Reflections on Standard of Care lections on Standard of Care
As you prepare to graduate and enter the workforce as a Family Nurse Practitioner, it is crucial to recognize that in clinical practice, providers may have differing opinions on treatment plans for a variety of reasons such as clinical experience, interpretation of evidence, or patient preferences. However, these differences present valuable learning opportunities. Professionalism, mutual respect, and a commitment to evidence-based care allow us to grow from these experiences and improve patient outcomes. The “Reflecting on Standards of Care” assignment is designed to help you critically reflect on a patient case from your practicum experience this quarter where you and your preceptor approached the treatment plan differently. This assignment is an opportunity for you to reflect not only on this specific case but on your development as a clinician and how you can continue to provide high-quality, patient-centered care while maintaining collaborative and respectful relationships with your colleagues..
Resources
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
Reflections on Standard of Care
To prepare:
Select a patient case from your clinical experience this quarter where you and your preceptor approached the treatment plan differently. Reflect on these differences, using relevant and current resources, particularly those outlining standards of care. As you develop your reflection, review the assignment instructions and grading rubric for guidance. Keep your writing concise, using paragraph format, and lists for medications and diagnoses when appropriate. Be sure to include a title page and reference page.
Assignment:
Briefly summarize the case:
· Include relevant patient information, including history, assessment, any testing that might have been done, and medications.
· Presenting symptoms.
· Diagnosis.
Compare Treatment plans:
· Describe your preceptor’s recommended treatment plan.
· Explain the alternative treatment plan you would have recommended as a nurse practitioner.
Justify Your Approach:
· Use evidence-based guidelines, clinical research, and relevant literature to support your alternative plan.
· Discuss why you believe your approach would be effective, considering the patient’s history, condition, and individual needs.
Reflect on Differences:
· Analyze the differences between your plan and your preceptor’s.
· Consider factors such as clinical experience, knowledge, patient-centered care, and the influence of evidence-based practice in decision-making.
Lessons Learned:
· Reflect on how this experience has influenced your clinical practice and approach to treatment planning.
· Discuss how you can apply what you learned to future patient care.
· How might you approach another provider professionally in the future when you find treatment plans differing during collaboration on the patient case?
Submission Requirements:
· Length: 3-4 double-spaced pages, APA format.
· Cite at least 3 current peer reviewed sources or evidence-based research to support your analysis.
Evaluation Criteria (also see rubric):
· Clarity and completeness of the case summary.
· Depth of analysis and comparison between treatment plans.
· Use of evidence-based rationale for your alternative plan.
· Reflection on learning and future application.
· Proper use of APA formatting and references.
By Day 7
Submit your Reflections on Standards of Care assignment.
submission information
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the
Turnitin Drafts from the
Start Here area.
1. To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as
WK8Assgn1+last name+first initial.
2. Then, click on
Start Assignment near the top of the page.
3. Next, click on
Upload File and select
Submit Assignment for review.
Rubric
PRAC_6568_Week8_Assignment1_Rubric
|
PRAC_6568_Week8_Assignment1_Rubric |
||
|
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe case summary is clear, complete, and includes all relevant information. It covers the patient’s history, assessment findings, medications, any pertinent testing, presenting symptoms, and the final diagnosis. |
10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentThe response thoroughly and accurately describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history, current medications, allergies, and review of diagnosis. 8 to >7.0 ptsGoodThe response accurately describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history, current medications, allergies, and review of diagnosis. 7 to >6.0 ptsFairThe response describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history, current medications, allergies, and review of diagnosis, but is somewhat vague or contains minor inaccuracies. 6 to >0 ptsPoorThe response provides an incomplete or inaccurate description of the patient’s subjective complaint, history, current medications, allergies, and review of diagnosis. |
10 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProvide a thorough, insightful comparison between the alternative plan and the preceptor’s approach, analyzing key differences in clinical experience, knowledge, and patient-centered care. Thoughtfully discuss how evidence-based practice influenced decision-making in both plans, demonstrating an understanding of its role in patient care. |
10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentThe response provides a thorough, insightful comparison between the alternative plan and the preceptor’s approach, analyzing key differences in clinical experience, knowledge, and patient-centered care. 8 to >7.0 ptsGoodThe response compares the two approaches with reasonable detail but may miss some key differences or lack depth in analysis. 7 to >6.0 ptsFairThe response provides a limited comparison, without fully exploring the differences in clinical experience or decision-making processes. 6 to >0 ptsPoorThe response fails to provide a meaningful comparison between the plans, or the analysis is overly simplistic or inaccurate. |
