NURS 6050 Module 4 Week 7 Discussion 1 Policy and Advocacy for Improving Population Health

NURS 6050 Module 4 Week 7 Discussion 1 Policy and Advocacy for Improving Population Health

NURS 6050 Module 4 Week 7 Discussion 1 Policy and Advocacy for Improving Population Health

Health care professionals should be active in healthcare policy process as policies being proposed and enacted by Congress impact their scope of practice and standards, way of providing services, and the eventual ability of health system to meet diverse and rising needs. Healthcare policies focus on improving the overall health of American citizens, especially the increased focus on preventive care (Yard et al., 2021). The purpose of this discussion is to evaluate a propose health policy in Congress and determine if there is sufficient evidence to support it based on background information and research findings.

BUY A CUSTOM- PAPER HERE ON; NURS 6050 Module 4 Week 7 Discussion 1 Policy and Advocacy for Improving Population Health

Selected Proposed Policy

The selected health policy is H.R. 586 or the Suicide Training and Awareness Nationally Delivered for Universal Prevention Act of 2021 (STANDUP Act of 2021). The legislative intent of this bill is to amend the Public Health Service Act with the aim of providing the best practices and training on student suicide awareness. The bill mandates the establishment and execution of school-based suicide awareness and prevention training policy to mitigate suicidal rates among students (Congress.GOV, 2021). This bipartisan Congressional bill is designed to encourage both states and tribes to create and expand evidence-based suicide prevention training programs in schools. While the bill was recently signed into law by President Biden, it demonstrates the need for Congress to enact laws that address existing problems among young adults and children who may contemplate suicide when faced with emotional and psychological challenges. The bill addresses the issues of suicide, especially among young people and adolescents based on statistics from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) among other agencies at state and federal levels. Suicide is among the top ten causes of death in the United States (Canady, 2021). Many of these deaths are preventable if more people can access appropriate mental health care services and appropriate treatment modalities.

Increased level of evidence shows support for this proposed policy. Studies show that across the U.S., suicide is the second-leading cause of death among young individuals aged 10 to 24 years since 2010. The effects of COVID-19 pandemic have been devastating to many people across the country with data from CDC showing that one in four students has reported having suicidal thoughts and ideation. However, suicide is preventable when individuals, irrespective of their age can access appropriate mental health care. Studies show that many people; both youth and adults, are not aware of the warning signs of mental health issues (Canady, 2021; Page et al., 2018). They also do not know how they can intervene before the occurrence of a tragedy. The implication is that this bill is essential because it will help address the underlying causes of suicide and the overall harm associated with behavioral ideation. The STANDUP Act of 2021 creates new requirements for states, schools, and tribes to expand access to evidence-based suicide prevention training for every 6th-12th grade students, teach them ways to recognize the warning signs of self-harm and approaches for seeking help by themselves and through others (Congress.GOV, 2021). The bill is essential as mental health issues can lead to devastating long-term effects if they are not handled early.

Conclusion

The increased level of stress among people, especially young people, requires more services and methods for providers to improve accessibility and better ways of managing mental health issues. Suicide ideation and thoughts are a danger to individuals and public health and should be addressed using evidence-based approaches as demonstrated by this bill. This bill can go a long way to help reduce the problem

References

Canady, V. A. (2021). CDC data finds sharp rise in suicide attempts among teen girls amid

            COVID‐19. Mental Health Weekly, 31(24), 1-3. DOI: 10.1002/mhw.32836

Congress.GOV (2021). S.1543 – STANDUP Act of 2021.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1543/text

Page, A., Atkinson, J., Heffernan, M., McDonnell, G., Prodan, A., Osgood, N., & Hickie, I.

(2018). Static metrics of impact for a dynamic problem: The need for smarter tools to guide suicide prevention planning and investment. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 52(7), 660-667. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867417752866

Yard, E., Radhakrishnan, L., Ballesteros, M. F., Sheppard, M., Gates, A., Stein, Z., … & Stone,

2021. M. (2021). Emergency department visits for suspected suicide attempts among persons aged 12–25 years before and during the COVID-19 pandemic—United States, January 2019–May 2021. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 70(24), 888.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE ON; NURS 6050 Module 4 Week 7 Discussion 1 Policy and Advocacy for Improving Population Health

Discussion – Week 7
Collapse

Discussion 1: Evidence Base in Design

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 Discussion, 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.

Required Readings – SOME RESOURCES ARE ON PDF FILES AND ARE ATTACHED.

Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Chapter 5, “Public Policy Design” (pp. 87–95 only)
Chapter 8, “The Impact of EHRs, Big Data, and Evidence-Informed Practice” (pp. 137–146)
Chapter 9, “Interprofessional Practice” (pp. 152–160 only)
Chapter 10, “Overview: The Economics and Finance of Health Care” (pp. 183–191 only)

American Nurses Association (ANA). (n.d.). Advocacy. Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://www.nursingworld.org/practice-policy/advocacy/

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (n.d.). Step by step: Evaluating violence and injury prevention policies: Brief 4: Evaluating policy implementation. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/policy/Brief%204-a.pdf

Congress.gov. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://www.congress.gov/

Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1055–1080.

Sacristán, J., & Dilla, T. D. (2015). No big data without small data: Learning health care systems begin and end with the individual patient. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 21(6), 1014–1017.

Tummers, L., & Bekkers, V. (2014). Policy implementation, street level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion. Public Management Review, 16(4), 527–547.

Name: NURS_6050_Module04_Week07_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View
List View

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