Iturralde v. Hilo Medical Center USA 2025

Determine ethical theories and decision-making models appropriate for healthcare providers to use for providing a safe, quality healthcare experience for the patient  Analyze the role of professional regulation, the standard of care, and codes of ethics in determining healthcare providers’ wide-ranging accountability to self, their profession, their patients, and the public Prompt In this project, you will analyze a court case involving medical malpractice. Using your analysis of the case, you will address the facts pertaining to the medical standard of care, breach of care, and causation. Further, you will use the facts from the original case to identify an ethics issue, determine an ethical theory that would help provide a safe and quality healthcare experience for the patient, apply a clinician–patient shared decision-making model, and augment or vary the facts of the case to change the outcome. You will use the following case to analyze for Final Project I:  Surgery: Iturralde v. Hilo Medical Center USA Specifically, your case study must address the following critical elements: I. Introduction: A. Summarize the selected case, including information on the stakeholders involved, the problem, and the time period the incident occurred. II. Medical Malpractice Component: In this section, you will evaluate the case to address the legal components, the malpractice policies similar to this case, and the standard of care given to the patient and how it was breached. Then, you will draw connections to how this malpractice case impacted stakeholders and healthcare consumers outside of the case. A. Explain the key legal components of the case, including the nature of the issue and the rules that applied. B. Determine relevant malpractice policies in place for addressing the issues within the case. C. Analyze the malpractice case for the standard of care provided to the victim. Be sure to apply what the law states about standard of care to support whether or not it was breached in the case. D. Analyze how the malpractice case would impact healthcare consumers from different cultural backgrounds. For example, would this case have a similar impact on a person from a culture different from the one in the case? How could this incident change the views of these healthcare consumers toward the healthcare system? E. Assess the malpractice case for accountability based on its severity. To what extent was the healthcare provider held accountable? 3 III. Ethical Component: In this section, you will evaluate the case to identify the specific ethical issues and determine ethical theories and shared decision- making models that would help resolve the issue and provide a safe, quality healthcare experience. Then, you will propose and defend ethical guidelines for healthcare providers to follow in order to avoid future incidents. A. Describe the ethical issues that led to the malpractice case and explain why the issues are credited with causing the incident. Support your response with research and relevant examples from the case. B. Describe an ethical theory that would help resolve the issue and provide a safe, quality healthcare experience for the patient. Support your response with research and relevant examples from the case. C. Select a physician–patient shared decision-making model and explain how it would provide a safe, quality healthcare experience for the patient D. Propose ethical guidelines that would have helped prevent the incident and would help the organization prevent future incidents. E. Defend how your proposed ethical guidelines will hold healthcare providers accountable to themselves, their profession, their patients, and the public. II. Recommendations: In this section, you will utilize the knowledge you gained from your malpractice and ethical analyses to recommend and defend strategies that would help improve medical practices and avoid future liability. A. Recommend preventative strategies the healthcare provider could implement to avoid liability in the future. B. Defend how your recommended preventative strategies would assist the healthcare provider in avoiding liability and provide a safe, quality healthcare experience for the patient.

Nursing Assignment Help 2025

assignment 2025

Refer back to the interview and evaluation you conducted in the Topic 2 Family Health Assessment assignment. Identify the social determinates of health (SDOH) contributing to the family’s health status. In a 750-1,000-word paper, create a plan of action to incorporate health promotion strategies for this family. Include the following: Describe the SDOH that affect the family health status. What is the impact of these SDOH on the family? Discuss why these factors are prevalent for this family. Based on the information gathered through the family health assessment, recommend age-appropriate screenings for each family member. Provide support and rationale for your suggestions. Choose a health model to assist in creating a plan of action. Describe the model selected. Discuss the reasons why this health model is the best choice for this family. Provide rationale for your reasoning. Using the model, outline the steps for a family-centered health promotion. Include strategies for communication. Cite at least three peer-reviewed or scholarly sources to complete this assignment. Sources should be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the assignment criteria. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required. This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

