Family Health Assessment Part 2.

Family Health Assessment Part 2.

Family Assessment Part II  View RubricDue Date: Feb 17, 2019 23:59:59       Max Points: 150  Details: Refer back to the interview and evaluation you conducted in the Topic 2 Family Health Assessment assignment. Identify the social determinates of health (SDOH) contributing to the family’s health status. In a 750-1,000-word paper, create a plan of action to incorporate health promotion strategies for this family. Include the following: Family Health Assessment Part 2.

ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS 

1. Describe the SDOH that affect the family health status. What is the impact of these SDOH on the family? Discuss why these factors are prevalent for this family.
2. Based on the information gathered through the family health assessment, recommend age-appropriate screenings for each family member. Provide support and rationale for your suggestions.
3. Choose a health model to assist in creating a plan of action. Describe the model selected. Discuss the reasons why this health model is the best choice for this family. Provide rationale for your reasoning.
4. Using the model, outline the steps for a family-centered health promotion. Include strategies for communication.

Cite at least three peer-reviewed or scholarly sources to complete this assignment. Sources should be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the assignment criteria.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. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.

Family Assessment Part II 1 Unsatisfactory 0.00%2 Less than Satisfactory 75.00%3 Satisfactory 79.00%4 Good 89.00%5 Excellent 100.00%80.0 %Content20.0 %SDOH Affecting Family and Family Health StatusSDOH affecting family health status, and the direct impact to the family, are not presented.SDOH affecting family health status are partially presented. SDOH listed are not relevant to the family. The direct impact to the family, and why the factors are prevalent to the family, are unclear. There are inaccuracies.Key SDOH affecting family health status are summarized. The SDOH identified are relevant to the family. The direct impact to the family, and why the factors are prevalent to the family, are generally discussed. More support or rationale is needed in some areas.The overall SDOH affecting family health status are accurately identified and described. The SDOH identified are relevant to the family. The direct impact to the family, and why the factors are prevalent to the family, are discussed. The SDOH directly affecting family health status are relevant, accurately identified and thoroughly described. The direct impact to the family, and why the factors are prevalent to the family, are discussed in detail. The discussion is well supported and illustrates insight into SDOH and their effect on family health status.20.0 %Age-Appropriate Screening RecommendationsAge-appropriate screenings are not presented.Screenings are presented for some family members. The screenings are not age appropriate. Screenings are not relevant to the information gathered through family health assessment. Screenings are presented for each family member. Screenings are generally age appropriate, but entirely not relevant based on the information gathered through family health assessment. More rationale and support is required.Screenings presented for each family member are age appropriate. Screenings are relevant and based on the information gathered through family health assessment. Some minor rationale or support is needed.Screenings presented for each family member are age appropriate and highly relevant. Screenings correlate to the information gathered through family health assessment. Strong rationale and support is presented.20.0 %Assessment of Health ModelA health model to assist in the creation of a plan of action is not presented. The model chosen is not a health model.A health model is selected to assist in creating a plan of action. The description of the model is incomplete. It is unclear why the chosen model is best for this family.A health model is selected and described. A summary of how the model will assist in creating a plan of action is presented. A general overview for why it is best for this family is provided. More rationale and support is required.A health model is selected and described. A discussion of how the model will assist in creating a plan of action is presented. Reasons for why it is best for this family are provided. Some rationale or support is needed.A health model is selected and thoroughly described. A detailed discussion of how the model will assist in creating a plan of action is presented. Reasons for why it is best for this family are clearly outlined. Strong rationale and support are provided to support reasoning.20.0 %Application of Health ModelFamily-centered health promotion using selected health model is omitted. Steps for a family-centered health promotion are partially presented. The health promotion is not based on the health model. Significant aspects are missing. There are major inaccuracies.The health model is used to create a general family-centered health promotion. The steps to achieve the desired outcome require more detail to illustrate a clear plan of action. A general plan for communication with the family is presented. More rationale and support is required.The health model is used to create a relevant family-centered health promotion. The steps to achieve the desired outcome are illustrated. Strategies for communication with the family are presented.The health model is used to create a relevant and viable family-centered health promotion. The steps to achieve the desired outcome are described in detail. Appropriate strategies for communication with the family are clearly presented. The health promotion is well-designed and demonstrates an ability to assimilate findings and appropriately apply theoretical knowledge to achieve desired outcomes.15.0 %Organization and Effectiveness 5.0 %Thesis Development and PurposePaper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.15.0 %Organization and Effectiveness 5.0 %Argument Logic and ConstructionStatement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.15.0 %Organization and Effectiveness 5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present.Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.5.0 %Format2.0 %Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.All format elements are correct. 3.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)Sources are not documented.Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.100 %Total Weightage

Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100
Use the following coupon code :
NURSING10

Benchmark- Capstone Project Change Proposal.

