Week 1 Discussion: Building a Health History/NURS 6512

Week 1 Discussion: Building a Health History/NURS 6512

Week 1 Discussion: Building a Health History/NURS 6512

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.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE Week 1 Discussion: Building a Health History/NURS 6512 HERE

Thanks for stopping by this assessment. We can assist you in completing it and other subsequent ones. Our expert writers will comprehensively review instructions, synthesize external evidence sources, and customize an A-grade paper for YOU!!!

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.

Resources

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

To prepare

With the information presented in Chapter 1 of Ball et al. in mind, consider the following:

By Day 1 of this week, you will be assigned a new patient profile by your Instructor for this Discussion. Note: Please see the “Course Announcements” section of the classroom for your new patient profile assignment.

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.

By Day 3 of Week 1

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.

Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the Reply button to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Post Reply, you cannot delete or edit your own posts and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Post Reply!

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.

By Day 6 of Week 1

Respond to at least two of your colleagues on 2 different days who selected a different patient than you, using one or more of the following approaches:

Share additional interview and communication techniques that could be effective with your colleague’s selected patient.

Suggest additional health-related risks that might be considered.

Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research

NURS_6512_Week_1_Discussion_Rubric

NURS_6512_Week_1_Discussion_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Main Posting

50 to >44.0 pts

Excellent

“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.

44 to >39.0 pts

Good

“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.

39 to >34.0 pts

Fair

“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.

34 to >0 pts

Poor

“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.
50 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Main Post: Timeliness

10 to >0.0 pts

Excellent

Posts main post by Day 3.

0 pts

Fair

N/A

0 pts

Good

N/A

0 pts

Poor

Does not post main post by Day 3.
10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome First Response

18 to >16.0 pts

Excellent

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE Week 1 Discussion: Building a Health History/NURS 6512 HERE

“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.

16 to >14.0 pts

Good

“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.

14 to >12.0 pts

Fair

“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.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

“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.

18 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Second Response

17 to >15.0 pts

Excellent

“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.

15 to >13.0 pts

Good

“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.

13 to >11.0 pts

Fair

“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.

11 to >0 pts

Poor

“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.

17 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Participation
5 to >0.0 pts

Excellent

Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

0 pts

Fair

N/A

0 pts

Good

N/A

0 pts

Poor

Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
5 pts

Total Points: 100