10 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSupport the alternative plan with at least three evidence-based guidelines or peer reviewed journal articles. All sources must be current (no more than five years old), credible, and clearly aligned with the patient’s case. |
20 to >17.0 ptsExcellentThe response provides at least three current, evidence-based resources from the literature to support the alternative treatment plan for the patient. Each resource represents the latest in standards of care and provides strong justification for treatment decisions. 17 to >15.0 ptsGoodThe response provides at least three current, evidence-based resources from the literature to support the alternative treatment plan for the patient. Each resource represents current standards of care and supports treatment decisions. 15 to >13.0 ptsFairThree evidence-based resources are provided to support alternative treatment decisions but may not represent the latest in standards of care or may only provide vague or weak justification for the treatment plan. 13 to >0 ptsPoorTwo or fewer resources are provided to support alternative treatment decisions. The resources may not be current or evidence-based, or do not support the treatment plan. |
20 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReflect on the differences between alternative treatment plan and preceptor’s plan. Critically analyze the rationale behind each approach and identify how these differences inform clinical decision-making and professional growth in patient care. |
20 to >17.0 ptsExcellentThe response demonstrates a thorough, insightful reflection on the alternative plan and the preceptor’s approach, analyzing key differences in clinical experience, knowledge, and patient-centered care. 17 to >15.0 ptsGoodThe response demonstrates reflection on the two approaches with reasonable detail but may miss some key differences or lack depth in analysis. 15 to >13.0 ptsFairThe response demonstrates a limited reflection, without fully exploring the differences in clinical experience or decision-making processes. 13 to >0 ptsPoorThe response fails to demonstrate a meaningful reflection on the plans, or the analysis is overly simplistic or inaccurate. Reflections on the case are vague or missing. |
20 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReflect on the lessons learned from comparing treatment plan approaches, assessing how the experience has influenced clinical decision-making and identify how these insights will guide approach to future patient care and collaboration with other healthcare providers. |
25 to >22.0 ptsExcellentThe response offers a thorough reflection on how the experience has influenced clinical practice and treatment planning, showing growth in clinical reasoning, decision-making, and patient care. It clearly explains how lessons learned will guide future patient care, with specific examples. It also provides a thoughtful approach to handling differing treatment plans, emphasizing respectful, evidence-based communication and collaboration. 22 to >19.0 ptsGoodThe response offers a solid reflection on how the experience has influenced clinical practice and treatment planning, though some areas lack depth. It shows growth in clinical reasoning, decision-making, and patient care, but examples may be underdeveloped. It explains how lessons can be applied to future care with relevant examples and provides a reasonable approach to handling differing treatment plans, though not all aspects of collaboration are fully explored. 19 to >16.0 ptsFairThe response provides a basic reflection on how the experience influenced clinical practice and treatment planning but lacks detail. Shows limited growth in reasoning and decision-making. Mentions applying lessons to future care, but examples are vague. Offers a minimal approach to handling differing treatment plans, with limited focus on professionalism or evidence-based communication. 16 to >0 ptsPoorThe response offers little to no reflection on how the experience influenced clinical practice or treatment planning, showing no growth in reasoning or decision-making. It fails to explain how lessons will be applied to future care and provides no meaningful approach to handling differing treatment plans, lacking professionalism or evidence-based focus. |
25 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten 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 are provided that delineate all required criteria. |
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria. 4 to >3.5 ptsGoodParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet are brief and not descriptive. 3.5 to >3.0 ptsFairParagraphs 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. 3 to >0 ptsPoorParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided. |
5 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation |
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentUses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 to >3.5 ptsGoodContains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3.5 to >3.0 ptsFairContains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 to >0 ptsPoorContains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. |
5 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running heads, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. |
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentUses correct APA format with no errors. 4 to >3.5 ptsGoodContains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. 3.5 to >3.0 ptsFairContains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. 3 to >0 ptsPoorContains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. |
5 pts |
Total Points: 100