Benchmark- Capstone Project Change Proposal.

Running Head: LITERATURE REVIEW 1

 

LITERATURE REVIEW 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Literature Review

Daysha Polk

Grand Canyon University NRS 490

January 21st, 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Literature Review

Introduction Comment by Author: Remember, you do not need to say Introduction, just start the first paragraph AS the introduction as it is understood to be ust that.

The PICOT’s objective was to discover whether nurses who possessed skills and knowledge in breastfeeding could encourage and effectively increase the practice of breastfeeding among post-partum women relative to those nurses without knowledge and skills in breastfeeding. This literature review builds on this object; it looks at current research and studies conducted that try to pursue similar aims. Specifically, the literature review endeavors to determine the known and the unknown relative to the PICOT. The work will make a comparison of research questions from multitude sources versus those outlined in the PICOT. Further, the work will compare the sample population used in researches done in other works. Limitations that occurred in other studies relative to those in the PICOT will be underlined. Comment by Author: Incorrect punctuation. Use a comma after the word object and join the two clauses with the conjunction and. Comment by Author: This should be from a multitude of sources Comment by Author: Where are literature sources outlined in your PICOT question? Comment by Author: There are no underlined sources in this paper, I think you need a different word here. Benchmark- Capstone Project Change Proposal.

Comparison of Research Questions Comment by Author: Heading should be in bold Comment by Author: You were supposed to compare the research questions of the articles, not the research questions of the article to your PICOT.

The research question in the PICOT was ‘In mothers who choose breastfeeding, will education by nurses who possess knowledge within the practice, compared to nurses without this knowledge increase the practice of breastfeeding at time of patient discharge?’. The above research question compares to Azevedo et al.’s (2015) whose research objective was to assess the knowledge possessed by nursing professionals regarding clinical management of breastfeeding to ascertain the advantages of breastfeeding on the health of women and children. In a study by Vijayalakshmi, Susheela, & Mythili (2015), the aim of the research was to study the attitude and knowledge towards infant feeding and breastfeeding practices among Indian mothers. Similar to Vijayalakshmi, Susheela, & Mythili (2015), Jiang (2012) explored the guidelines and information of breastfeeding in China by WHO. Kozhimannil et al. (2014) measured the relationship between a complex pregnancy, early infant breastfeeding, and the available hospital support and intentions. Rosangela et al.’s (2015) objective was to determine the approaches used by nursing professionals concerning the clinical administration of breastfeeding and further conduct analysis on the tactics used by nurses in carrying out breastfeeding clinical management. Like Rosangela et al. (2015), Martin et al.’s (2016) study strived to apprise the dietary knowledge and facts about infant formula and breast milk from birth to age of 12 months during which substitute of nutrients was necessary. Motee et al.’s (2013) research was carried out in Mauritius where the authors’ objective was to underline enough evidence to recommend exclusive breastfeeding of infants continuously for 6 months. In the study by Fonseca-Machado et al. (2013), the objective was to underline breastfeeding-related performance of professionals in nursing from a perspective of wellness promotion.

Comparison of Sample Populations Comment by Author: Heading should be in bold

Azevedo et al. (2015) utilized a sample population of 59, which was almost half those enrolled by Vijayalakshmi, Susheela, and Mythili (2015). In Vijayalakshmi, Susheela, & Mythili (2015), 138 mothers were enrolled in the study of which only 122 were included in the final study population. In the study by Jiang (2012), a total of 653 women at between 5 and 22 gestational weeks were recruited into the sample population. The sample population in Kozhimannil et al.’s (2014) study, comprised of 2400 women who gave birth at an American hospital. Rosangela et al.’s (2015) sample population was 107 nurses working at an obstetric center in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. Motee et al. (2013) utilized sample population comprised of 500 mothers aged between 18 and 45 years.

 

 

Comparison of the Limitations of the Studies Comment by Author: Heading should be in bold

In the study by Azevedo et al. (2015), the absence of audiovisual materials in health care units presented a limitation in the study as these facilitate counseling of breastfeeding mother. In Vijayalakshmi, Susheela, & Mythili’s (2015) study, the main limitation arose from the fact that all participants were at the six months postpartum. The sample size was also tiny making it difficult to generalize the findings. The study by Jiang (2012) also had its limitations. Firstly, since the design of the study was cross-sectional, no fundamental relationships could be determined assertively relative to the conclusions in the study. Secondly, the study consisted of a population sample of highly educated mothers. As such, the study had a selection bias which limited its generalization. Additionally, the study did not analyze whether the awareness of breastfeeding could be converted to future breastfeeding.

