Discussion 1: Evidence Base in Design NURS 6050

Discussion 1: Evidence Base in Design NURS 6050
Discussion 1: Evidence Base in Design NURS 6050
RE: Discussion – Week 7
This is insightful Hyacinth. Evidence based healthcare system is on the rise and the individuals involved in the care processes should be able to apply different approaches to give quality services. Nursing and the general healthcare provision should incorporate different factors that ensure that patients are treated with utmost respect (Ciarrocchi, 2019). In other words, nursing is a profession where the care that is provided should be evidence based. As such, we can attest to the fact that we have seen some practices that have no evidence behind it, yet nurses continued to practice that way because it became their culture of care (Goode & Landefeld, 2018).
The Bill H.R.4647 took political approaches to ensure that different individuals could have affordable medical cover. In other words, it offered medical cover for pre-existing conditions just like the Affordable Care Act. The bill was proposed way back before the Affordable Care Act, which continues to help different people from all social-economic classes. Bill H.R.4647 has enabled many people with preexisting health condition to obtain affordable care from different healthcare institutions (Lawson, 2020). The Bill is believed to have saved many people from expensive medical coverage that existed before. It has also enhanced healthcare delivery process. It is believed that some of the elements in the Bill H.R.4647 were used in the formulation of Obamacare, which continues to provide insurance cover to many people in the United States of America. The passage of the Bill was characterized by many political activities including debates in the Congress as well as the involvement of different political actors and policy-makers. The bill has facilitated quality healthcare delivery and the expansion of medical cover to over 30 million Americans.
References
Ciarrocchi, D. P. (2019). Leading in Disaster: A Qualitative Study on the Role of the Emergency Manager (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University). Retrieved from:
Goode, C. A., & Landefeld, T. (2018). The Lack of Diversity in Healthcare. Journal of Best Practices in Health Professions Diversity, 11(2), 73-95. Retrieved from:
Lawson Jr, E. (2020). Professional Quality of Life and Career Sustaining Behavior of Employee Assistant Professionals (Doctoral dissertation, University of Louisiana at Monroe). Retreved from:
When politics and medical science intersect, there can be much debate. Sometimes anecdotes or hearsay are misused as evidence to support a particular point. Despite these and other challenges, however, evidence-based approaches are increasingly used to inform health policy decision-making regarding causes of disease, intervention strategies, and issues impacting society. One example is the introduction of childhood vaccinations and the use of evidence-based arguments surrounding their safety.
In this , you will identify a recently proposed health policy and share your analysis of the evidence in support of this policy.
To Prepare:
Review the Congress website provided in the Resources and identify one recent (within the past 5 years) proposed health policy.
Review the health policy you identified and reflect on the background and development of this health policy.
By Day 3 of Week 7
Post a description of the health policy you selected and a brief background for the problem or issue being addressed. Explain whether you believe there is an evidence base to support the proposed policy and explain why. Be specific and provide examples.
RE: Discussion – Week 7
Collapse
Evidence Base in Design
With the rise in opioid addiction, health care practitioners are ethically required to look at the causes and prevention. One attributing factor that is often overlooked is the proper storage and disposal of prescribed narcotics. “Storing opioids in the open or not disposing of unused opioids increase the availability for misuse by others” (Reddy and De la Cruz, 2019). In order to combat this epidemic, advanced practice nurses and physicians could enlist the help of policymakers. However, it is beneficial to give the implementation of policies room for adjustments necessary in order to be most effective (Tummers and Bekkers, 2014). I will describe a health care policy proposed to alleviate certain problems with opioid misuse.
On June 10th, 2019 the house of representatives, Bonamici, Kuster, Wild, Johnson, and Dingell proposed the “Safe Disposal of Opioids Act of 2019”. This is a bill to amend the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016. It authorizes “the Attorney General in coordination with the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, to award grants to covered entities to establish or maintain disposal sites for unwanted prescription medications, and for other purposes” (Bonamici, Kuster, Wild, Johnson, & Dingell, 2019). The “Safe Disposal Act of 2019” directs the Department of Justice to assist by means of grants and awards. The bill also to impose fees on the sale of opioids. However, the Department of Health and Human Services will establish discounts to patients to ensure they are not responsible for those fees.
I believe there is evidence to support this policy because when you look at addiction statistics such as socioeconomic status and age, you have to wonder how so many teens have access to narcotics. The “Safe Disposal Act of 2019” will mandate proper use and disposal in order to decrease family access to narcotics. Opioid addiction affects many families around the world. This is a national crisis. This policy will also decrease the number of opioid-related deaths related to improper use. This policy is a positive game changer for public health.
References
Bonamici, Kuster, Wild, Johnson, & Dingell. (2019, June 10). H.R.3171 – Safe disposal of opioids act of 2019. Congress.org.
Reddy, A., & de la Cruz, M. (2019). Safe Opioid Use, Storage, and Disposal Strategies in Cancer Pain Management. The Oncologist, 24(11), 1410–1415. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0242
Tummers, L., & Bekkers, V. (2014). Policy Implementation, Street-level Bureaucracy, and the Importance of Discretion. Public Management Review, 16(4), 527–547. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841978
RE: Discussion – Week 7
Collapse
On February 13, 2020, H.B. 5886- Vaping Prevention on College Campuses Act of 2020 was introduced to the House (Congress.gov, n.d.). Congressman Eliot Engel introduced the bill due to a recent spike of college students who are vaping. It instructs federal agencies such as the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services to create a toolkit to help colleges reduce e-cigarette use among their students. The kit includes; visual aids related to the hazards of e-cigarette use, teaching resources to prevent use, and a plan to stop use on campus. Additionally, a directory of providers that treat nicotine addiction will be included (Engel authors legislation to reduce vaping on college campuses, 2020).
