Selected Topic:
Domestic Violence: A Survivor’s Story
Purpose: The purpose of this assignment is to
Provide learners with the opportunity to integrate knowledge and skills learned throughout this course
Directly apply principles and knowledge learned in the course to problem solving of population health problems in marginalized women.
Requirements: This paper should clearly and comprehensively identify the disease or population health problem chosen. The problem must be an issue in your geographic area and a concern for the population you will serve upon graduation with your degree. The paper should … organized into the following sections:
- Introduction with a clear presentation of the marginalized group as well as significance and ascholarly overview of the paper.
- Background of the marginalized group/problem including description, current incidence and/or prevalence statistics current state, local, and national statistics pertaining to the problem.
- Discuss the economic aspects of the marginalized group.
- … social justice and its relationship to health disparities and health care of marginalized group.
- Discuss ethical issues on marginalized group.
- Provide a brief plan of how you will address this marginalized group in your practice once you are finished with school. Provide three actions you will take along with how you will measure outcomes of your actions.
Directions and Grading Criteria
- Scholarly Introduction (clear presentation of marginalized group)
- Background and significance of the marginalized group (includes incidence or prevalence statistics)
- Socio-Economic aspects of the marginalized group
- Social justice and its relationship to health disparities and health care of marginalized group
- Ethical issues of the marginalized group
- Plan of action (includes at least three evidenced based actions, supported by literature)
- Conclusion
- Mechanics of writing, APA
Participation for MSN
Participation Guidelines
The weekly case study discussion is worth up to 100 points. Students are expected to participate a minimum of four times (once in Part One by Tuesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, once in Part Two by Thursday, 11:59 p.m. MT, provide a written summary in SOAP format to the Dropbox by Sunday, 11:59 p.m. MT, and one post to a student peer as required in the interactive dialogue criterion). The student must provide answers to the graded case study questions from Part One, post a treatment plan for Part Two and provide a written summation of their case in SOAP format to the Dropbox for Part Three. The written summation must be submitted in a Word document and the following file naming convention be used: Last name.week#.SOAP For example: if your last name is Smith then your Week 1 SOAP note would be saved as Smith.Week1.SOAP
Grading Rubric
| Criteria | Exceptional
Outstanding or highest level of performance |
Exceeds Very good or high level of performance |
Meets Satisfactory level of performance |
Needs Improvements Poor or failing level of performance |
Developing Unsatisfactory level of performance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Points Possible= 100 | |||||
| 30 Points | 26 Points | 24 Points | 11 Points | 0 Points | |
| Application of Course Knowledge | Post contributes unique perspectives/insights applicable to the results from the physical exam and diagnosis (es).Part One: Initial post includes at least three (3) appropriate differential diagnoses with rationale and answers all questions presented in the case. Demonstrates course knowledge/assigned readings by: linking questions and tests/interventions to diagnoses,linking diseases by identifying symptoms and patient information.
Parts Two and Three: Primary and secondary diagnoses and treatment plan supported with rationale from the literature. Differential diagnoses are eliminated. All five (5) parts of the treatment plan are thorough, specific and evidence-based. |
Post contributes unique perspectives or insights, but may lack some applicability to presented case study patients.Part One: Initial post includes at least two (2) appropriate differential diagnoses with rationale and answers most of the questions presented in the case. One to two (1-2) elements of specificity identified in course expectations not met
Parts Two and Three: Confirmed diagnosis (es) and treatment plan partially applicable and evidence-based for each case study patient. |
Post has limited perspective, insights and/or applicability to presented case study patients.Part One: Initial post does not address each patient or does not include at least two (2) differential diagnoses for each patient. Some evidence-based rationale may be missing. Does not answer questions presented in the case. Two (2) or more elements of specificity from course expectations not met.