Nursing Assignment Help 2025

Family health Assessment Part 2 2025

Family Assessment Part II View Rubric Due Date: Feb 17, 2019 23:59:59 Max Points: 150 Details: Refer back to the interview and evaluation you conducted in the Topic 2 Family Health Assessment assignment. Identify the social determinates of health (SDOH) contributing to the family’s health status. In a 750-1,000-word paper, create a plan of action to incorporate health promotion strategies for this family. Include the following: Describe the SDOH that affect the family health status. What is the impact of these SDOH on the family? Discuss why these factors are prevalent for this family. Based on the information gathered through the family health assessment, recommend age-appropriate screenings for each family member. Provide support and rationale for your suggestions. Choose a health model to assist in creating a plan of action. Describe the model selected. Discuss the reasons why this health model is the best choice for this family. Provide rationale for your reasoning. Using the model, outline the steps for a family-centered health promotion. Include strategies for communication. Cite at least three peer-reviewed or scholarly sources to complete this assignment. Sources should be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the assignment criteria.Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion. You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center. Family Assessment Part II 1 Unsatisfactory 0.00%2 Less than Satisfactory 75.00%3 Satisfactory 79.00%4 Good 89.00%5 Excellent 100.00% 80.0 %Content20.0 %SDOH Affecting Family and Family Health Status SDOH affecting family health status, and the direct impact to the family, are not presented.SDOH affecting family health status are partially presented. SDOH listed are not relevant to the family. The direct impact to the family, and why the factors are prevalent to the family, are unclear. There are inaccuracies.Key SDOH affecting family health status are summarized. The SDOH identified are relevant to the family. The direct impact to the family, and why the factors are prevalent to the family, are generally discussed. More support or rationale is needed in some areas.The overall SDOH affecting family health status are accurately identified and described. The SDOH identified are relevant to the family. The direct impact to the family, and why the factors are prevalent to the family, are discussed. The SDOH directly affecting family health status are relevant, accurately identified and thoroughly described. The direct impact to the family, and why the factors are prevalent to the family, are discussed in detail. The discussion is well supported and illustrates insight into SDOH and their effect on family health status. 20.0 %Age-Appropriate Screening Recommendations Age-appropriate screenings are not presented.Screenings are presented for some family members. The screenings are not age appropriate. Screenings are not relevant to the information gathered through family health assessment. Screenings are presented for each family member. Screenings are generally age appropriate, but entirely not relevant based on the information gathered through family health assessment. More rationale and support is required.Screenings presented for each family member are age appropriate. Screenings are relevant and based on the information gathered through family health assessment. Some minor rationale or support is needed.Screenings presented for each family member are age appropriate and highly relevant. Screenings correlate to the information gathered through family health assessment. Strong rationale and support is presented. 20.0 %Assessment of Health Model A health model to assist in the creation of a plan of action is not presented. The model chosen is not a health model.A health model is selected to assist in creating a plan of action. The description of the model is incomplete. It is unclear why the chosen model is best for this family.A health model is selected and described. A summary of how the model will assist in creating a plan of action is presented. A general overview for why it is best for this family is provided. More rationale and support is required.A health model is selected and described. A discussion of how the model will assist in creating a plan of action is presented. Reasons for why it is best for this family are provided. Some rationale or support is needed.A health model is selected and thoroughly described. A detailed discussion of how the model will assist in creating a plan of action is presented. Reasons for why it is best for this family are clearly outlined. Strong rationale and support are provided to support reasoning. 20.0 %Application of Health Model Family-centered health promotion using selected health model is omitted. Steps for a family-centered health promotion are partially presented. The health promotion is not based on the health model. Significant aspects are missing. There are major inaccuracies.The health model is used to create a general family-centered health promotion. The steps to achieve the desired outcome require more detail to illustrate a clear plan of action. A general plan for communication with the family is presented. More rationale and support is required.The health model is used to create a relevant family-centered health promotion. The steps to achieve the desired outcome are illustrated. Strategies for communication with the family are presented.The health model is used to create a relevant and viable family-centered health promotion. The steps to achieve the desired outcome are described in detail. Appropriate strategies for communication with the family are clearly presented. The health promotion is well-designed and demonstrates an ability to assimilate findings and appropriately apply theoretical knowledge to achieve desired outcomes. 15.0 %Organization and Effectiveness 5.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. 15.0 %Organization and Effectiveness 5.0 %Argument Logic and Construction Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. 15.0 %Organization and Effectiveness 5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present.Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. 5.0 %Format2.0 %Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.All format elements are correct. 3.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) Sources are not documented.Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. 100 %Total Weightage

