This is an assignment about a patient and you must create a proposal for practice/ care improvement. must be APA 6 and 1.5 spacing. Referencing must be alphabetical and indented. word limit is 10% - +.
NSG2TCD: Assessment 3 Instructions 2020 NSG2TCD: Assessment 3 Instructions 2020 Assessment 3: Essay: Proposal for practice/care improvement (2,000 words equivalent) (50%) Due Date: Sunday 24 May 2020 at 2355pm. SILOS 1, 2, 3 & 4 Context Mr Barry Ferguson was admitted to your ward in an acute care hospital following several hours overnight in the ED. He had been admitted with difficulty breathing, and he was hot and clammy. He is 88 years old and lives with his wife Betty. They have 4 adult children, 2 males and 2 females and 4 grandchildren. One year ago, he was diagnosed with dementia – no specific type. He has not been in hospital since he broke his leg many years ago after a motorbike accident. He has always been a very active person with lots of community interests and helping neighbours with their gardening. After admission to the ward, you notice that Barry has become very agitated and restless while in bed. He constantly calls out and lashes out at you (nursing student) and other staff when they come to check his observations. Task Use the information provided in Barry’s scenario to prepare a written proposal for a practice /care improvement for him during his time in hospital, using the headings listed below. Detailed instructions: Your proposal should include an introduction and conclusion (400 words). The body of your proposal should include the following 4 sub-headings: Part 1: ‘Barry and his family’s experiences of admission to hospital’ (400 words) From what you have learnt from Module 2 on Experiences of Dementia, write how you imagine Barry and his family are experiencing his admission into hospital, including what you think might be the most difficult aspect of this experience for them and how you as a student nurse cab help Barry and his family. Part 2: ‘Reframing Dementia Care for Barry’ (400 words) From what you have learnt from Module 3 on Reframing Dementia Care, this section should discuss how the disease model would manage Barry’s care and how a different model of care (state the name of the model selected) could be used to provide care to Barry in the acute care setting. Part 3: ‘Caring for Barry’s BPSDs’ (400 words) From what you have learnt from Module 4 on Communicating with People with Dementia and Module 5 on Managing Behavioural and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia, discuss how you might prevent or minimise his BPSDs. Part 4: ‘Nursing care of Barry in an acute hospital’ (400 words) From what you have learnt from Module 6 on Managing other acute care issues for people with dementia discuss how you might improve other relevant aspects of Barry’s care while he is in hospital. Include at least 2 appropriate assessment tools that should be used and describe why they should be used for Barry. Other information · Your proposal should include reference to between 13 and 20 credible peer-reviewed references. · Use APA 6 formatting & citation style (go to http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/referencing-tool/apa-6) · Submit your work via Turnitin using the submission template provided. General Information Please refer to the Subject Learning Guide for information about: · Academic Integrity/Originality · Extensions and Special Consideration · Learning & Support Programs at LTU. · Support from the Library 3 College of SHE School of Nursing and Midwifery NSG2TCD: Template and Marking Rubric - Assessment three Student ID: 20232407 Submission date: 25 May Word count: 2000 TOPIC: Care improvement for Barry Ferguson Criteria Excellent ( A) 80-100% Very Good (B) 70-79% Good (C) 60-69% Fair (D) 50-59% Poor ( N < 50 % ) introduction (5 marks) clearly introduces the scenario. clearly describes the clinical context. clearly introduces the key aspects that will be discussed in the paper e.g. all aspects of the patient’s care. introduces the scenario. describes the clinical context. introduces aspects that will be discussed in the paper. introduces some aspects of the scenario. describes some aspects of the clinical context. introduces some aspects that will be discussed in the paper. introduces limited aspects of the scenario. describes limited aspects of the clinical context. introduces