Comprehensive Health Assessment for Patients and Populations – C350

Comprehensive Health Assessment for Patients and Populations – C350

In this assessment, you will demonstrate competence in exploring a patient’s physical and mental well-being. To do this, you will complete a comprehensive health assessment on the virtual patient Carolyn Cross in iHuman Patients.

You will then assess the social and physical determinants of health and how they affect this virtual patient, Carolyn. To do so, you must focus on the social and physical environments that promote health. These environmental determinants include place of birth, neighborhoods, life, experiences, work environments, recreational activities, and worship practices. These determinants affect health, daily functions, and quality-of-life risks and outcomes. Resources that can affect access to quality healthcare include safe and affordable housing, access to education and emerging technologies, public safety, the availability of healthy foods, and local health and emergency services.

The purpose of this task is to reflect on how such outside factors affect Carolyn’s access to

quality healthcare.

REQUIREMENTS

Your submission must be your original work. No more than a combined total of 30% of the submission and no more than a 10% match to any one individual source can be directly quoted or closely paraphrased from sources, even if cited correctly. The originality report that is provided when you submit your task can be used as a guide.

 

You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.

 

Tasks may not be submitted as cloud links, such as links to Google Docs, Google Slides, OneDrive, etc., unless specified in the task requirements. All other submissions must be file types that are uploaded and submitted as attachments (e.g., .docx, .pdf, .ppt).

 

  1. Reflect on the comprehensive health assessment you performed on the virtual patient Carolyn Cross in iHuman Patients by doing the following:
  2. Discuss fourevidence-based interview techniques you used to assess Carolyn’s social determinants. Include a scholarly source in your discussion.
  3. Justify the questions you used to assess eachof the five social determinants of Carolyn, and include her responses.
  4. Explain how Carolyn’s answers to the questions will inform her nursing plan of care.
  5. Explain how Carolyn’s economic stability affects her access to healthcare, including the threefollowing factors:
  • socioeconomic status
  • employment status
  • housing stability
  1. Analyze how Carolyn’s educational status affects her health. Include a scholarly source to support your analysis.
  2.  Discuss the healthcare barriers and opportunities Carolyn might experience because of her educational status.
  3.  Analyze how Carolyn’s health and healthcare status affect her quality of life. Include a scholarly source to support your analysis.
  4.  Analyze how an understanding of health literacy affects health. Include a scholarly source to support your analysis.
  5. Explain how Carolyn’s neighborhood and environment affect her access to healthcare.
  6. Compare the healthcare (e.g., quality, access, outcomes) received by a patient living in a low-income area to the healthcare received by a patient living in a high-income area.
  7. Discuss how access to healthcare differs for patients living in rural versus urban areas. Include a scholarly source to support your discussion.
  8. Discuss how Carolyn’s neighborhood affects her access to healthy food options.
  9. Discuss why social determinants need to be addressed in your comprehensive health assessment. Include a scholarly source to support your discussion.
  10. Based on the comprehensive health assessment, identify the threehighest priority social determinants that affect Carolyn.
  11. Based upon the threechosen social determinants from part B1, develop a nursing plan of care.
  12. Explain how you would implement your nursing plan of care based upon eachof the identified social determinants from part B1.
  13. Discuss barriers to implementing the nursing plan of care explained in part B2 for eachsocial determinant identified in part B1.
  14. Discuss who needs to be involved in the nursing plan of care (e.g., healthcare practitioners, community members, family) for eachsocial determinant identified in part B1.
  15. Explain how to evaluate the effectiveness of Carolyn’s nursing plan of care. Include a scholarly source.
  16. Summarize the impact of social determinants on Carolyn’s overall well-being.
  17. Acknowledge sources, using APA-formatted in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
  18. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.

File Restrictions

File name may contain only letters, numbers, spaces, and these symbols: ! – _ . * ‘ ( )
File size limit: 200 MB
File types allowed: doc, docx, rtf, xls, xlsx, ppt, pptx, odt, pdf, txt, qt, mov, mpg, avi, mp3, wav, mp4, wma, flv, asf, mpeg, wmv, m4v, svg, tif, tiff, jpeg, jpg, gif, png, zip, rar, tar, 7z

 

 

RUBRIC

A1:INTERVIEW TECHNIQUES

NOT EVIDENT

A discussion is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The discussion addresses fewer than 4 interviewing techniques used for assessing Carolyn’s social determinants in the comprehensive health assessment. Or the interview techniques used are not evidence based. Or the discussion is not supported by a scholarly source.

