Working Through Ethical Dilemmas and Other Issues in Advanced Nursing Practice
Case Study Discussion: Working Through Ethical Dilemmas and Other Issues in Advanced Nursing Practice
The Discussion for this week is to provide you an opportunity to discuss with your colleagues the case studies presented in the interactive media program. These case studies involve ethical dilemmas or other issues encountered in advanced nursing practice.
Photo Credit: WavebreakmediaMicro / Adobe Stock
By Day 3
To prepare:
• Review the interactive case studies in this week’s Learning Resources. Select one of the cases to prepare your discussion post. Your post should address the following:
o Summary of your chosen case study
o What is your differential diagnosis?
o Why did you make this diagnosis decision?
o What is your treatment plan?
o What evidence-based research can you provide to support your decision (choice for differential diagnosis and plan/intervention)?
o What resources did you use to meet your best practice guidelines?
o Address the ethical dilemmas and/or other issues for your case study:
Ethical issues
Psychological issues
Physical issues
Financial issues
Name: NRNP_6552_Week9_Case_Study_Discussion_Rubric
Excellent
Point range: 90–100 Good
Point range: 80–89 Fair
Point range: 70–79 Poor
Point range: 0–69
Main Posting:
Response to the case study discussion questions includes appropriate diagnoses with explanations of appropriate diagnostic tests and treatment options as directed, is based on evidence-based research where appropriate, and is incorporates syntheses representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s).
Post includes approprite diagnoses including explanations of appropriate diagnostic tests and treatment options.
Incorporates syntheses representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources, with no less than 75% of post the post having exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least 3 current credible sources. 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the discussion question(s)
Post includes approprite diagnoses with explanations of appropriate diagnostic tests and treatment options.
Somewhat incorporates syntheses representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources with no less than 50% of the post having exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least 3 credible references. 31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
Post contains incomplete or vague diagnoses or explanations of appropriate diagnostic tests and treatment options.
Is somewhat lacking in synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references. 0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s).
Post contains incomplete diagnoses or explanations of appropriate diagnostic tests and treatment options, or diagnoses and/or explanations are missing.
Lacks synthesis gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Contains only 1 or no credible references.
Main Posting:
Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely.
Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.
Further adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely.
May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely.
May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Posting:
Timely and full participation 9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts main discussion by due date. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Posts main discussion by due date.
Meets requirements for full participation. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main discussion by due date. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post main discussion by due date.
First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Responds to questions posed by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
First Response:
Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in Standard, Edited English. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.
Response is written in Standard, Edited English. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
First Response:
Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.
Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Responds to questions posed by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
Second Response:
Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in Standard, Edited English. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.
Response is written in Standard, Edited English. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Second Response:
Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.
Learning Resources
Required Readings (click to expand/reduce)
Schuiling, K. D., & Likis, F. E. (2022). Gynecologic health care (4th ed.). Jones and Bartlett Learning.
• Chapter 3,” Women’s Growth and Development Across the Life Spans) pp. 39–49)
• Chapter 13, “Contraception” (pp. 236–266)
Morreim, H., Antiel, R. M., Zacharias, D. G., & Hall, D. E. (2014). Should age be a basis for rationing health care? The Virtual Mentor: VM, 16(5), 339–347. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2014.16.05.ecas2-1405
World Health Organization. (2020). Ageing and life course. https://www.who.int/ageing/en/
Adult Gerontology Resources
Harrison, B. J., Hilton, T. N., Rivière, R. N., Ferraro, Z. M., Deonandan, R., & Walker, M. C. (2017). Advanced maternal age: Ethical and medical considerations for assisted reproductive technology. International Journal of Women’s Health, 9, 561–570.
Clinical Guideline Resources
As you review the following resources, you may want to include a topic in the search area to gather detailed information (e.g., breast cancer screening guidelines; CDC – for zika in pregnancy, etc.).
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). (2020). https://www.acog.org/
American Cancer Society, Inc. (ACS). (2020). Information and Resources about Cancer: Breast, Colon, Lung, Prostate, Skin. https://www.cancer.org/
American Nurses Association (ANA). (n.d.). Lead the profession to share the future of nursing and health care. https://www.nursingworld.org/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (CDC). (n.d.). CDC in action. https://www.cdc.gov/
HealthyPeople 2030. (2020). Healthy People 2030 Framework. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/About-Healthy-People/Development-Healthy-People-2030/Framework
The American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP). (2020). What’s Happening at your association. https://www.aanp.org/
Required Media (click to expand/reduce)
Optional Resource (click to expand/reduce)
________________________________________
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
