transfer of this change, including a plan for knowledge creation, dissemination, and organizational adoption and implementation that may be relevant.
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes the measurable outcomes desired for the implementation of the evidence-based change.
Inaccurate and incomplete APA citations of the supporting evidence-based peer-reviewed articles selected are provided.
Poor 0 (0%) – 24 (24%)
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely proposes an evidence-based idea for a change in practice that is not aligned to an evidence-based practice approach for decision making or is missing.
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes a plan for knowledge transfer of this change, including a plan for knowledge creation, dissemination, and organizational adoption that implementation that is incomplete, or is missing.
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes the measurable outcomes desired for the implementation of the evidence-based change or is missing.
Inaccurate and incomplete APA citations of the supporting evidence-based peer-reviewed articles selected are provided or are missing.Feedback:
Add a lessons learned section that includes:
· A summary of the critical appraisal of the peer-reviewed articles you previously submitted.
· What did you learn from completing the evaluation table?
· What did you learn from completing the levels of evidence table?
· What did you learn from completing the outcomes synthesis table?–Levels of Achievement:Excellent 27 (27%) – 30 (30%)
The presentation clearly and accurately summarizes in detail the critical appraisal process of the peer-reviewed articles previously submitted.
The presentation thoroughly describes in detail at least one lesson learned from completing the evaluation table that is specific.
The presentation thoroughly describes in detail at least one lesson learned from completing the levels of evidence table that is specific.
The presentation thoroughly describes in detail at least one lesson learned from completing the outcomes synthesis table that is specific.
The presentation provides a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources reviewed on the lessons learned explained. The presentation fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the presentation.
Good 24 (24%) – 26 (26%)
The presentation accurately summarizes the critical appraisal process of the peer-reviewed articles previously submitted.
The presentation accurately describes at least one lesson learned from completing the evaluation table that may include some specificity.
The presentation accurately describes at least one lesson learned from completing the levels of evidence table that may include some specificity.
The presentation accurately describes at least one lesson learned from completing the outcomes synthesis table that may include some specificity.
The presentation provides an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource reviewed related to the lessons learned explained. The presentation integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the presentation.
Fair 21 (21%) – 23 (23%)
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the critical appraisal process of the peer-reviewed articles previously submitted.
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes at least one lesson learned from completing the evaluation table and may lack some specificity.
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes at least one lesson learned from completing the levels of evidence table and may lack some specificity.
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes at least one lesson learned from completing the outcomes synthesis table and may lack some specificity.
The presentation provides a vague or inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed related to the lessons learned explained. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the presentation.
Poor 0 (0%) – 20 (20%)
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the critical appraisal process of the peer-reviewed articles previously submitted or is missing.
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes at least one lesson learned from completing the evaluation table and lacks specificity or is missing.
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes at least one lesson learned from completing the levels of evidence table that lacks specificity or is missing.
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes at least one lesson learned from completing the outcomes synthesis table that lacks specificity or is missing.
The presentation provides a vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources related to the lessons learned explained or is missing. The presentation fails to incorporate any resources to support the responses provided.Feedback:
Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.–Levels of Achievement:Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.
A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.
Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.
Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated yet is brief and not descriptive.
Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time.
Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.
Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time.
No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.Feedback:
Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.–Levels of Achievement:Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.Feedback:
Written Expression and Formatting—The paper follows correct format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.–Levels of Achievement:Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct paper formatting with no errors.
Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) paper formatting errors.
Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) paper formatting errors.
Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
For any questions, feedback, or comments, we have an ethical customer support team that is always waiting on the line for your inquiries.
Send us an E-mail: [email protected]
Call us:+12607062970