COMPETENT

The discussion addresses 4 evidence-based interviewing techniques used for assessing Carolyn’s social determinants in the comprehensive health assessment. The discussion is well supported by a scholarly source.

A1A:JUSTIFICATION OF KEY QUESTIONS

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not provide any justifications.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission provides a justification for 1–4 of the social determinants of health. Or 1 or more of the justifications are illogical. Or Carolyn’s responses are not included.

COMPETENT

The submission provides a logical justification for the questions used to assess each of Carolyn’s 5 social determinants of health, and it includes her responses.

A1B:RESPONSES TO KEY QUESTIONS

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation is not provided, or it does not address Carolyn’s nursing plan of care.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation does not address how Carolyn’s responses to the questions would logically inform her nursing plan of care.

COMPETENT

The explanation addresses how Carolyn’s responses to the questions would logically inform her nursing plan of care.

A2:ECONOMIC STABILITY

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation of how Carolyn’s economic stability affects her access to healthcare is not provided, or none of the given factors are addressed.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation illogically interprets how Carolyn’s economic stability affects her access to healthcare. Or the explanation only addresses 1 or 2 of the given factors.

COMPETENT

The explanation logically interprets how Carolyn’s economic stability affects her access to healthcare. The explanation addresses all 3 given factors.

 

A3:EDUCATIONAL STATUS

NOT EVIDENT

An analysis is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The analysis demonstrates a limited understanding of Carolyn’s educational status and how it affects her health, or the analysis makes no reference to her educational status. Or the analysis is poorly reasoned or not supported by a scholarly source.

COMPETENT

The analysis demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of Carolyn’s educational status and how it affects her health. The analysis is well reasoned and well supported by a scholarly source.

A3A:HEALTHCARE BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES

NOT EVIDENT

A discussion is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The discussion does not address specific healthcare barriers and opportunities Carolyn might experience due to her educational status.

COMPETENT

The discussion addresses specific healthcare barriers and opportunities Carolyn might experience due to her educational status.

A4:EFFECT OF HEALTH ON QUALITY OF LIFE

NOT EVIDENT

An analysis is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The analysis demonstrates limited understanding of how Carolyn’s health or healthcare status affects her quality of life. Or the analysis is poorly reasoned or not supported by a scholarly source.

COMPETENT

The analysis demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of how Carolyn’s health and healthcare status affect her quality of life. The analysis is well reasoned and well supported by a scholarly source.

A4A:HEALTH LITERACY

NOT EVIDENT

An analysis is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The analysis demonstrates a limited understanding of health literacy, or it demonstrates a misunderstanding of how health literacy affects health. The analysis is poorly reasoned or not supported by a scholarly source.

COMPETENT

The analysis demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of health literacy and how it affects health. The analysis is well reasoned and well supported by a scholarly source.

 

A5:NEIGHBORHOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation of how Carolyn’s neighborhood and environment affect her access to healthcare is illogical, or the explanation makes no reference to how her neighborhood or environment affects her access to health.

COMPETENT

The explanation of how Carolyn’s neighborhood and environment affect her access to healthcare is logical.

 

A5A:HEALTHCARE RECEIVED IN LOW- AND HIGH-INCOME AREAS

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not include a comparison of the healthcare received by patients living in low- versus high-income areas.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission provides a shallow or inaccurate comparison of the similarities or differences in the healthcare a patient receives in low- versus high-income areas.

COMPETENT

The submission provides a comprehensive, accurate comparison of the similarities and differences in the healthcare a patient receives in low- versus high-income areas.

 

A5B:RURAL VERSUS URBAN HEALTHCARE ACCESS

NOT EVIDENT

A discussion is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The discussion does not logically address how access to healthcare differs for patients living in rural versus urban areas, or the discussion is not supported by a scholarly source.

COMPETENT

The discussion logically addresses how access to healthcare differs for patients living in rural versus urban areas, and the discussion is well supported by a scholarly source.

