CASE STUDY 1 5-Year Old Boy Whose Parents are Opposed to Vaccines

Week 11: The Ethics Behind Assessment

Consider the following scenarios:

• You are a nurse at a large county hospital. One of your patients is leaning toward selecting a certain radical treatment for cancer, to which the family is in opposition. The family is concerned about making the correct decision and asks for your advice.
• The state of Oregon has passed a “Death with Dignity” act that allows for euthanasia in certain situations. One of your patients suffering from terminal cancer is thinking of moving there to take advantage of this law and asks your opinion.

Throughout this course, you have explored a wide range of health assessments and abnormal examination findings. Although you have predominantly focused on the procedural aspects of health assessment, this week, you will focus on ethical considerations that should be taken into account when advising patients or their families.

This week, you will consider how evidence-based practice guidelines and ethical considerations factor into health assessments. You will also evaluate health assessment concepts related to sports physicals and well-child and well-woman examinations.

Learning Objectives for CASE STUDY 1 5-Year Old Boy Whose Parents are Opposed to Vaccines

Students will:

• Apply evidence-based practice guidelines to make an informed healthcare decision
• Apply ethical considerations to a health assessment response
• Apply concepts, theories, and principles relating to sports physicals and well-child and well-woman examinations
• Identify  concepts, theories, and principles related to advanced health assessment

Learning Resources

Required Readings (click to expand/reduce)

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 24, “Sports Participation Evaluation”In this chapter, the authors describe the process of a sports participation evaluation. The chapter also states the most common conditions encountered in a sports participation evaluation.
• Chapter 25, “Putting It All Together”In this chapter, the authors tie together the concepts introduced in previous chapters. In particular, the chapter has a strong emphasis on the patient-caregiver relationship.

Tingle, J. & Cribb, A. (2014). Nursing law and ethics (4th ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell. 

Furman , C. D., Earnshaw, L. A., Farrer, L. A. (2014). A case of inappropriate apolipoprotein E testing in Alzheimer’s disease due to lack of an informed consent discussion. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease & Other Dementias, 29(7), 590–595. doi:10.1177/1533317514525829.

Navarro-Illana, P., Aznar, J., & Díez-Domingo, J. (2014). Ethical considerations of universal vaccination against human papilloma virus. BMC Medical Ethics, 15(29). doi:10.1186/1472-6939-15-29. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/15/29

Maron , B. J., Friedman, R. A., & Caplan, A. (2015). Ethics of preparticipation cardiovascular screening for athletes. Nature Reviews Cardiology, 12(6), 375–378. doi:10.1038/nrcardio.2015.21

May, K. H., Marshall, D. L., Burns, T. G., Popoli, D. M. & Polikandriotis, J. A. (2014). Pediatric sports specific return to play guidelines following concussion. The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 9(2), 242–255. PMCID: PMC4004129. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4004129/

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2008). Recommendations for preventative pediatric health care (periodicity schedule). Retrieved from https://www.harmonyhpi.com/WCAssets/illinois/assets/IL_MedicaidProviderManual_PEM_AdultPHGsForProviders.pdf

This resource provides recommendations for preventative pediatric healthcare from infancy through adolescence. The periodicity schedule covers a variety of areas, from health history to measurements, developmental/behavioral screenings, physical exams, procedural screenings, and oral health.

Rourke, L., Leduc, D., & Rourke, J. (2017). Rourke Baby Record. Retrieved from http://rourkebabyrecord.ca/

This website provides information on the Rourke Baby Record (RBR). The RBR supplies guidelines on growth and nutrition, developmental surveillance, physical exam parameters, and immunizations for well-baby and child care.

Document: Final Exam Review (Word document)

Assignment 1: Lab Assignment: Ethical Concerns

To Prepare

Review the scenarios provided by your instructor for this week’s Assignment. Please see the “Course Announcements” section of the classroom for your scenarios.

• Based on the scenarios provided:
  • Select one scenario, and reflect on the material presented throughout this course.
  • What necessary information would need to be obtained about the patient through health assessments and diagnostic tests?
  • Consider how you would respond as an advanced practice nurse. Review evidence-based practice guidelines and ethical considerations applicable to the scenarios you selected.

