Posted: September 13th, 2017

nurse’s assessment of learning needs and the patient or family member’s readiness to learn.

nurse’s assessment of learning needs and the patient or family member’s readiness to learn.
Example:
Scenario for Mr. Jones
Jane Doe (your name here)
• Mr. Jones is a 54-year-old male recently diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.
• His wife has accompanied him to the oncologist’s office.
• Both have a high school education.
• Mr. Jones has no interest in his diagnosis; his father died at an early age from pancreatic cancer, and he thinks nothing can be done.
• Mrs. Jones is greatly interested in any treatment; she has been searching on the Internet for alternative cures.
• Mrs. Jones has asked the nurse for help on how to determine whether a website is credible.
2) Criteria Slide: This slide should address at least four (4) criteria used to evaluate websites. This information was presented in NR351: Transitions in Professional Nursing and in various articles, your text, and other references. The task is to explain how to determine the credibility of websites and teach it to the patient and/or caregiver described in the Scenario Slide. Concentrate on evaluation of information, not how to search. Assume that the patient or caregiver has basic Internet searching skills, a computer in the home, and can enter words in the query box in a search engine such as Google, Bing, Yahoo, and so forth. The idea is to teach your patients how to evaluate websites (suspect and credible) as they relate to a specific disease process or diagnosis.
The format of the criteria should be logical and easy to read, for example, a table, checklist, or Q & A. Be creative! Language should be appropriate for the educational level of the audience, in other words, the patient and/or caregiver as described in the Scenario Slide. Note: This is the only slide that requires a citation.
3) Suspect Site Slide: This slide should give the name and description of a suspect website. The suspect website must be related to the disease or diagnosis identified in the scenario. However, the site does not meet the criteria for a credible site, for example, gives inaccurate information, and so forth. You must provide a working link to the site. Wikipedia is not acceptable! Explain why the site is suspect based on the criteria you outlined in the Criteria Slide.
4) Credible Site Slide: This slide should give the name and description of a credible website that you would recommend to the patient and/or caregiver/family member. The website must be appropriate for the general public and address the disease process or diagnosis identified in the Scenario Slide. Avoid sites that are aimed at healthcare professionals. Explain why the site is credible based on criteria that you outlined in the Criteria Slide.
B. If you need assistance using PowerPoint, search tutorials about how to use PowerPoint on the Microsoft Office site.
C. The following are the scholarly writing requirements for this assignment:
a. Your name appears on the Scenario Slide.
b. No more than four slides should be submitted. Points will be deducted for additional slides.
c. The four slides pertain to the
I. scenario;
II. criteria for selection of credible sites;
III. suspect site; and
IV. credible site.
d. The links for the suspect and credible sites are working and formatted correctly.
e. Punctuation and sentence structure are correct with no spelling or grammatical errors.
f. Graphics, colored slides, and interesting backgrounds are welcome; however, they are not part of the criteria for this assignment and are not considered for grading purposes.
D. Review the section on Academic Honesty found in the RNBSN Policies. All work must be original (in your own words) unless properly cited.
GRADING CRITERIA
Category Points % Description
Scenario Slide 35 20% Scenario is clear and concise, including a disease process or diagnosis as well as the nurse’s assessment of learning needs and readiness to learn.
Criteria Slide 40 23% Format of criteria is logical and easy to read, for example, a table, checklist, or Q & A. Criteria for websites are clear and concise. Specific citation for criteria is noted.
Suspect Website Slide 40 23% Suspect site is not appropriate for general public, gives inaccurate information, or does not address identified needs of patient/caregiver or the diagnosis/disease indicated.
Suspect Website Slide Working Link 5 2.5% Link to the suspect site is operational.
Credible Website Slide 40 23% Credible website selected is appropriate for general public. Site addresses disease or diagnosis and offers general information for the public.
Credible Website Working Link 5 2.5% Link to recommended site is operational.
Scholarly Writing and Formatting 10 6% • Name of student appears on Scenario Slide or Cover Slide
• Only four slides are provided:
o Scenario
o Criteria
o Suspect Site
o Credible Site
• Punctuation and sentence structure are correct.
• Evidence of spell and grammar check
Total 175 points 100% A quality assignment will meet or exceed all of the above requirements.

GRADING RUBRIC

Assignment Criteria A
Outstanding or Highest Level of Performance B
Very Good or High Level of Performance C
Competent or Satisfactory Level of Performance F
Poor or Failing or Unsatisfactory Level of Performance
Scenario Slide
35 points Scenario is a clear and concise description of patient with a specific disease or diagnosis who is seeking information, including the nurse’s assessment of learning needs and readiness to learn.
32–35 points Scenario is not clear and concise with description of patient with specific disease or diagnosis. Scenario does not describe the nurse’s assessment of learning needs OR does not include readiness to learn.
30–31 points Scenario exceeds more than one slide.
Scenario does not describe assessment of learning needs and readiness to learn.
Description of disease process or diagnosis is missing.
27–29 points Scenario exceeds more than one slide. Description of disease process or diagnosis is missing. Learning needs and/or readiness to learn are not addressed. Demographic information is missing.
0–26 points
Criteria Slide
40 points At least four criteria are included and are logical and easy to read; for example, a table, checklist, or Q & A. Citation is provided.
37–40 points Three criteria are included and are not logical or easy to read. Formatting is not apparent. Citation is missing.
34–36 points Two criteria are included and are not logical or easy to read. Formatting is incorrect. Citation is missing.
30–33 points Only one criterion is included. Formatting is incorrect. Citation is missing.
0–29 points
Suspect Website Slide
40 points Suspect website is appropriate for general public and clearly identifies areas of concern based on Criteria Slide.
37–40 points Suspect website is appropriate for general public but areas of concern related to Criteria Slide are difficult to determine.
34–36 points Suspect website is not appropriate for general public but areas of concern related to Criteria Slide are apparent.
30–33 points Suspect website is not appropriate for general public and areas of concern related to Criteria Slide are NOT apparent.
0–29 points
Suspect Website Slide Working Link
5 points Link to suspect site is operational and leads to indicated site.
5 points Link to suspect site is non-operational but placing URL in browser leads to indicated site.
4 points Link to suspect site is non-operational and placing URL in browser does NOT lead to indicated site.
3 points Link for suspect site is not provided.
0–2 points
Credible Website Slide
40 points Credible website is appropriate for general public. Site is directly related to disease process or diagnosis and offers appropriate information. It clearly identifies areas of concern based on Criteria Slide.
37–40 points Credible website is geared to the healthcare provider rather than the general public. It addresses disease process or diagnosis but does offer appropriate information for the general public.
Does not identify areas of concern based on Criteria Slide.
34–36 points Credible website is geared to the healthcare provider rather than the general public. It addresses disease process or diagnosis but does not offer any appropriate information for the general public. Areas of concern based on Criteria Slide are not apparent.
30–33 points Website chosen is not credible and the evaluation does not relate to the criteria indicated on Criteria Slide.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