NR443 Guidelines for Caring for Populations: Assessment and Diagnosis PURPOSE The purpose of this paper is to provide an opportunity to utilize community assessment strategies, uncover a community health problem, and identify the components of the problem related to the community dynamics. COURSE OUTCOMES This assignment enables the student to meet the following course outcomes: 1. Evaluate the planning of delivery of care to individuals, families, aggregates, and communities in a variety of healthcare settings based on theories and principles of nursing and related disciplines. (PO #1) 2. Integrate clinical judgment in professional decision-making and implementation of the nursing process through analysis of community health nursing practice. (PO #4) 7. Accept accountability for personal and professional development as part of the life-long learning process. (PO #5) DUE DATE Submit to the appropriate basket in the Dropbox by 11:59 p.m. MT Sunday of Week 4. POINTS: 225 points DIRECTIONS This paper is expected to be no more than four pages in length (not including the title page and reference list). Typical papers are usually three pages. Below are the requirements for successful completion of this paper. • Introduction: This should catch the reader’s attention with interesting facts and supporting sources and include the purpose statement of thepaper. This should be no more than one or two paragraphs. • Community: Identify the community you will be using for this paper and provide a brief description of the community. Your community should be the area you live in or work. This should be one or two paragraphs. • Demographic and epidemiological data: Compile a range of demographic and epidemiological data for your community by examining census reports, vital statistic reports, city records, and other agency sources. Using this data, describe your community and the problem. Compare your community data to state or national data. This comparison will help to identify a community health problem specific to your community. A summary of this data should be no more than one page. • Windshield survey: Provide a brief summary of the findings from your first assignment. Make sure the elements included link to your identified problem. This should be no more than one or two paragraphs. • Problem: Using the assessment data, identify the problem that you consider to be a priority concern. Provide a rationale for your choice and relate your choice to one of the Healthy People 2020 objectives. Healthy People objectives are located within a topic area. Your rationale should also include why this is specifically a problem in your community. This should be no more than two to three paragraphs. • Historical significance: Address the historical significance of the problem. Consider the trends in the problem over time and any significant events that may have had an impact on the problem. This information should be no more than two to three paragraphs. • Summary: The summary paragraph of your paper should include a statement about the problem, the population at risk for this problem, and the major direct or indirect factors that contribute to this problem. This information should be no more than one or two paragraphs. • Professional articles: Include at least two scholarly sources related to your problem. • References: Should include all cited references within the paper. GUIDELINES • Application: Use Microsoft Word 2010™ to create this assignment. • Length: This paper is expected to be no more than 4 pages in length (not including the title page and reference list). Typical papers are usually 3 pages. • Submission: Submit your file via the basket in the Dropbox: Caring for Populations: Assessment and Diagnosis, by 11:59 p.m. MT Sunday of Week 4. • Technical Writing: APA format is required. Review APA tutorials and use the resources of SmartThinking for writing tutors. • Submit your paperwith your last name in the document title (e.g., “Smith Assessment and Diagnosis”). • Late Submission: See the course policy on late submissions. BEST PRACTICES IN PREPARING THE PAPER The following are best practices in preparing this project. • Complete the demographic, epidemiologic, and windshield survey prior to choosing a problem to focus on. • Choose a problem specific to your community. • Make sure all elements of the paper are included. • Review directions thoroughly. • Cite all sources within the paper as well as on the Reference page. • Proofread prior to final submission. • Check for spelling and grammar errors prior to final submission. • Abide by CCN academic integrity policy. GRADING RUBRIC: CARING FOR POPULATIONS: ASSESSMENT AND DIAGNOSIS (225 POINTS) Criteria A (92–100%) Outstanding or highest level of performance B (84–91%) Very good or high level of performance C (76–83%) Competent or satisfactory level of performance D/F (0–75%) Poor or failing or unsatisfactory level of performance Pts Introduction 10 points Catches the reader’s attention with interesting facts and supporting sources. Includes the purpose of the paper. (9–10 points) Purpose of paper discussed. “Hook” to get the reader interested may be missing. (8 points) No purpose provided and/or there is no attention-getting “hook.” (7 points) No purpose provided and there