 

 

A5C:NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTHY FOOD OPTIONS

NOT EVIDENT

A discussion is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The discussion does not provide specific reasons for how Carolyn’s neighborhood affects her access to healthy food options.

COMPETENT

The discussion provides specific reasons for how Carolyn’s neighborhood affects her access to healthy food options.

 

B:DISCUSSION OF SOCIAL DETERMINANTS

NOT EVIDENT

A discussion is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The discussion demonstrates a limited understanding of why social determinants need to be addressed in the comprehensive health assessment. The ideas presented are illogical or are not supported by a scholarly source.

COMPETENT

The discussion demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of why social determinants need to be addressed in the comprehensive health assessment. The ideas presented are logical and well supported by a scholarly source.

B1:IDENTIFICATION OF SOCIAL DETERMINANTS

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not identify any social determinants.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission identifies only 1 or 2 of the highest priority social determinants, or the identified social determinants are illogical or unrelated to Carolyn.

COMPETENT

The submission identifies the 3 highest priority social determinants, and they are logical and related to Carolyn.

 

B2:PATIENT PLAN OF CARE

NOT EVIDENT

A nursing plan of care is not provided, or it does not address any social determinants from part B1.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The nursing plan of care is illogical, or it addresses only 1 or 2 of the social determinants from part B1.

COMPETENT

The nursing plan of care is logical and addresses the 3 social determinants from part B1.

 

B2A:PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation is not provided, or it does not address any of the 3 social determinants from part B1.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation does not logically address the implementation of the nursing plan of care based on the identified social determinants from part B1, or it addresses only 1 or 2 social determinants from part B1.

COMPETENT

The explanation logically addresses the implementation of the nursing plan of care based on the 3 identified social determinants from part B1.

 

 

 

B2B:IMPLEMENTATION BARRIERS

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not include a discussion of barriers, or the discussion does not address barriers to implementing the nursing plan of care for any of the 3 social determinants identified in part B1.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission discusses barriers to implementing the nursing plan of care from part B2, but they are illogical or irrelevant. Or the discussion addresses barriers to implementing the nursing plan of care for only 1 or 2 of the social determinants identified in part B1.

COMPETENT

The submission discusses logical and relevant barriers to implementing the nursing plan of care from part B2 for each of the 3 social determinants identified in part B1.

 

B2C:INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN PLAN OF CARE

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not include a discussion, or the discussion does not address any of the 3 social determinants from part B1.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission discusses the individuals who need to be involved in the nursing plan of care, but the individuals are irrelevant to the nursing plan of care from part B2. Or the discussion addresses only 1 or 2 of the social determinants from part B1.

COMPETENT

The submission discusses the individuals who need to be involved in the nursing plan of care, the individuals are relevant to the nursing plan of care from part B2, and the discussion addresses each of the 3 social determinants from part B1.

 

B3:PLAN EFFECTIVENESS

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation of how to evaluate the effectiveness of Carolyn’s nursing plan of care is subjective, or the explanation is not supported by a scholarly source.

COMPETENT

The explanation of how to evaluate the effectiveness of Carolyn’s nursing plan of care is objective. The explanation is well supported by a scholarly source.

 

 

 

 

B4:IMPACT OF SOCIAL DETERMINANTS

NOT EVIDENT

A summary is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The summary is illogical or irrelevant, or it demonstrates a limited understanding of the impact of social determinants on Carolyn’s overall well-being.

COMPETENT

The summary is logical and relevant, and it demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the impact of social determinants on Carolyn’s overall well-being.

 

C:APA SOURCES

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not include in-text citations and references according to APA style for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission includes in-text citations and references for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized but does not demonstrate a consistent application of APA style.

COMPETENT

The submission includes in-text citations and references for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and demonstrates a consistent application of APA style.

 

D:PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION

NOT EVIDENT

Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective.

COMPETENT

Content reflects attention to detail, is organized, and focuses on the main ideas as prescribed in the task or chosen by the candidate. Terminology is pertinent, is used correctly, and effectively conveys the intended meaning. Mechanics, usage, and grammar promote accurate interpretation and understanding.

 

(Visited 49 times, 1 visits today)