DQ-Week 1: Health Assessment
DQ-Week 1: Health Assessment
Discussion: Building a Health History
Effective communication is vital to constructing an accurate and detailed patient history. A patient’s health or illness is influenced by many factors, including age, gender, ethnicity, and environmental setting. As an advanced practice nurse, you must be aware of these factors and tailor your communication techniques accordingly. Doing so will not only help you establish rapport with your patients, but it will also enable you to more effectively gather the information needed to assess your patients’ health risks. DQ-Week 1: Health Assessment
ORDER NOW FOR COMPREHENSIVE, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPERS
For this Discussion, you will take on the role of a clinician who is building a health history for a particular new patient assigned by your Instructor.
To prepare:
By Day 1 of this week, you will be assigned a new patient profile by your Instructor for this Discussion. (new patient profile): 14-year-old biracial male living with his grandmother in a high-density public housing complex
How would your communication and interview techniques for building a health history differ with each patient?
How might you target your questions for building a health history based on the patient’s social determinants of health?
What risk assessment instruments would be appropriate to use with each patient, or what questions would you ask each patient to assess his or her health risks?
Identify any potential health-related risks based upon the patient’s age, gender, ethnicity, or environmental setting that should be taken into consideration.
Select one of the risk assessment instruments presented in Chapter 1 or Chapter 5 of the Seidel’s Guide to Physical Examination text, or another tool with which you are familiar, related to your selected patient.
Develop at least five targeted questions you would ask your selected patient to assess his or her health risks and begin building a health history.
Post a summary of the interview and a description of the communication techniques you would use with your assigned patient. Explain why you would use these techniques. Identify the risk assessment instrument you selected, and justify why it would be applicable to the selected patient. Provide at least five targeted questions you would ask the patient. DQ-Week 1: Health Assessment
NOTE: THIS IS THE LINK TO DOWNLOAD THE BOOK YOU NEED TO COMPLETE THE DISCUSSION QUESTION
https://yadi.sk/i/ 8cLDZzWn8FsUbg
-
RequiredReadings.docxNote: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.
Ball, J. W., Dains, J. E., Flynn, J. A., Solomon, B. S., & Stewart, R. W. (2019). Seidel’s guide to physical examination: An interprofessional approach (9th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.
· Chapter 1, “The History and Interviewing Process”
This chapter explains the process of developing relationships with patients in order to build an effective health history. The authors offer suggestions for adapting the creation of a health history according to age, gender, and disability.
· Chapter 5, “Recording Information”
This chapter provides rationale and methods for maintaining clear and accurate records. The authors also explore the legal aspects of patient records.
Sullivan, D. D. (2019). Guide to clinical documentation (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis.
· Chapter 2, “The Comprehensive History and Physical Exam” (pp. 19–29)
Deckx, L., van den Akker, M., Daniels, L., De Jonge, E. T., Bulens, P., Tjan-Heijnen, V. C. G., … Buntinx, F. (2015). Geriatric screening tools are of limited value to predict decline in functional status and quality of life: Results of a cohort study. BMC Family Practice, 16, 1–12. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1186/s12875-015-0241-x
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Wu, R. R., & Orlando, L. A. (2015). Implementation of health risk assessments with family health history: Barriers and benefits. Postgraduate Medical Journal, (1079), 508–513. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgea&AN=edsgcl.429265076&site=eds-live&scope=site
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Lushniak, B. D. (2015). Surgeon general’s perspectives: Family health history: Using the past to improve future health. Public Health Reports, (1), 3. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgea&AN=edsgcl.426834285&site=eds-live&scope=site
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Jardim, T. V., Sousa, A. L. L., Povoa, T. I. R., Barroso, W. K. S., Chinem, B., Jardim, L., … Jardim, P. C. B. V. (2015). The natural history of cardiovascular risk factors in health professionals: 20-year follow-up. BMC Public Health, 15(1111), 1–7. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2477-8
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Shadow Health Support and Orientation Resources
Use the following resources to guide you through your Shadow Health orientation as well as other support resources:
Frey, C. [Chris Frey]. (2015, September 4). Student orientation [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfd_8pTJBkY
Shadow Health. (n.d.). Shadow Health help desk. Retrieved from https://support.shadowhealth.com/hc/en-us
Document: Shadow Health. (2014). Useful tips and tricks (Version 2) (PDF)
Document: Shadow Health Nursing Documentation Tutorial (Word document)
-
RubricDetail.docx
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6512_Week_1_Discussion_Rubric
Excellent Good Fair Poor Main Posting Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) “Answers all parts of the Discussion question(s) with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Supported by at least three current, credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) “Responds to the Discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) “Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Post is cited with two credible sources. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) “Does not respond to the Discussion question(s) adequately. Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible sources. 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 Post: Timeliness Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by Day 3.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post main post by Day 3.
First Response Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) “Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 15 (15%) – 16 (16%) “Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are 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.
Points Range: 13 (13%) – 14 (14%) “Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (12%) “Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Second Response Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) “Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) “Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are 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.
Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) “Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%) “Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Participation Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
Total Points: 100 Name: NURS_6512_Week_1_Discussion_Rubric