is no attention-getting “hook.” (0–6 points) /10 Community Data 25 points Community identified and briefly described. (23–25 points) Community identified but description is missing. (21–22 points) Community not identified and/or described. (19–20 points) Community not identified and not described. (0–18 points) /25 Demographic and Epidemiological Data 40 points A range of demographic and epidemiological data for your community examined by census reports, vital statistic reports, city records, and other agency sources, and compared to state and national data. (37–40 points) Demographic and epidemiological data described but missing state and/or national comparison. (34–36 points) Little demographic and epidemiological data and/or not compared to state and national data. (30–33 points) Lacking demographic and epidemiological data described and/or missing state/national comparisons. (0–29 points) /40 Windshield Survey 10 points Community windshield survey findings briefly described. Findings relate to identified problem. (9–10 points) Windshield survey findings described but do not relate to identified problem. (8 points) Windshield survey not completed OR lacks sufficient assessment and relation to identified problem. (7 points) Windshield survey findings not described. (0–6 points) /10 Problem 50 points Assessment data used to identify the problem. Rationale provided for your choice and related to one of the Healthy People objectives. Supportive data provided to validate this is a problem in your community. (46–50 points) Problem not related to Healthy People objective OR lacks rationale OR lacks supportive data. (42–45 points) Problem not related to Healthy People objective and lacks rationale OR lacks supportive data. (38–41 points) Problem not related to Healthy People objective and lacks rationale AND lacks supportive data. (0–37 points) /50 Historical Significance 20 points Historical significance addressed. Trends considered in the problem over time and any significant events that may have had an impact on the problem. (19–20 points) Historical significance minimally addressed. Trends considered in the problem over time an
d any significant events that may have had an impact on the problem. (17–18 points) Historical significance minimally addressed. Trends not considered in the problem over time and any significant events not discussed that may have had an impact on the problem. (15–16 points) Historical significance insufficiently addressed. (0–14 points) /20 Summary 10 points Includes a statement about the problem, the population at risk for this problem, and the major direct or indirect factors that contribute to this problem. (9–10 points) Summary lacks reiteration of identified problem OR population at risk OR contributing factors. (8 points) Summary lacks 2 or more of the following: reiteration of identified problem, population at risk, and contributing factors. (7 points) Summary unsatisfactory OR not completed. (0–6 points) /10 Application of Evidence-Based Literature 20 points Two or more quality references from professional literature cited that clearly support your rationale. (19–20 points) Two references cited, but information in the reference may be biased or not directly relevant to your rationale. (17–18 points) Only one reference cited that is directly relevant to rationale. (15–16 points) No references cited OR one reference cited that is not relevant to rationale. (0–14 points) /20 Presentation 20 points Discussion well organized and logically supports analysis/ reasoning. Structure is clear and compelling to reader; it’s easy to follow author’s reasoning; paragraphs are linked together in logical ways, and main ideas stand out. (19–20 points) Discussion is accurate but limited. Some attempt at organization is apparent, but in general paper does not flow well. (17–18 points) Paper comes across as disjointed or rambling. Flow ofpaper is difficult to follow. (15–16 points) Discussion has errors in content. No discernible attempt at organization; paper is chaotic. (0–14 points) /20 Mechanics 20 points • Title page, running head, and page numbers. (3) • Grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure are correct. (5) • References properly cited within the paper. (5) • Reference page includes all citations. (2) • Evidence of spelling and grammar checks. (5) (19–20 points) • Minimal errors in APA title page noted. • Minimal errors in grammar, punctuation, and/or sentence structure noted. • Citations are present but not in correct format. • References are present, with minimal errors in format. • Minimal red or green wavy lines within document. (17–18 points) • Multiple errors or still using 5th edition APA. • Grammar and punctuation errors noted. (15–16 points) • Citations are missing. • References are missing or incomplete. • No evidence of proofreading prior to submitting paper. (0–14 points) /20 Total Points: /225 Citation should be from these from these books Egbert, N., & Nanna, K. (2009). Health literacy: Challenges and strategies. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 14(3), 5. Cornett, S. (2009). Assessing and addressing health literacy. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 14(3), 3.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more