few aspects that will be discussed in the paper or provides too much information. introduction not done or inadequate. fails to introduce aspects of the patient’s care. content (25 mark) excellent discussion on considerations and provision of care for the patient on each of the sections. discussion clearly relates to the initial problem and potential problems. evidence of clear and consistent synthesis of information. very good discussion on considerations and provision of care for the patient on each of the sections. discussion is well related to the initial problem & potential problems. some consistent evidence of synthesis of information. good discussion on considerations for provision of care for the patient on each of the sections. reasonable linkage to the initial problem & potential problems. inconsistent evidence of synthesis of information. limited discussion on considerations for provision of care for the patient using the sections. not linked to the initial problem. limited evidence of synthesis of information. discussion not done or no depth in discussion of the patient’s care using the sections. little connection to the initial problem. no evidence of synthesis of information. conclusion (5 marks) concise overview of the assignment highlighting the main priorities and relating them to the care of the patient. clearly summarises the key aspects of the assignment does not introduce any new material. very good overview of the assignment highlighting the main priorities and relating them to the care of the patient. clearly summarises the key aspects of the assignment does not introduce any new material. good overview of the assignment highlighting the main priorities and relating them to the care of the patient. summarises the key aspects of the assignment but may need further clarity may or may not introduce any new material. provides a general overview of the paper but demonstrates a limited ability to highlight the main priorities. limited ability to link care to the patient. limited ability to summarise the key aspects of the assignment may or may not introduce any new material. conclusion not done/inadequate. introduces new material. academic writing (10 marks) information is well organised; using supplied headings, logical organisation of ideas within and between paragraphs. expression is clear & precise & uses an appropriate narrative style. there are no noticeable errors in vocabulary, grammar, spelling, or punctuation. appropriate word count for each section. the provided template with marking rubric has been used. expression is clear & uses an appropriate narrative style. occasional minor errors may occur in grammar, spelling, punctuation or vocab choice. appropriate word count for each section. the provided template with marking rubric has been used. used. expression is clear but there may be occasional problems with style (e.g., idiomatic language). errors in grammar, vocab, spelling or punctuation are not intrusive & do not interfere with understanding. appropriate word count for each section. the provided template with marking rubric has been used. used. errors in grammar, vocabulary, spelling or punctuation sometimes interfere with understanding. inappropriate word count for each section. the provided template with marking rubric was not used. style is not appropriate for academic work. expression may be limited by the use of a restricted range of vocabulary. errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, and/or word choice are intrusive & frequently interfere with understanding. inappropriate word count for each section. the provided template with marking rubric was not used. use of the research literature (in text and end text reference list). (5 marks) inclusion of an appropriate number of relevant and credible (peer-reviewed), references (journal articles, text books, credible websites, no lecture notes. all reference material is seamlessly integrated with effective paraphrasing & minimal use of direct quotes. accurate use of apa6 for in-text citations & reference list. a good attempt at including an appropriate number of relevant and credible references. a good attempt at seamlessly integrating them into the text. good use of apa6 for in-text citations & reference list. inclusion of an appropriate number of references but includes some that are not peer-reviewed or uses lecture