[ad_1]
Requirements:
This paper should clearly and comprehensively identify the chronic health disease chosen. Select a topic from the following list (topics rotate):
· Polycythemia Vera
· Alcohol Addiction
· Prostate or Breast Cancer
· Epilepsy/Seizure Disorders
· Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) (Select childhood or adulthood for the OCD topic)
The paper should be organized into the following sections:
1. Introduction (Identification of the problem) with a clear presentation of the problem as well as the significance and a scholarly overview of the paper’s content. No heading is used for the Introduction per APA current edition.
2. Background and Significance of the disease, to include: Definition, description, signs and symptoms, and current incidence and/or prevalence statistics by state with a comparison to national statistics pertaining to the disease. Create a table of incidence or prevalence rates by your geographic county/city or state (Miami, FL) with a comparison to national statistics. Use the APA text for formatting guidelines (tables). This is a table that you create using relevant data, it should not be a table from another source using copy/paste.
3. Surveillance and Reporting: Current surveillance methods and mandated reporting processes as related to the chronic health condition chosen should be specific.
4. Epidemiological Analysis: Conduct a descriptive epidemiology analysis of the health condition. Be sure to include all of the 5 W’s: What, Who, Where, When, Why. Use details associated with all of the W’s, such as the “Who” which should include an analysis of the determinants of health. Include costs (both financial and social) associated with the disease or problem.
5. Screening and Guidelines: Review how the disease is diagnosed and current national standards (guidelines). Pick one screening test (review Week 2 Discussion Board) and review its sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and cost.
6. Plan: Integrating evidence, provide a plan of how a nurse practitioner will address this chronic health condition after graduation. Provide three specific interventions that are based on the evidence and include how you will measure outcomes (how will you know that the interventions have utility, are useful?) Note: Consider primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions as well as the integration of health policy advocacy efforts. All interventions should be based on evidence – connected to a resource such as a scholarly piece of research.
7. Summary/Conclusion: Conclude in a clear manner with a brief overview of the keys points from each section of the paper utilizing integration of resources.
8. The paper should be formatted and organized into the following sections which focus on the chosen chronic health condition.
9. Adhere to all paper preparation guidelines (see below).
Preparing the Paper:
1. Page length: 7-10 pages, excluding title page and references.
2. APA format current edition
3. Include scholarly in-text references throughout and a reference list.
4. Include at least one table that the student creates to present information. Please refer to the “Requirements” or rubric for further details. APA formatting required.
| ASSIGNMENT CONTENT |
| Category |
Pts |
% |
Description |
| Identification of the Health Problem |
15 |
7.5% |
Comprehensively and succinctly states the problem/concern. Clear presentation of the problem as well as the significance with a scholarly overview of the paper’s content. |
| Background and Significance of the Health Problem |
30 |
15% |
Background and significance is complete, presents risks, disease impact and includes a review of incidence and prevalence of the disease within the student’s state compared to national data. Evidence supports background. A student created table is included using APA format. |
| Current Surveillance and Reporting Methods |
30 |
15% |
Current state and national disease surveillance methods are reviewed along with currently gathered types of statistics and information on whether the disease is mandated for reporting. Supported by evidence. |
| Descriptive Epidemiological Analysis of Health Problem |
35 |
17% |
Comprehensive review and analysis of descriptive epidemiological points for the chronic health problem. The 5 W’s of epidemiological analysis should be fully identified. Supported by scholarly evidence. |
| Screening, Diagnosis, Guidelines |
30 |
15% |
Review of current guidelines for screening and diagnosis. Screening tool statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests are presented. |
| Plan of Action |
30 |
15% |
Integrating evidence, provide a plan of how a nurse practitioner will address this chronic health condition after graduation. Provide three specific interventions that are based on the evidence and include how you will measure outcomes (how will you know that the interventions have utility, are useful?) Note: Consider primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions as well as the integration of health policy advocacy efforts. All interventions should be based on evidence – connected to a resource such as a scholarly piece of research. |
| Conclusion |
15 |
7.5% |
The conclusion thoroughly, clearly, succinctly, and logically presents major points of the paper with clear direction for action. Includes scholarly references |
| |
185 |
92% |
Total CONTENT Points=185 pts |
| ASSIGNMENT FORMAT |
| Category |
Points |
% |
Description |
| APA current ed. |
10 |
5% |
APA is consistently utilized according to the current edition throughout the paper. |
|
Rubric
| Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAssignment Content Possible Points = 185 Points
Introduction of Healthcare Problem/Concern |
| 15.0 pts
Excellent
Comprehensively and succinctly states the problem/concern. Clear presentation of the problem as well as the significance with a scholarly overview of the paper’s content. |
14.0 pts
V. Good
Identifies the problem/concern with adequate but not in-depth presentation. |
12.0 pts
Satisfactory
Identification of problem/concern is limited. |
8.0 pts
Needs Improvement
Improvement- Identification of problem/concern is unclear. |
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Improvement- Identification of problem/concern is unclear. |
|
15.0 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeBackground/Significance |
| 30.0 pts
Excellent
Background and significance is complete, presents risks, disease impact and includes a review of incidence and prevalence of the disease within the student’s state compared to national data. Evidence supports background. A student created table is included. |
27.0 pts
V. Good