Nursing Assignment Help 2025

NURS 3375 Health Policy and Legal Aspect (Assignment) 2025

Overview: Peer Review In the Module 3 Reflection Assignment, you will reflect upon what you have learned about Peer Review Committee processes and Texas Board of Nursing rules as you consider the actions of fictitious nurses and committee members in scenarios. REMEMBER, YOU ARE USING THE TEXAS BOARD OF NURSING RULES, NOT THE STATE YOU LIVE IN. Please use the link provided in the assignment for the Texas BON Rule 217.16. ALSO, THERE ARE 2 PARTS TO THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU COMPLETE BOTH PARTS. Refer to your course readings and lectures as you complete the assignment. Performance Objectives: · Apply the Minor Incident Rule to specific incidents. · Describe the due process protections for a nurse who is peer-reviewed. Rubric Use this rubric to guide your work on the assignment, “Peer Review.” Task Accomplished Proficient Needs Improvement Part 1 (a) Applying Rule 217.16 (Total 50 points) Lists all the correct 5 criteria, accurately explains application of  criteria clearly. (25 points) Lists 3 or 4 of the  correct criteria, accurately explains application of these criteria (15 points) Lists 2 applications of criteria. 10 points) Incorrectly lists criteria (0  point) Part  1 (b) Reflects upon applications of Rule 217.16 (Total 25 points) Correctly states if nurse should be reported or not reported with 3 substantial sentences. (25 points) Correctly states if nurse should be reported or not reported with 2 sentences. (15 point) Writes 1 sentence. (10 points) Incorrectly judges whether violations occurred (0 point) Part  2 Violation of IBPR Rule 217.19 (Total  25 points) Correctly listed the 4 violations and provides correct explanations (25 points) Correctly lists 2-3 violations and explanations (15 points) Lists 1 violation and explanation (10 points) Incorrectly lists criteria (0 point) All 5 questions correct (25 points) 4 questions correct (20 points) 3 questions correct (15 points) 2 questions correct (10 points) 1 question correct (5 points) 0 questions correct (0 point) Part 1: (a) Applying Rule 217.16(h) Minor Incidents Read the following scenario and then answer the questions that follow: You are on your hospital’s Peer Review Committee (PRC). You are reviewing Nurse A’s practice. She works on the pediatric unit. In the past, Nurse A has practiced safely without incidents. However, four months ago, Nurse A gave immunizations to five pediatric patients (3 months, 9 months, 2 years, 4 years, and 5 years of age). She used a vial of Hepatitis B vaccine that had been expired for 30 days but still was being stored in the unit refrigerator. She gave the five immunizations within a few minutes of each other, and she got the vial from the refrigerator only once (i.e., She did not take it out and replace it five times). She took responsibility for the errors when she was informed by her unit manager. Should Nurse A be reported to the BON? Let’s review what deems a minor vs. a reportable (NOT minor) incident- A minor incident is- 217.16(a)- as defined under the Texas Nursing Practice Act, Texas Occupations Code §301.401(2), means conduct by a nurse that may be a violation of the Texas Nursing Practice Act or a Board rule but does not indicate the nurse’s continued practice poses a risk of harm to a patient or another person. A reportable incident is- 217.16(h)- conduct that falls outside of the definition of a minor incident and must be reported to a PRC or BON. Apply the Minor Incident Rule to reach and support your decision. This Rule 217.16 can be found at http://www.bon.texas.gov/rr_current/217-16.asp Use this specific link only- it is the official updated Texas Board of Nursing information. Click on the link and scroll down to the bottom to find the letter (h), where criteria are listed that describes actions that must be reported to the Peer Review Committee or BON. Criteria. In the first column of the table, list the 5 criteria as it appears in the rule that are essential in determining if an incident is a reportable action. All 5 must be listed for full credit. Then, in the second column, record your explanation as to why or why not the nurse’s actions deem it reportable and therefore harmful to a patient. Criteria that determine an incident is reportable Rule 217.16(h) Explanation of whether or not Nurse A’s actions are minor vs. reportable Criteria : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Part 1: (b) Report vs. Not Report Based on the Rule 217.16(h) criteria you listed above, would you report Nurse A to the Board? Please explain why or why not. At least 3 substantial sentences are needed for full credit.:  (Explain below) Part 2: Applying Rule 217.19 Incident-Based Peer Review Read the following scenario and then reflect upon the actions it portrays.: Last month, the chairperson of your hospital’s Peer Review Committee (PRC) passed you in the hallway and said, “I’m glad I ran into you. You’re going to be peer-reviewed.” The chairperson continued, saying, “Your manager found out that you called the Texas Department of State Health Services two months ago and reported that LVNs were being allowed to do the complete initial assessment on patients. Also, you made some medication errors over the past couple of months. I’ll let you know when the meeting is to occur.” You heard nothing more about the PRC meeting. Today, the chairperson came to you and told you that you had been reported to the Texas Board of Nursing. She said, “It was just felt by the work group that you are a troublemaker and lack the skills to practice due to your med errors. I’m also giving you a ‘heads up’ that you are going to be put on suspension for at least three days by your unit manager.” Applying Rule 217.19, what violations of the rule occurred in the above scenario? First, review your learning about incident-based peer review. In the first column of the table, list any 4 criteria from Rule 217.19 that were violated (there are more than 4 to choose from). 1- 2- 3- 4- In the second column, explain how each criterion was violated. All 4 boxes must be completed for full credit. Please use the link provided at http://www.bon.texas.gov/rr_current/217-19.asp Which part of the rule was violated? (Subsection number and letter OR descriptive phrase) (Rule 217.19) Explanation of violation ( from the 4 criteria above): 1. 2. 3. 4.

Nursing Assignment Help 2025

Assignment: Practicum: Cover Letter, Resume, and Portfolio 2025

Your cover letter should be: -Presented and formatted in a professional business manner -Addressed properly -Clear and concise and include: Content Introduction Content Body Content Conclusion -Personal philosophy statement -Self-assessment -Personal goals (short term and long term) -Achievements -2 letter of recomendation SEE ATTACHED ASSIGNMENT TO FOLLOW BUT IT HAS TO BE DIFFERENT. THANK YOU.

Nursing Assignment Help 2025