notes. shows reasonable attempt to integrate literature with mostly adequate paraphrasing. good use of apa6 for in-text citations & reference list. poor use of research literature by including most that are not peer-reviewed or uses lecture. poor integration of literature with poor paraphrasing or overuse of quotes. poor use of apa6 for in-text citations & reference list. uses no- credible references throughout paper e.g. wikipedia, better health channel or uses all lecture notes. incorrect or missing integration of literature with poor paraphrasing or overuse of quotes. does not adhere to apa6 format. total marks = 50 mark for this assignment: /50 1 50="" %="" )="" introduction="" (5="" marks)="" clearly="" introduces="" the="" scenario.="" clearly="" describes="" the="" clinical="" context.="" clearly="" introduces="" the="" key="" aspects="" that="" will="" be="" discussed="" in="" the="" paper="" e.g.="" all="" aspects="" of="" the="" patient’s="" care.="" introduces="" the="" scenario.="" describes="" the="" clinical="" context.="" introduces="" aspects="" that="" will="" be="" discussed="" in="" the="" paper.="" introduces="" some="" aspects="" of="" the="" scenario.="" describes="" some="" aspects="" of="" the="" clinical="" context.="" introduces="" some="" aspects="" that="" will="" be="" discussed="" in="" the="" paper.="" introduces="" limited="" aspects="" of="" the="" scenario.="" describes="" limited="" aspects="" of="" the="" clinical="" context.="" introduces="" few="" aspects="" that="" will="" be="" discussed="" in="" the="" paper="" or="" provides="" too="" much="" information.="" introduction="" not="" done="" or="" inadequate.="" fails="" to="" introduce="" aspects="" of="" the="" patient’s="" care.="" content="" (25="" mark)="" excellent="" discussion="" on="" considerations="" and="" provision="" of="" care="" for="" the="" patient="" on="" each="" of="" the="" sections.="" discussion="" clearly="" relates="" to="" the="" initial="" problem="" and="" potential="" problems.="" evidence="" of="" clear="" and="" consistent="" synthesis="" of="" information.="" very="" good="" discussion="" on="" considerations="" and="" provision="" of="" care="" for="" the="" patient="" on="" each="" of="" the="" sections.="" discussion="" is="" well="" related="" to="" the="" initial="" problem="" &="" potential="" problems.="" some="" consistent="" evidence="" of="" synthesis="" of="" information.="" good="" discussion="" on="" considerations="" for="" provision="" of="" care="" for="" the="" patient="" on="" each="" of="" the="" sections.="" reasonable="" linkage="" to="" the="" initial="" problem="" &="" potential="" problems.="" inconsistent="" evidence="" of="" synthesis="" of="" information.="" limited="" discussion="" on="" considerations="" for="" provision="" of="" care="" for="" the="" patient="" using="" the="" sections.="" not="" linked="" to="" the="" initial="" problem.="" limited="" evidence="" of="" synthesis="" of="" information.="" discussion="" not="" done="" or="" no="" depth="" in="" discussion="" of="" the="" patient’s="" care="" using="" the="" sections.="" little="" connection="" to="" the="" initial="" problem.="" no="" evidence="" of="" synthesis="" of="" information.="" conclusion="" (5="" marks)="" concise="" overview="" of="" the="" assignment="" highlighting="" the="" main="" priorities="" and="" relating="" them="" to="" the="" care="" of="" the="" patient.="" clearly="" summarises="" the="" key="" aspects="" of="" the="" assignment="" does="" not="" introduce="" any="" new="" material.="" very="" good="" overview="" of="" the="" assignment="" highlighting="" the="" main="" priorities="" and="" relating="" them="" to="" the="" care="" of="" the="" patient.="" clearly="" summarises="" the="" key="" aspects="" of="" the="" assignment="" does="" not="" introduce="" any="" new="" material.="" good="" overview="" of="" the="" assignment="" highlighting="" the="" main="" priorities="" and="" relating="" them="" to="" the="" care="" of="" the="" patient.="" summarises="" the="" key="" aspects="" of="" the="" assignment="" but="" may="" need="" further="" clarity="" may="" or="" may="" not="" introduce="" any="" new="" material.="" provides="" a="" general="" overview="" of="" the="" paper="" but="" demonstrates="" a="" limited="" ability="" to="" highlight="" the="" main="" priorities.