Background is complete, presents risk, disease impact and at least one set of incidence and prevalence statistics supported by evidence, for instance state data or national data is presented, but not both. Or, full data is presented but student table is not included. |
26.0 pts
Satisfactory
Background missing one or more key points and at least one set of incidence and prevalence statistics are presented. Lack of evidence or limited presentation of the background. A table is included which may or may not be student created; may be limited in data. |
15.0 pts
Needs Improvement
Background missing more than one key point and at least one set of incidence and prevalence statistics are presented, or there is no supported evidence. Unclear conclusions or presentation. No student created table is included; or if included is limited in scope or is not student created. |
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Background and significance of the disease is not provided. |
|
30.0 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSurveillance and Reporting |
| 30.0 pts
Excellent
Current state and national disease surveillance methods are reviewed along with currently gathered types of statistics and information on whether the disease is mandated for reporting. All writing is supported by evidence. |
27.0 pts
V. Good
State and national disease surveillance methods are reviewed, currently gathered types of statistics is scant, reporting requirements discussed. All writing is supported by evidence. |
26.0 pts
Satisfactory
State or national surveillance statistics are discussed as an overview, lacking detail / depth. Mandated reporting may be absent. Writing is supported by evidence but may be inconsistent. |
15.0 pts
Needs Improvement
One of either state or national disease surveillance methods reviewed; currently gathered types of statistics may be missing or information on whether the disease is mandated for reporting is missing. There is a lack of depth with inconsistent use of evidence. |
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Content not discussed. |
|
30.0 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescriptive Epidemiology |
| 35.0 pts
Excellent
Comprehensive review and analysis of descriptive epidemiological points for the chronic health problem. The 5 W’s of epidemiological analysis should be fully identified. Supported by scholarly evidence. |
32.0 pts
V. Good
Review and analysis has depth in general but may be missing one of the 5 W’s OR may be scant in one area of the 5 W’s. All writing is supported by evidence. |
29.0 pts
Satisfactory
Review and analysis superficial in all of the 5 W’s OR may be scant or missing 2 or more of the W’s. Evidence is present but may not be throughout all content areas. |
18.0 pts
Needs Improvement
Review and analysis is missing depth throughout all of the content areas. Evidence may or may not support the writing. |
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
No analysis provided. |
|
35.0 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeScreening, Diagnosis, Guidelines |
| 30.0 pts
Excellent
Comprehensive review of current guidelines for screening and diagnosis. Screening tool statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests are presented. |
27.0 pts
V. Good
Adequate review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests is presented. |
26.0 pts
Satisfactory
Limited review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests. |
15.0 pts
Needs Improvement
Minimal or unclear review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests. There is a lack of depth with inconsistent use of evidence. |
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests not provided. |
|
30.0 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePlan |
| 30.0 pts
Excellent
Integrating evidence, provide a plan of how a nurse practitioner will address this chronic health condition after graduation. Provide three specific interventions that are based on the evidence and include how you will measure outcomes (how will you know that the interventions have utility, are useful?) Note: Consider primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions as well as the integration of health policy advocacy efforts. All interventions should be based on evidence – connected to a resource such as a scholarly piece of research. |
27.0 pts
V. Good
An adequate, but not fully comprehensive, plan of action specific to the problem, and the geographic area is presented with 3 evidenced based actions that will be taken to address the impact, outcomes, or prevalence of the disease. |
26.0 pts
Satisfactory
A limited plan of action specific to the problem, and the geographic area, outcomes, or prevalence of the disease. Three actions or less may be presented with limited or little evidence. |
15.0 pts
Needs Improvement
Minimal or unclear review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests. Actions are minimal or unclear, or lack specificity, are not supported directly by evidence or are not direct actions the student can take in practice. There is a lack of depth with inconsistent use of evidence. |
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Plan of action not provided. |
|
30.0 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummary/Conclusion = 185 Points |
| 15.0 pts
Excellent
The conclusion thoroughly, clearly, succinctly, and logically presents major points of the paper with clear direction for action. Includes scholarly references. |
14.0 pts
V. Good
The conclusion adequately and logically presents major points of the paper with clear direction for action, but lacks one major point or is not succinct. Includes scholarly references. |
12.0 pts
Satisfactory
The conclusion is a limited review of key points of the paper, is not succinct, or lacks one or more major points of the paper or clear direction for action. Scholarly references may or may not be included. |
8.0 pts
Needs Improvement
Conclusion is unclear or significantly limited in overview of the paper. Scholarly references may or may not be included. |
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
No Summary/conclusion is included. |
|
15.0 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAssignment Format Possible Points =15 Points
APA 6th ed. |
| 10.0 pts
Excellent
APA is consistently utilized according to the 6th edition throughout the paper. |
9.0 pts
V. Good
One or two errors in APA format |
8.0 pts
Satisfactory
Three-Five errors in APA format |
5.0 pts
Needs Improvement
Six errors in APA format |
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Greater than six errors in APA formatting. |
|
The post Prostate or Breast Cancer appeared first on Infinite Essays.
[ad_2]
Source link