Reflect on your overall practicum experience in this course. Then, address the following in your Practicum Journal:

• Explain whether your therapeutic theory has changed as a result of your practicum experiences. Recall the theories you selected in Week 1.
• Explain how you integrated the therapeutic approaches from this course in your clinical practice. Include how this helped you achieve the goals and objectives you developed in Week 1.
• Explain how you might impact social change through your work with clients who have mental health issues.
• Support your approach with evidence-based literature.

  

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.

Post a description of the recent proposed health policy you selected and a brief background for the problem or issue being addressed. Explain whether you believe there is an evidence base to support the proposed policy and explain why. Be specific and provide examples

  

76-year-old Iranian Male with Alzheimer’s Disease

BACKGROUND

Mr. Akkad is a 76 year old Iranian male who is brought to your office by his eldest son for “strange behavior.” Mr. Akkad was seen by his family physician who ruled out any organic basis for Mr. Akkad’s behavior. All laboratory and diagnostic imaging tests (including CT-scan of the head) were normal.

According to his son, he has been demonstrating some strange thoughts and behaviors for the past two years, but things seem to be getting worse. Per the client’s son, the family noticed that Mr. Akkad’s personality began to change a few years ago. He began to lose interest in religious activities with the family and became more “critical” of everyone. They also noticed that things he used to take seriously had become a source of “amusement” and “ridicule.”

Over the course of the past two years, the family has noticed that Mr. Akkad has been forgetting things. His son also reports that sometimes he has difficult “finding the right words” in a conversation and then will shift to an entirely different line of conversation.

 
 

SUBJECTIVE

During the clinical interview, Mr. Akkad is pleasant, cooperative and seems to enjoy speaking with you. You notice some confabulation during various aspects of memory testing, so the PMHNP performs a Mini-Mental State Exam. Mr. Akkad scores 18 out of 30 with primary deficits in orientation, registration, attention & calculation, and recall. The score suggests moderate dementia.

 
 

MENTAL STATUS EXAM

Mr. Akkad is 76 year old Iranian male who is cooperative with today’s clinical interview. His eye contact is poor. Speech is clear, coherent, but tangential at times. He makes no unusual motor movements and demonstrates no tic. Self-reported mood is euthymic. Affect however is restricted. He denies visual or auditory hallucinations. No delusional or paranoid thought processes noted. He is alert and oriented to person, partially oriented to place, but is disoriented to time and event [he reports that he thought he was coming to lunch but “wound up here”- referring to your office, at which point he begins to laugh]. Insight and judgment are impaired. Impulse control is also impaired as evidenced by Mr. Akkad’s standing up during the clinical interview and walking towards the door. When the PMHNP asked where he was going, he stated that he did not know. Mr. Akkad denies suicidal or homicidal ideation.

Diagnosis: Major neurocognitive disorder due to Alzheimer’s disease (presumptive)

Decision Point One #1

Select what the PMHNP should do:

Begin Exelon (rivastigmine) 1.5 mg orally BID with an increase to 3 mg orally BID in 2 weeks

RESULTS OF DECISION POINT ONE

Client returns to clinic in four weeks

The client is accompanied by his son who reports that his father is “no better” from this medication. He reports that his father is still disinterested in attending religious services/activities, and continues to exhibit disinhibited behaviors

You continue to note confabulation and decide to administer the MMSE again. Mr. Akkad again scores 18 out of 30 with primary deficits in orientation, registration, attention & calculation, and recall

Decision Point Two #2

Select what the PMHNP should do:

Increase Exelon to 4.5 mg orally BID

RESULTS OF DECISION POINT TWO

Client returns to clinic in four weeks

Client’s son reports that the client is tolerating the medication well, but is still concerned that his father is no better

He states that his father is attending religious services with the family, which the son and the rest of the family is happy about. He reports that his father is still easily amused by things he once found serious

Decision Point Three #3

Select what the PMHNP should do next:

Increase Exelon to 6 mg orally BID

Guidance to Student

 At this point, the client is reporting no side effects and is participating in an important part of family life (religious services). This could speak to the fact that the medication may have improved some symptoms. The PMHNP needs to counsel the client’s son on the trajectory of presumptive Alzheimer’s disease in that it is irreversible, and while cholinesterase inhibitors can stabilize symptoms, this process can take months. Also, these medications are incapable of reversing the degenerative process. Some improvements in problematic behaviors (such as disinhibition) may be seen, but not in all clients.

At this point, the PMHNP could maintain the current dose until the next visit in 4 weeks, or the PMHNP could increase it to 6 mg orally BID and see how the client is doing in 4 more weeks. Augmentation with Namenda is another possibility, but the PMHNP should maximize the dose of the cholinesterase inhibitor before adding augmenting agents. However, some experts argue that combination therapy should be used from the onset of treatment.

Finally, it is important to note that changes in the MMSE should be evaluated over the course of months, not weeks. The absence of change in the MMSE after 4 weeks of treatment should not be a source of concern.

The Assignment

Examine Case Study: An Elderly Iranian Man With Alzheimer’s Disease. 

You will be asked to make three decisions concerning the medication to prescribe to this client. Be sure to consider factors that might impact the client’s pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes.

· At each decision point stop to complete the following:

·  

o Decision #1

o  

§ Which decision did you select?

§ Why did you select this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

§ What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

§ Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #1 and the results of the decision. Why were they different?

§  

o Decision #2

o  

§ Why did you select this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

§ What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

§ Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #2 and the results of the decision. Why were they different?

o Decision #3

o  

§ Why did you select this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

§ What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

§ Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #3 and the results of the decision. Why were they different?

· Also include how ethical considerations might impact your treatment plan and communication with clients.

·  

Note: Support your rationale with a minimum of three academic resources. 

 

Collaboration and Partnerships in the Community

In reviewing the lessons that we have touched upon this quarter, discuss the need for collaboration and partnerships with existing groups within the community and why new groups are crucial to this process. How does this collaboration help nurses in public health assist clients to modify unhealthy behaviors and develop strategies to improve their health?

 e-Textbook  Stanhope, M. & Lancaster, J. (2018). Foundations for Population Health in Community/Public Health Nursing (5 th ed.). Elsevier. (e-Book) 

 

Health Policy Group Project

Work with your assigned group and assigned question. Identify the historical perspective, current issues/ problems (include regulations), and what is currently being done to change or improve.  Students will be graded as a group.

Please demonstrate engagement within group work.

• Review the literature and address one of the following:
  • Nurse Informaticists:Your group has been assigned to determine the impact the role of the NI has on patient outcomes. Select a topic from Ch 24 ( Hamric). What law(s) was enacted to regulate health information? Please address questions below and the position on this regulation in a narrative format. 

For the above assignment,  use the following guide:

• Describe the current policy/status, which organization regulates and determine if it needs to change; if opposed to change, state why.
• Provide the process required to make the change with key players and parties of interest; identify the groups who are opposed
• Explain how AP roles (which ones) could lead the effort to make or influence the change in policy or keep the policy the same and the impact in healthcare quality.
• Demonstrate group cohesiveness

Submission Details:

• Support your responses with examples.
• Cite any sources in APA format.
• Submit your document to the Submissions Area by the due date assigned.