You must use this template for Soap note (attached below)(second attach)

Soap note about A patient with  Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease  

The Chief Complaint, Patient info, HPI, Plan section, and references must all be of your own work and no copy-paste.

The Main Areas of Focus that will be checked for plagiarism is Chief Complain, History of Present Illness (HPI), Assessment with Rationale and Explanation, and the Plan. All of this should be in your own words and not copy-pasted from a past note or website or book. There should be minimum likeness noted by turn it in software in these areas. 

The Objective and Subjective information can be from a template (Standard Documentation) and will only be looked at for content and not for plagiarism.

 Follow the  Soap Note Rubric as a guide 

Use APA format and must include minimum of 2 Scholarly Citations. (no more than 5 years)

 Turn it in Score must be less than 10% or will not be accepted for credit, must be your own work and in your own words.  Copy paste from websites or textbooks will not be accepted or tolerated. Please see College Handbook with reference to Academic Misconduct Statement. 

 The Assessment and Plan should be of your own work and individualized to your made up patient.  

About the complementary test indicated for the patient,  the results found need to be explained

Assignment (3–4 pages, not including title and reference pages):

Assignment Option 1: Adult Assessment Tools or Diagnostic Tests:
Include the following:

• A description of how the assessment tool or diagnostic test you were assigned is used in healthcare.
  • What is its purpose?
  • How is it conducted?
  • What information does it gather?
• Based on your research, evaluate the test or the tool’s validity and reliability, and explain any issues with sensitivity, reliability, and predictive values. Include references in appropriate APA formatting.

Case study assignment on:  

• Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test

• Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test
• Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test
• Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test 
• Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test

Consider the opportunity for civil discourse (the concept of being able listen for understanding) on diverse teams. From a leadership perspective, discuss how you can facilitate interactions about diversity, inclusion, and equity among peers and those under your supervision without discounting the perspective of others. Provide a specific example to support your response. PLEASE INCLUDE IN-TEXT CITATION AND REFERENCE

Question 1. Review “Criticism and Judgment: A Critical Look at Scientific Peer Review,” located in topic materials.

Discuss the importance of incorporating feedback from a peer review process and dealing with the experience of uncertainty it may create for both the author and the reviewer. You may share whatever information from your peer review that you are comfortable sharing.

Why is peer review so important and how can we use peer review or the professional critique offered to us to improve our scholarly position?

Question 2. View “Privacy & Health Research in a Data-Driven World” located in topic materials.

After viewing the video, discuss how you plan to protect your patient’s privacy within your project.

View “Privacy & Health Research in a Data-Driven World,” located on the NIH Videocasting website.

URL:

https://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?Live=33360&start=182&duration=8224&bhcp=1

Please use the following articles, professor feedback, rubric and attached PowerPoint

Assignment: Evidence-Based Capstone Project, Part 6: Disseminating Results

The dissemination of EBP results serves multiple important roles. Sharing results makes the case for your decisions. It also adds to the body of knowledge, which creates opportunities for future practitioners. By presenting results, you also become an advocate for EBP, creating a culture within your organization or beyond that informs, educates, and promotes the effective use of EBP.

To Prepare:

• Review the final PowerPoint presentation you submitted in Module 5, and make any necessary changes based on the feedback you have received and on lessons you have learned throughout the course.
• Consider the best method of disseminating the results of your presentation to an audience.

To Complete:

Create a 5-minute, 5- to 6-slide narrated PowerPoint presentation of your Evidence-Based Project.

• Be sure to incorporate any feedback or changes from your presentation submission in Module 5.
• Explain how you would disseminate the results of your project to an audience. Provide a rationale for why you selected this dissemination strategy.

Articles

Membrive-Jiménez, M. J., Pradas-Hernández, L., Suleiman-Martos, N., Vargas-Román, K., Cañadas-De la Fuente, G. A., Gomez-Urquiza, J. L., & De la Fuente-Solana, E. I. (2020). Burnout in Nursing Managers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Related Factors, Levels and Prevalence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11). https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.3390/ijerph17113983 

Chiara Dall’Ora, Jane Ball, Maria Reinius, & Peter Griffiths. (2020). Burnout in nursing: a theoretical review. Human Resources for Health, 18(1), 1–17. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1186/s12960-020-00469-9 

Adams, A., Hollingsworth, A., & Osman, A. (2019). The Implementation of a Cultural Change Toolkit to Reduce Nursing Burnout and Mitigate Nurse Turnover in the Emergency Department. JEN: Journal of Emergency Nursing, 45(4), 452.