Parts Two and Three: Confirmed diagnosis and treatment plan are not applicable to specific case study or some sections may not be evidence-based.
|
Post perspectives are not consistent with current practice. Three (3) or more elements from course expectations missing from parts two and/or three, differential diagnoses not eliminated from Part Two and/or Three. | Post offers no insight or application to the case study presentation. |
| 30 Points | 26 Points | 24 Points | 11 Points | 0 Points | |
| Support from Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) | Initial discussion posts in Parts One, Two and SOAP note are supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last 5 years. In-text citations and full references are provided. | Initial discussion posts for Parts One, Two, and SOAP note are partially supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last 5 years.
In-text citations and full references are provided. Evidence-based reference( s) used but may not fully support the treatment plan. |
Initial discussion posts for Parts One, Two, and SOAP note are partially supported by evidence.Sources may not be scholarly in nature or may be older than 5 years.
In-text citations and/or full references may be incomplete or missing. |
Citations to non-scholarly websites given as rationale to support differential diagnoses and/or treatment plan. | Discussion posts contain no evidence-based practice reference or citation.
*Students should note that factitious sources, sources that are clearly not read by the student and used, or sources that have incorrect dates will result in an automatic zero (0) for this section for the week. |
| 10 Points | 9 Points | 8 Points | 4 Points | 0 Points | |
| Organization | Discussion posts and SOAP notes presents case study findings in a logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence. Each problem-based learning case study patient is presented individually in all discussion posts and SOAP notes.
Part One: Discussion questions addressed individually for each patient.
|
Discussion posts and SOAP notes are relevant to the topic but may be unclear or difficult to follow in places.
Part One: Discussion questions may not be addressed individually for each patient. Part Two or SOAP note contains all elements but may not be written following SOAP note format. |
Discussion posts and SOAP notes not fully relevant to the topic. May be unclear or difficult to follow in places.
Part Two and SOAP note do not contain all components and/or may be missing data. |
Discussion post presents case findings and plan or intervention that are sometimes unclear to follow and may not always be relevant to topic. | Discussion post is not relevant to case study. |
|
26 Points |
23 Points |
21 Points |
10 Points |
0 Points |
|
| Interactive Dialogue | Presents case study findings and responds substantively to at least one topic-related post of a peer including evidence from appropriate sources, and all direct faculty questions posted in Parts One and Two.
|
Presents case study findings and responds substantively to at least one topic-related post of a peer. Does include evidence from appropriate sources.
Responds to some direct faculty questions posted in Parts One and Two. |
Responds to a student peer and faculty questions but the posts adds limited content or insights to the discussion.
Does include evidence from appropriate sources.
|
Responds to a student peer and/or faculty, but the nature of the response is not substantive.
Does not include evidence from any sources. |
Does not respond to a topic-related peer post and/or does not respond to faculty questions posted by Sunday. |
|
4 Points |
3 Points |
2 Points |
1 Points |
0 Points |
|
| Grammar, Syntax, APA | APA format, grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation are accurate, or with zero to one errors. | Two to four errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and syntax noted. | Five to seven errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and syntax noted. | Eight to nine errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and syntax noted. | Post contains greater than ten errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation or repeatedly makes the same errors after faculty feedback. |
| 0 Points Deducted | Points Deducted for Late or Missing Posts | ||||
| NR 602 Week 5 Assignment
Participation Enters first post to part one by 11:59 p.m. MT on Tuesday; First post to part two by 11:59 p.m. MT on Thursday; and submits written summation by Sunday 11:59 p.m. MT. Written submission (SOAP notes) will NOT be accepted after Sunday 11:59 p.m. MT. |
Enters first post to Part One by 11:59 p.m. MT on Tuesday; first post to Part Two by 11:59 p.m. MT on Thursday; and enters peer response/faculty responses and written summation (SOAP) by Sunday 11:59 p.m. MT. | Ten percent (10%) per day for each late discussion post.
*See Calculating Late Posting Penalty Document Written submissions including SOAPs will not be accepted after Sunday 11:59 p.m. MT of the week they are due. 33 points deducted per part if Part One, Part Two or SOAP note is/are not submitted by Sunday by 11:59 p.m. MT of the week they are due. |