The Lab Assignment

Write a detailed one-page narrative (not a formal paper) explaining the health assessment information required for a diagnosis of your selected patient (include the scenario number). Explain how you would respond to the scenario as an advanced practice nurse using evidence-based practice guidelines and applying ethical considerations. Justify your response using at least three different references from current evidence-based literature.

By Day 6 of Week 11

Submit your Assignment.

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

• Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK11Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
• Click the Week 11 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
• Click the Week 11 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
• Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK11Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
• If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
• Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 11 Assignment Rubric

Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity

To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:

Submit your Week 11 Assignment draft and review the originality report.

Submit Your Assignment by Day 6 of Week 11

To participate in this Assignment:

Week 11 Assignment

Assignment 2: Lab Assignment: Practice Assessment: Mental Health Examination

The Lab Assignment

Complete the following in Shadow Health:

• Mental Health (Practice)

Exam: Week 11 Final Exam

Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

This exam is a test of your knowledge in preparation for your certification exam. No outside resources, including books, notes, websites, or any other type of resource, are to be used to complete this exam. You are expected to comply with Walden University’s Code of Conduct.

This exam will be on topics covered in weeks 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Prior to starting the exam, you should review all of your materials. This exam is timed with a limit of 2 hours for completion. When time is up, your exam will automatically submit.

By Day 7 of Week 11

Complete the Final Exam.

Submission and Grading Information

Submit Your Final Exam by Day 7 of Week 11.

To Complete this Exam:

Week 11 Exam

ORDER NOW FOR WELL-WRITTEN, PLAGIARISM-FREE ASSIGNMENTS

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout. CASE STUDY 1 5-Year Old Boy Whose Parents are Opposed to Vaccines

Grid View
List View

• Excellent
• Good
• Fair
• Poor

Write a detailed 1-page narrative (not a formal paper) addressing the following:

Explain the health assessment information required for a diagnosis of your selected patient (include the scenario number).

30 (30%) – 35 (35%)

• The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly explains detailed health assessment information required to diagnose the selected patient, with correct scenario number included.

24 (24%) – 29 (29%)

• The response accurately explains health assessment information required to diagnose the selected patient, with correct scenario number included.

18 (18%) – 23 (23%)

• The response vaguely explains health assessment information required to diagnose the selected patient, with scenario number, correct or inaccurate, included.

0 (0%) – 17 (17%)

• The response lacks and/or inaccurately explains assessment information required to diagnose the selected patient, with scenario number inaccurate or missing.

Explain how you would respond to the scenario as an advanced practice nurse using evidence-based practice guidelines and applying ethical considerations. Justify your response using at least three different references from current evidence-based literature.

45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

• The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly explains detailed evidence-based practice guidelines and ethical considerations applied by an advanced practice nurse in responding to the scenario, with clear, accurate, and thorough justification using three or more different references from current evidence-based literature.

39 (39%) – 44 (44%)

• The response accurately explains evidence-based practice guidelines and ethical considerations applied by an advanced practice nurse in responding to the scenario, with accurate justification using at least three different references from current evidence-based literature.

33 (33%) – 38 (38%)

• The response vaguely explains evidence-based practice guidelines and ethical considerations applied by an advanced practice nurse in responding to the scenario, with vague and/or inaccurate justification using two to three different references from current evidence-based literature.

0 (0%) – 32 (32%)

• The response inaccurately explains or lacks evidence-based practice guidelines and ethical considerations applied by an advanced practice nurse in responding to the scenario, with inaccurate or missing justification using two or fewer references from current evidence-based literature.

Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization:

Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused–neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria.

5 (5%) – 5 (5%) 

• Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

• Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet are brief and not descriptive.

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

• Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are vague or off topic.

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

• Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.
• No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided.

Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards:

Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

• Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

• Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

• Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

• Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.

Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running heads, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

• Uses correct APA format with no errors.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

• Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

• Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

• Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.

Total Points: 100