Conclusion Comment by Author: Heading should be in bold

Current literature indicates that breastfeeding does indeed offer several advantages to both the mother and the infant. On average, studies reviewed suggested that about 80% of the infants were breastfed exclusively for the first six months of their lives. Studies reviewed additionally indicate that after the first six months of exclusive breastfeeding, most mothers tended to wean their babies. Effectively, the literature reviewed denoted that the level of breastfeeding was fairly high. Nevertheless, in some countries, there was a low awareness on how to breastfeed effectively especially among first-time mothers. An emphasis on the health advantages of breastfeeding and which comply with those espoused by WHO should thus be encouraged if higher levels of breastfeeding prevalence are to be achieved. Further, specific apprehensions regarding difficulties mothers encounter during breastfeeding must be addressed. Difficulties such as discrimination against breastfeeding in public, and no designated breastfeeding areas. There is also need to review the national course of action on maternal leave. Further, places of work must be redesigned such that they are conducive for breastfeeding. Comment by Author: Sentence is fragmented and incomplete Comment by Author: This should be a need

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS 

 

References

Azevedo, Ana Regina Ramos, Alves, Valdecyr Herdy, Souza, Rosangela de Mattos Pereira de, Rodrigues, Diego Pereira, Branco, Maria Bertilla Lutterbach Riker, & Cruz, Amanda Fernandes do Nascimento da. (2015). Clinical management of breastfeeding: knowledge of nurses. Escola Anna Nery, 19(3), 439-445.

Fonseca-Machado, M. D., Monteiro, J. C., Viduedo, A. D., Haas, V. J., Alves, L. C., & Gomes-Sponholz, F. (2013). The paradox of nursing practice on breastfeeding promotion: what they say and what they do. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 3(11). doi:10.5430/jnep.v3n11p141

Jiang, H., Li, M., Yang, D., Wen, M., Hunter, C., He, G. & Qian, X. (2012). Awareness, Intention, and Needs Regarding Breastfeeding: Findings from First-Time Mothers in Shanghai, China. Breastfeed Med, 7(6), 526–534. doi: 10.1089/bfm.2011.0124 Comment by Author: Capitalization formatting error

Kozhimannil, K.B., Jou, J., Attanasio L.B., Joarnt, L.K. & McGovern, P. (2014) Medically complex pregnancies and early breastfeeding behaviors: A retrospective analysis. PLoS ONE.9:279. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104820.[Cross Ref]

Martin, C.R., Ling, P. & Blackburn, G.L. (2016). Review of Infant Feeding: Key Features of Breast Milk and Infant Formula. Nutrients. 8(5): 279. doi:10.3390/nu8050279 Comment by Author: Capitalization formatting error

Motee, A., Ramasawmy, D., Pugo-Gunsam, P. & Jeewon, R. (2013). An Assessment of the Breastfeeding Practices and Infant Feeding Pattern among Mothers in Mauritius. J Nutr Metab. 243852. doi: 10.1155/2013/243852 Comment by Author: Capitalization formatting error

Rosangela De Mattos Pereira De Souza, Alves, V. H., Rodrigues, D. P., Branco, M. B., Lopes, F. D., & Maria Teresa Rosa De Souza Barbosa. (2015). Nursing strategies in the clinical management of breastfeeding: a descriptive and exploratory study. Online Brazilian Journal of Nursing, 14(1). doi:10.5935/1676-4285.20154612

Vijayalakshmi, P., Susheela, T. & Mythili, D. (2015). Knowledge, attitudes, and breastfeeding practices of postnatal mothers: A cross-sectional survey. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 9(4): 364–374.

Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100
Use the following coupon code :
NURSING10

Overview: Peer Review

In the Module 3 Reflection Assignment, you will reflect upon what you have learned about Peer Review Committee processes and Texas Board of Nursing rules as you consider the actions of fictitious nurses and committee members in scenarios. REMEMBER, YOU ARE USING THE TEXAS BOARD OF NURSING RULES, NOT THE STATE YOU LIVE IN. Please use the link provided in the assignment for the Texas BON Rule 217.16.

ALSO, THERE ARE 2 PARTS TO THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU COMPLETE BOTH PARTS.

Refer to your course readings and lectures as you complete the assignment.

Performance Objectives:

· Apply the Minor Incident Rule to specific incidents.

· Describe the due process protections for a nurse who is peer-reviewed.

Rubric

Use this rubric to guide your work on the assignment, “Peer Review.”

 

Task

Accomplished

Proficient

Needs Improvement

 

Part 1 (a)

Applying Rule 217.16

(Total 50 points)

Lists all the correct 5 criteria, accurately explains application of   criteria clearly. (25 points)

Lists 3 or 4 of the   correct criteria, accurately explains application of these criteria

(15 points)

Lists 2 applications of criteria.