="" limited="" ability="" to="" link="" care="" to="" the="" patient.="" limited="" ability="" to="" summarise="" the="" key="" aspects="" of="" the="" assignment="" may="" or="" may="" not="" introduce="" any="" new="" material.="" conclusion="" not="" done/inadequate.="" introduces="" new="" material.="" academic="" writing="" (10="" marks)="" information="" is="" well="" organised;="" using="" supplied="" headings,="" logical="" organisation="" of="" ideas="" within="" and="" between="" paragraphs.="" expression="" is="" clear="" &="" precise="" &="" uses="" an="" appropriate="" narrative="" style.="" there="" are="" no="" noticeable="" errors="" in="" vocabulary,="" grammar,="" spelling,="" or="" punctuation.="" appropriate="" word="" count="" for="" each="" section.="" the="" provided="" template="" with="" marking="" rubric="" has="" been="" used.="" expression="" is="" clear="" &="" uses="" an="" appropriate="" narrative="" style.="" occasional="" minor="" errors="" may="" occur="" in="" grammar,="" spelling,="" punctuation="" or="" vocab="" choice.="" appropriate="" word="" count="" for="" each="" section.="" the="" provided="" template="" with="" marking="" rubric="" has="" been="" used.="" used.="" expression="" is="" clear="" but="" there="" may="" be="" occasional="" problems="" with="" style="" (e.g.,="" idiomatic="" language).="" errors="" in="" grammar,="" vocab,="" spelling="" or="" punctuation="" are="" not="" intrusive="" &="" do="" not="" interfere="" with="" understanding.="" appropriate="" word="" count="" for="" each="" section.="" the="" provided="" template="" with="" marking="" rubric="" has="" been="" used.="" used.="" errors="" in="" grammar,="" vocabulary,="" spelling="" or="" punctuation="" sometimes="" interfere="" with="" understanding.="" inappropriate="" word="" count="" for="" each="" section.="" the="" provided="" template="" with="" marking="" rubric="" was="" not="" used.="" style="" is="" not="" appropriate="" for="" academic="" work.="" expression="" may="" be="" limited="" by="" the="" use="" of="" a="" restricted="" range="" of="" vocabulary.="" errors="" in="" grammar,="" spelling,="" punctuation,="" and/or="" word="" choice="" are="" intrusive="" &="" frequently="" interfere="" with="" understanding.="" inappropriate="" word="" count="" for="" each="" section.="" the="" provided="" template="" with="" marking="" rubric="" was="" not="" used.="" use="" of="" the="" research="" literature="" (in="" text="" and="" end="" text="" reference="" list).="" (5="" marks)="" inclusion="" of="" an="" appropriate="" number="" of="" relevant="" and="" credible="" (peer-reviewed),="" references="" (journal="" articles,="" text="" books,="" credible="" websites,="" no="" lecture="" notes.="" all="" reference="" material="" is="" seamlessly="" integrated="" with="" effective="" paraphrasing="" &="" minimal="" use="" of="" direct="" quotes.="" accurate="" use="" of="" apa6="" for="" in-text="" citations="" &="" reference="" list.="" a="" good="" attempt="" at="" including="" an="" appropriate="" number="" of="" relevant="" and="" credible="" references.="" a="" good="" attempt="" at="" seamlessly="" integrating="" them="" into="" the="" text.="" good="" use="" of="" apa6="" for="" in-text="" citations="" &="" reference="" list.="" inclusion="" of="" an="" appropriate="" number="" of="" references="" but="" includes="" some="" that="" are="" not="" peer-reviewed="" or="" uses="" lecture="" notes.="" shows="" reasonable="" attempt="" to="" integrate="" literature="" with="" mostly="" adequate="" paraphrasing.="" good="" use="" of="" apa6="" for="" in-text="" citations="" &="" reference="" list.="" poor="" use="" of="" research="" literature="" by="" including="" most="" that="" are="" not="" peer-reviewed="" or="" uses="" lecture.="" poor="" integration="" of="" literature="" with="" poor="" paraphrasing="" or="" overuse="" of="" quotes.="" poor="" use="" of="" apa6="" for="" in-text="" citations="" &="" reference="" list.="" uses="" no-="" credible="" references="" throughout="" paper="" e.g.="" wikipedia,="" better="" health="" channel="" or="" uses="" all="" lecture="" notes.="" incorrect="" or="" missing="" integration="" of="" literature="" with="" poor="" paraphrasing="" or="" overuse="" of="" quotes.="" does="" not="" adhere="" to="" apa6="" format.="" total="" marks="50" mark="" for="" this="" assignment:="" 50="">