E-cigarettes heat a liquid turning it into an aerosol that is inhaled into the lung. The fluid may contain substances such as nicotine, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and cannabinoid (CBD) oils, flavoring, and additives. In January 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 2,668 hospitalizations or deaths related to e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI). Of those cases, thirty-seven percent were age eighteen to twenty-four years old (CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020).
In 2011, e-cigarette use among those aged eighteen to twenty-four was 6.9%; however, in 2014, the usage among this age group rose to 14.3%. This age group stated the main reason they began using e-cigarettes was due to peer pressure. Additionally, this age group believes that e-cigarette use is less detrimental than traditional cigarette use (Wallace & Roche, 2018).
Additional factors that make e-cigarette use popular among the youth include; advertising aimed at the youth, appealing flavors, easy to hide devices, and the ability to provide high levels of nicotine. While the ability to deliver high concentrations of nicotine is attractive to the youth, it is very harmful. Nicotine is very addictive and can impair brain development, which lasts through the mid-twenties (King, Jones, Baldwin, & Briss, 2020).
I believe there is enough evidence to support this bill. The number of injuries or deaths among college-aged students is staggering. The attitudes related to e-cigarettes are detrimental to the well-being of the youth. While the toolkit may not wholly stop e-cigarette use, hopefully, the information will make this age group stop and think about the lasting effects of e-cigarette use.
References
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Outbreak of lung injury associated with the use of e-cigarette, or vaping, products. Retrieved April 5, 2020, from
Congress.gov. (n.d.). Retrieved April 5, 2020, from https://www.congress.gov
Engel authors legislation to reduce vaping on college campuses. (2020). Retrieved April 5, 2020, from
King, B., Jones, C., Baldwin, G., & Briss, P. (2020). The EVALI and youth vaping epidemics- implications for public health. The New England Journal of Medicine, 382(8), 689-691. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1916171
Wallace, L. & Roche, M. (2018). Vaping in contexts: Links among e-cigarette use, social status, and peer influence for college students. Journal of Drug Education, 48(1/2), 33-53. doi:
By Day 6 of Week 7
Respond to at least two of your colleagues* on two different days by either supporting or respectfully challenging their explanation on whether there is an evidence base to support the proposed health policy they described.
*Note: Throughout this program, your fellow students are referred to as colleagues.
RE: Discussion – Week 7
Collapse
Response 1
Hi Jennifer, your post caught my attention, this is a topic of conversation in our county’s community health initiative. A recent study conducted in my county showed that a large percentage middle school and high school children were vaping. This has become a quickly rising epidemic for our youth. E-cigarettes were initially designed to be an alternative to assist smokers in smoking cessation, however most users do not make the transition to cessation (Buus, Alzoubaidi & Jamous, 2019). Evidence is showing that e-cigarettes are causing harm to users, creating adverse effects on lung tissues and cardiovascular toxicity (Buus, Alzoubaidi & Jamous, 2019).
The CDC statistics are staggering. In the United States, sixty-eight deaths have occurred due to vaping as of February 2020 (CDC, 2020). The majority of users are male, the median age is 24 years old (CDC, 2020). These statistics are worrisome, especially when we know it is affecting our children. I absolutely support the H.R. 5886 Bill-Vaping Prevention on College Campuses Act of 2020. I believe that this should be amended to include middle and high school prevention as well. Prevention must begin early on if it is going to be effective.
Reference
Buus, D., Alzoubaidi, M., & Jamous, F. (2019). Vaping Induced Lung Injury: A Case Report. South Dakota Medicine?: The Journal of the South Dakota State Medical Association, 72(10), 446–449.
CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2020). Outbreak of Lung Injury Associated with the Use of E-Cigarette, or Vaping, Products. Retrieved on April 6, 2020 from https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/severe-lung-disease.html
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 7 Discussion Rubric
Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 7
To participate in this Discussion:
Week 7 Discussion
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS
Discussion Questions (DQ)
Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words.
Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source.
One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words.
I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses.
Weekly Participation
Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately.
In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies.
Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work).
Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week.
APA Format and Writing Quality
Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required).
Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation.
I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition.
Use of Direct Quotes
I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’ level and deduct points accordingly.
As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content.
It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source.
LopesWrite Policy
For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me.
Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes.
Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own?
Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score.
Late Policy
The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies.
Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances.
If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect.
I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension.
As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading.
Communication
Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me:
Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class.
Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours.
Name: NURS_6050_Module04_Week07_Discussion_Rubric
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting
Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations 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%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response
Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
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.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
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%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6050_Module04_Week07_Discussion_Rubric

Read more
Enjoy affordable prices and lifetime discounts
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Order Now Order in Chat

Start off on the right foot this semester. Get expert-written solutions at a 20% discount