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.
By Day 3 of Week 7
Post a description of the 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.

This also comes with two posts that will each need a reply and at least two references all in APA 7 format. the rubric is attached below please meet the standards.

 

Discussion 1 TY

Health Policy: COVID Research Act of 2020

MAIN QUESTION POST- Health policy is essential in nursing. According to Liao (2019), “policies reflect public opinion as well as evidence-based data” (p.90). The health policy I want to discuss is the COVID Research Act of 2020 or also known as the Computing Opportunities to Vanquish Infectious Diseases Research Act of 2020 (“H.R.6599 – 116th Congress (2019-2020): COVID research Act of 2020,” 2020). This policy is to help address the issue of infectious diseases and how to prepare for them. COVID-19 has taken a toll on the health and economy throughout the world. This policy would create a group to be responsible for dealing with pandemics. A group to prepare for pandemic outbreaks and to help create strategies to address challenges during a health crisis is essential (“H.R.6599 – 116th Congress (2019-2020): COVID research Act of 2020,” 2020). Using evidence-based research will allow this policy to help prepare for upcoming pandemics.

I believe there is no better time in society to address this policy than now. The research done by healthcare professionals can help policymakers understand essential information (Hebda, 2019). APRNs and research groups can work together to help address and improve health policies. With COVID-19 being a significant concern, this supports why this policy needs addressed. Evidence-based research is required to help create a plan of action for the current and emerging pandemics. By creating a group dedicated to this policy will help the overall health of the population. For example, there is a need for a vaccine for COVID-19. With this policy in place, they could have predicted COVID-19 and been preparing a vaccine. Research on the spread and severity could have begun before the COVID-19 pandemic and helped decrease worldwide exposure rates. There is strong evidence to support the COVID Research Act of 2020 based on the worldwide pandemic status. Throughout history, pandemics have taken a toll on the health of the country. For example, the Influenza pandemic has led to annual flu shots starting in October (the peak season). The COVID Research Act of 2020 health policy would benefit healthcare now and in the future.

References

Hebda. T.. (2019). The impact of EHRs, big data, and evidence-informed practice. In J. A. Milstead, & N. M. Short (Eds.), Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th ed., pp 133-150). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning

H.R.6599 – 116th Congress (2019-2020): COVID research Act of 2020. (2020, April 23). Congress.gov | Library of Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6599?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22health+policy%22%5D%7D&s=3&r=86

Liao, C. (2019). Public policy design. In J. A. Milstead, & N. M. Short (Eds.), Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th ed., pp 87-99). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning

 

Discussion 2 ML

Week 7 Discussion Post

I found and reviewed the Sexual Assault Victims Protection Act of 2019 on the congress.gov. The summary includes,

“This bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to conduct a series of activities relating to sexual assault evidence and treatment. Among other things, HHS must establish a task force to improve forensic evidence collection related to sexual assault, maintain a website with resources and best practices related to the treatment of individuals for sexual assault, and host an annual meeting to address gaps in health care relating to sexual assault. In addition, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services must require Medicare-participating hospitals, in their community call plans relating to on-call coverage, to specifically delineate coverage responsibilities with respect to screening and treatment related to sexual assault.”( Congress,2020).

As a nurse in the emergency room I find that this proposed health policy would be beneficial in the way healthcare teams are required to treat possible sexually assault victims. I know that my hospital in the past did not have any specially trained individuals to conduct the assessment and collection of forensics in these cases. With this being the case, nurses were not comfortable at doing this and things could get missed or mishandle with patient. Policy and procedures have changed for much improvement in this practice that now we have SANE nurses who conduct all assessments and collection of forensics. “Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE) are registered nurses who have completed specialized education and clinical preparation in the medical forensic care of the patient who has experienced sexual assault or abuse. “(International Association of Forensic Nurses,2014-2020). I believe that there is evidence based on the need for the policy and changes in the health care practice from personal experience. For example, I had a pediatric patient in ER that mother brought in with possible sexual abuse. I do not feel properly trained to conduct this investigation on this child and would not want to say or do the wrong thing during such a sensitive time. At that point I call the SANE nurse on call that comes in and does everything needed for that patient. Even the provider does not go see the patient before the SANE nurse arrives and collection all information and data. Having policies in place for facilities to provide access to specialty trained nurse will provide better patient care and less traumatic care.

References

Congress.gov. (2020). H.R.4758 – Sexual Assault Victims Protection Act of 2019. Retrieved on October 11, 2020 from https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4758/all-info?r=5&s=7

International Association of Forensic Nurses. (2014-2020). Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners. Retrieved on October 11, 2020 from https://www.forensicnurses.org/page/aboutSANE

Main Posting

Excellent 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Good 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Fair 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Post is cited with two credible sources.

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.

Poor 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Contains only one or no credible sources.

Not written clearly or concisely.

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Main Post: Timeliness

Excellent 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Posts main post by day 3.

Good 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Fair 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Poor 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not post by day 3.

First Response

Excellent 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Good 15 (15%) – 16 (16%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Fair 13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Poor 0 (0%) – 12 (12%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response

Excellent 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Good 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Fair 12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Poor 0 (0%) – 11 (11%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Participation

Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

Good 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Fair 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Poor 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

Total Points: 100

Discussion: Patient Preferences And Decision Making And Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 5: Recommending An Evidence-Based Practice Change