Just Click on Below Link To Download This Course:
http://bit.ly/32malKN
DNP 825 Week 6 Case Report GCU
DNP 825 Week 6 Case Report: Application of Public Health Concepts
for the Uninsured
Details:
In this assignment, learners are required to write a case
report addressing the personal knowledge and skills gained in this course and
potentially solving an identified practice problem.
General
Guidelines:
Use the following information to ensure successful
completion of the assignment:
- This assignment uses a rubric. Please
review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar
with the expectations for successful completion.
- Doctoral learners are required to
use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is
located in the Student Success Center.
- This assignment requires that at
least two additional scholarly research sources related to this topic, and
at least one in-text citation from each source be included.
- You
are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Please refer to the
directions in the Student Success Center.
Directions:
Construct a 2,500-3,000 word (approximately 10-12 pages)
case report that includes a problem or situation consistent with a DNP area of
practice.
- Review the IOM and Kaiser
Commission Report on the uninsured to develop the case report.
- Apply public health concepts to
describe understanding of the problem or situation of focus.
- Apply one or more public health
concepts to the recommended intervention or solution being proposed.
- Develop the case report across
the entire scenario from the identification of the clinical or health care
problem through the proposal for an intervention, implementation, and
evaluation using an appropriate research instrument.
- Describe the evaluation of the
selected research instrument in the case report.
- Lastly,
explain in full the tenets, rationale for selection (empirical evidence),
and clear application using the language of public health concepts within
the case report.
Case
Report Requirements:
In addition, your case report must include the following:
- Introduction with a problem
statement.
- Brief literature review.
- Description of the
case/situation/conditions explained from a theoretical perspective.
- Discussion that includes a
detailed explanation of the synthesized literature findings.
- Summary of the case.
- Proposed solutions to remedy
gaps, inefficiencies, or other issues from a theoretical approach.
- Identification of a research
instrument to evaluate the proposed solution along with a description of
how the instrument could be evaluated.
- Conclusion.
Portfolio
Practice Hours:
Practice
immersion assignments are based on your current course objectives, and are
intended to be application-based learning using your real-world practice
setting. These assignments earn practice immersion hours, and are indicated in
the assignment by a Portfolio Practice Hours statement that reminds you, the
learner, to enter a corresponding case log in Typhon. Actual clock hours are
entered, but the average hours associated with each practice immersion assignment
is 10.
You are required to complete your assignment using
real-world application. Real-world application requires the use of
evidence-based data, contemporary theories, and concepts presented in the
course. The culmination of your assignment must present a viable application in
a current practice setting. For more information on parameters for
practice immersion hours, please refer to DNP resources in the DC Network.
To earn portfolio practice hours, enter the following
after the references section of your paper:
Practice
Hours Completion Statement DNP-825
I,
(INSERT NAME), verify that I have completed (NUMBER OF) clock hours in
association with the goals and objectives for this assignment. I have also
tracked said practice hours in the Typhon Student Tracking System for
verification purposes and will be sure that all approvals are in place from my
faculty and practice mentor.
Case
Report: Application of Public Health Concepts for the Uninsured
|
|
1
Unsatisfactory 0.00% |
2
Less than Satisfactory 74.00% |
3
Satisfactory 79.00% |
4
Good 87.00% |
5
Excellent 100.00% |
|
|
70.0 %Content
|
|
|||||
|
5.0 %Introduction and Problem Statement
|
An
introduction with problem statement is not present.
|
An
introduction with problem statement is present but incomplete.
|
An
introduction with problem statement is present but rendered at a perfunctory
level.
|
An
introduction with problem statement is present, clear, and thorough.
Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented
is from scholarly though dated sources.
|
An
introduction with problem statement is clearly present. Discussion is
convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and
forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
|
|
|
5.0 %Brief Literature Review
|
A
brief literature review is not present.
|
A
brief literature review is present but incomplete.
|
A
brief literature review is present but rendered at a perfunctory level.
|
A
brief literature review is clearly present in full. Information presented is
from scholarly though dated sources.
|
A
brief literature review is clearly present in full. Discussion is convincing
and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking.
Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
|
|
|
10.0 %Description of the Case, Situation, or Conditions
Explained from a Theoretical Perspective
|
A
description of the case, situation, or conditions from a theoretical
perspective is not present.
|
A
description of the case, situation, or conditions from a theoretical
perspective is present but incomplete.
|
A
description of the case, situation, or conditions from a theoretical
perspective is present but rendered at a perfunctory level.
|
A
description of the case, situation, or conditions from a theoretical
perspective is convincing and defines specific elements. Information
presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
|
A
description of the case, situation, or conditions from a theoretical
perspective is clearly present. Discussion is convincing and defines specific
elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information
presented is from current scholarly sources.
|
|
|
10.0 %Discussion Includes a Detailed Explanation of the
Synthesized Literature Findings
|
A
detailed explanation of the synthesized literature findings is not present.
|
A
detailed explanation of the synthesized literature findings is present but
incomplete.
|
A
detailed explanation of the synthesized literature findings is present but
incomplete.
|
A
detailed explanation of the synthesized literature findings is convincing and
defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though
dated sources.
|
A
detailed explanation of the synthesized literature findings is clearly
present. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion
is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current
scholarly sources.
|
|
|
10.0 %Case Summary
|
A
case summary is not present.
|
A
case summary is present but incomplete.
|
A
case summary is present but rendered at a perfunctory level.
|
A
case summary is convincing and defines specific elements. Information
presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
|
A
case summary is clearly present. Discussion is convincing and defines
specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information
presented is from current scholarly sources.
|
|
|
10.0 %Proposed Solutions to Remedy Identified Gaps,
Inefficiencies, or Other Issues from a Theoretical Approach
|
Proposed
solutions from a theoretical approach are not presented.
|
Proposed
solutions from a theoretical approach are presented but are incomplete.
|
Proposed
solutions from a theoretical approach are presented but are rendered at a
perfunctory level.
|
Proposed
solutions from a theoretical approach are clearly presented and thorough.
Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented
is from scholarly though dated sources.
|
Proposed
solutions from a theoretical approach are clearly presented and thorough.
Discussion is insightful, forward-thinking, and detailed. Information
presented is from current scholarly sources.
|
|
|
10.0 %Identification of a Research Instrument to
Evaluate the Proposed Solution along with a Description of how the Instrument
could be Evaluated
|
Identification
of a research instrument to evaluate the proposed solution along with a
description of how the instrument could be evaluated is not present.
|
Identification
of a research instrument to evaluate the proposed solution along with a
description of how the instrument could be evaluated is presented but is
incomplete.
|
Identification
of a research instrument to evaluate the proposed solution along with a
description of how the instrument could be evaluated is presented but is
rendered at a perfunctory level.
|
Identification
of a research instrument to evaluate the proposed solution along with a
description of how the instrument could be evaluated is clearly presented and
thorough. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information
presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
|
Identification
of a research instrument to evaluate the proposed solution along with a
description of how the instrument could be evaluated is clearly presented and
thorough. Discussion is insightful, forward-thinking, and detailed.
Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
|
|
|
10.0 %Conclusion
|
A
conclusion is not presented.
|
A
conclusion is presented but is incomplete.
|
A
conclusion is presented but is rendered at a perfunctory level.
|
A
conclusion is clearly presented and thorough. Discussion is convincing and
defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though
dated sources.
|
A
conclusion is clearly presented and thorough. Discussion is insightful,
forward-thinking, and detailed. Information presented is from current
scholarly sources.
|
|
|
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
|
|
|||||
|
7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose
|
Paper
lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
|
Thesis
and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not
clear.
|
Thesis
and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.
|
Thesis
and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is
descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
|
Thesis
and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained
within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
|
|
|
8.0 %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.
|
|
|
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 and/or sentence construction are used.
|
Frequent
and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in
language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are
present.
|
Some
mechanical errors or typos are present, but 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.
|
|
|
10.0 %Format
|
|
|||||
|
5.0 %Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the
major and assignment)
|
Template
is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed
correctly.
|
Appropriate
template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of
control with formatting is apparent.
|
Appropriate
template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be
present.
|
Appropriate
template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
|
All
format elements are correct.
|
|
|
5.0 %Research Citations (In-text citations for
paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as
appropriate to assignment and style)
|
No
reference page is included. No citations are used.
|
Reference
page is present. Citations are inconsistently used.
|
Reference
page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are
appropriately documented, although some errors may be present.
|
Reference
page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is
appropriate and citation style is usually correct.
|
In-text
citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of
cited sources is free of error.
|
|
|
100 %Total Weightage
|
|
|||||

No comments:
Post a Comment