10 points)

Incorrectly lists criteria (0   point)

 

Part   1 (b)

Reflects upon applications

of Rule 217.16

(Total 25 points)

Correctly states if nurse should be reported or not reported with 3 substantial sentences. (25 points)

Correctly states if nurse should be reported or not reported with 2 sentences.

ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS 

(15 point)

Writes 1 sentence.

(10 points)

Incorrectly judges whether violations occurred (0 point)

 

Part   2

Violation of IBPR Rule 217.19 (Total   25 points)

Correctly listed the 4 violations and provides correct explanations (25 points)

Correctly lists 2-3 violations and explanations (15 points)

Lists 1 violation and explanation (10 points)

Incorrectly lists criteria (0 point)

 

All 5 questions correct (25 points)

4 questions correct (20 points)

3 questions correct (15 points)

2 questions correct (10 points)

1 question correct (5 points)

0 questions correct (0 point)

 

Part 1: (a) Applying Rule 217.16(h) Minor Incidents

Read the following scenario and then answer the questions that follow:

You are on your hospital’s Peer Review Committee (PRC). You are reviewing Nurse A’s practice. She works on the pediatric unit. In the past, Nurse A has practiced safely without incidents. However, four months ago, Nurse A gave immunizations to five pediatric patients (3 months, 9 months, 2 years, 4 years, and 5 years of age). She used a vial of Hepatitis B vaccine that had been expired for 30 days but still was being stored in the unit refrigerator. She gave the five immunizations within a few minutes of each other, and she got the vial from the refrigerator only once (i.e., She did not take it out and replace it five times). She took responsibility for the errors when she was informed by her unit manager.

Should Nurse A be reported to the BON?

 

Let’s review what deems a minor vs. a reportable (NOT minor) incident-

A minor incident is- 217.16(a)-  as defined under the Texas Nursing Practice Act, Texas Occupations Code §301.401(2), means conduct by a nurse that may be a violation of the Texas Nursing Practice Act or a Board rule but does not indicate the nurse’s continued practice poses a risk of harm to a patient or another person.

A reportable incident is- 217.16(h)- conduct that falls outside of the definition of a minor incident and must be reported to a PRC or BON.

Apply the Minor Incident Rule to reach and support your decision. This Rule 217.16 can be found at http://www.bon.texas.gov/rr_current/217-16.asp

Use this specific link only- it is the official updated Texas Board of Nursing information. Click on the link and scroll down to the bottom to find the letter (h), where criteria are listed that describes actions that must be reported to the Peer Review Committee or BON.

Criteria. In the first column of the table, list the 5 criteria as it appears in the rule that are essential in determining if an incident is a reportable action. All 5 must be listed for full credit. Then, in the second column, record your explanation as to why or why not the nurse’s actions deem it reportable and therefore harmful to a patient.

 

Criteria that determine an incident is reportable

Rule 217.16(h)

Explanation of whether or not Nurse A’s actions are minor vs. reportable

Criteria :

1.

 

2.

 

3.

 

4.

 

5.

Part 1: (b) Report vs. Not Report

Based on the Rule 217.16(h) criteria you listed above, would you report Nurse A to the Board? Please explain why or why not. At least 3 substantial sentences are needed for full credit.:       (Explain below)

 

 

 

Part 2: Applying Rule 217.19 Incident-Based Peer Review

Read the following scenario and then reflect upon the actions it portrays.:

Last month, the chairperson of your hospital’s Peer Review Committee (PRC) passed you in the hallway and said, “I’m glad I ran into you. You’re going to be peer-reviewed.” The chairperson continued, saying, “Your manager found out that you called the Texas Department of State Health Services two months ago and reported that LVNs were being allowed to do the complete initial assessment on patients. Also, you made some medication errors over the past couple of months. I’ll let you know when the meeting is to occur.”

You heard nothing more about the PRC meeting. Today, the chairperson came to you and told you that you had been reported to the Texas Board of Nursing. She said, “It was just felt by the work group that you are a troublemaker and lack the skills to practice due to your med errors. I’m also giving you a ‘heads up’ that you are going to be put on suspension for at least three days by your unit manager.”

Applying Rule 217.19, what violations of the rule occurred in the above scenario?

First, review your learning about incident-based peer review. In the first column of the table, list any 4 criteria from Rule 217.19 that were violated (there are more than 4 to choose from).

1-

2-

3-

4-

In the second column, explain how each criterion was violated. All 4 boxes must be completed for full credit. Please use the link provided at http://www.bon.texas.gov/rr_current/217-19.asp

 

Which part of the rule was violated?

(Subsection number and letter OR descriptive phrase)

(Rule 217.19)

Explanation of violation ( from the 4 criteria above):

 

1.

 

2.

 

3.

 

4.