Suleiman-Martos, N., Gomez-Urquiza, J. L., Aguayo-Estremera, R., Cañadas-De La Fuente, G. A., De La Fuente-Solana, E. I., & Albendín-García, L. (2020). The effect of mindfulness training on burnout syndrome in nursing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal Of Advanced Nursing. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1111/jan.14318 

Professor’s Feedback

Nice title slide.

Slide 2:  ”They aspire…” “Their vision….” “Their mission….”   WHO is “they/their”?   

The current problem is not completely defined.  There are no notes pages.   Scope of the problem is not clearly defined.  There are only two sources listed-what about the four studies that should be critiqued here?

For the tables, share results not process. What did you learn about your topic specifically from the tables? This is the evidence to support the change you want to make.

The elements required are incomplete.  Be sure to review the rubric each week, and to fully describe and discuss as required.  Thanks for your hard work this week.  I appreciate your efforts.  I look forward to more information next week.  

RUBRIC

Part 6: Disseminating Results

Create a 5-minute, 5- to 6-slide narrated PowerPoint presentation of your Evidence-Based Project:

·   Be sure to incorporate any feedback or changes from your presentation submission in Module 5.
·   Explain how you would disseminate the results of your project to an audience. Provide a rationale for why you selected this dissemination strategy.–

Levels of Achievement:Excellent 81 (81.00%) – 90 (90.00%)The narrated presentation accurately and completely summarizes the evidence-based project. The narrated presentation is professional in nature and thoroughly addresses all components of the evidence-based project.

The narrated presentation accurately and clearly explains in detail how to disseminate the results of the project to an audience, citing specific and relevant examples.

The narrated presentation accurately and clearly provides a justification that details the selection of this dissemination strategy that is fully supported by specific and relevant examples.

The narrated presentation provides a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources related to the dissemination strategy explained. The narrated presentation fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the presentation.Good 72 (72.00%) – 80 (80.00%)The narrated presentation adequately summarizes the evidence-based project. The narrated presentation is professional in nature and adequately addresses the components of the evidence-based project.

The narrated presentation accurately explains how to disseminate the results of the project to an audience; some specific examples may be provided.

The narrated presentation accurately provides a justification for the selection of this dissemination strategy and may be supported by specific examples.

The narrated presentation provides an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource related to the dissemination strategy explained. The narrated presentation integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the presentation.Fair 63 (63.00%) – 71 (71.00%)The narrated presentation vaguely, inaccurately, or incompletely summarizes the evidence-based project. The narrated presentation may be professional in nature and somewhat addresses the components of the evidence-based project.

The narrated presentation inaccurately or vaguely explains how to disseminate the results of the project to an audience; inaccurate or vague examples may be provided.

The narrated presentation inaccurately or vaguely provides a justification for the selection of this dissemination strategy and may be supported by inaccurate or vague examples.

The narrated presentation provides a vague or inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed related to the dissemination strategy explained. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the presentation.Poor 0 (0.00%) – 62 (62.00%)The narrated presentation vaguely and inaccurately summarizes the evidence-based project or is missing. The narrated presentation is not professional in nature and inaccurately and incompletely addresses the components of the evidence-based project or is missing.

The narrated presentation vaguely and inaccurately explains how to disseminate the results of the project to an audience, no examples are provided, or it is missing.

The narrated presentation vaguely and inaccurately provides a justification for the selection of this dissemination strategy, no examples are provided, or it is missing.

The narrated presentation provides a vague and inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed related to the dissemination strategy explained or is missing. The presentation fails to integrate any resources to support the presentation.

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 is provided which delineates all required criteria.–

Levels of Achievement:Excellent 5 (5.00%) – 5 (5.00%)Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.Good 4 (4.00%) – 4 (4.00%)Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated yet is brief and not descriptive.Fair 3.5 (3.50%) – 3.5 (3.50%)Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.Poor 0 (0.00%) – 3 (3.00%)Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time.

No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.

Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards:

Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.–

Levels of Achievement:Excellent 5 (5.00%) – 5 (5.00%)Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.Good 4 (4.00%) – 4 (4.00%)Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.Fair 3.5 (3.50%) – 3.5 (3.50%)Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.Poor 0 (0.00%) – 3 (3.00%)Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.