Health Medical
NRS 493 Grand Canyon University Influenza Vaccinations Capstone Paper

NRS 493

Grand Canyon University

NRS

Question Description

I’m stuck on a Nursing question and need an explanation.

Write a 500-750 word description of your proposed capstone project topic: Influenza Vaccinations/Vaccines challenges regarding the community (must have a thesis statement in the first paragraph/description.) Include the following:

  1. The problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project that will be the focus of the change proposal.
  2. The setting or context in which the problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project can be observed.
  3. A description (providing a high level of detail) regarding the problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project.
  4. Effect of the problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project.
  5. Significance of the topic and its implications for nursing practice.
  6. A proposed solution to the identified project topic with an explanation of how it will affect nursing practice.

You are required to cite to a minimum of eight peer-reviewed sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years, appropriate for the assignment criteria, and relevant to nursing practice. Plan your time accordingly to complete this assignment.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Course Code NRS-493 Class Code NRS-493-OL191 Criteria Content Percentage 80.0% Project Topic for Focus of Change Proposal 5.0% Setting or Context Where Project Topic Is Observed 10.0% Detailed Description of Project Topic 15.0% Effect of Identified Problem or Issue 15.0% Topic Significance and Implications for Nursing Practice 15.0% Proposed Solution for Identified Project Topic and Implications for Nursing Practice 15.0% Peer-Reviewed Articles 5.0% Organization, Effectiveness, and Format 20.0% Thesis Development and Purpose 5.0% Argument Logic and Construction 5.0% Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0% Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 2.0% Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 3.0% Total Weightage 100% Assignment Title Capstone Project Topic Selection and Approval Unsatisfactory (0.00%) The problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project that will be the focus of the change proposal is omitted. The setting or context in which the problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project can be observed is omitted. A description of the project topic is omitted. Effect of the identified problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project is omitted. Significance of topic and its implications for nursing practice is omitted. A proposed solution to the identified project topic with an explanation of how it will affect nursing practice is omitted. Fewer than six peer-reviewed articles are presented. Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Sources are not documented. Total Points 60.0 Less Than Satisfactory (75.00%) The problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project that will be the focus of the change proposal is presented but is largely incomplete. The setting or context in which the problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project can be observed is presented but is largely incomplete. A description of the project topic is presented but is largely incomplete. Effect of the identified problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project is presented but is largely incomplete. Topic is presented but criteria are incomplete. Topic is presented but criteria are incomplete. Fewer than seven peer-reviewed articles are presented. Overall, only five articles meet the assignment criteria. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present. Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Satisfactory (79.00%) The problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project that will be the focus of the change proposal is summarized. There are some omissions or inaccuracies. Some support is needed. The setting or context in which the problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project can be observed is summarized. There are some omissions or inaccuracies. Some support is needed. A description of the project topic is presented. There are some omissions or inaccuracies. Some support is needed. Effect of the identified problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project is summarized. There are some omissions or inaccuracies. Some support is needed. Topic and most criteria are presented. There are some omissions or inaccuracies. Some support is needed. Topic and most criteria are presented. There are some omissions or inaccuracies. Some support is needed. Eight peer-reviewed articles are presented. Overall, only six articles meet the assignment criteria. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. 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. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Good (89.00%) The problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project that will be the focus of the change proposal is presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support. The setting or context in which the problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project can be observed is presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support. A description of the project topic is presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support. Effect of the identified problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project is presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support. Topic and criteria are presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support. Topic and criteria are presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support. Eight peer-reviewed articles are presented. Overall, only seven articles meet the assignment criteria. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. 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. Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Excellent (100.00%) The problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project that will be the focus of the change proposal is clearly and logically presented. Support and rationale are evident. The setting or context in which the problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project can be observed is logically presented. Support and rationale are evident. A detailed description of the project topic is clearly and logically presented. Support and rationale are evident. Effect of the identified problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project is clearly and logically presented. Support and rationale are evident. Topic and criteria are clearly and logically presented. Support and rationale are evident. Topic and criteria are clearly and logically presented. Support and rationale are evident. Comments Eight peer-reviewed articles are presented, and each article clearly meets the assignment criteria. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. All format elements are correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. Points Earned CME AMY CUNNINGHAM, PHD, MPH, JOHN STOECKLE, MD, VICTOR DIAZ, MD, GEORGE VALKO, MD, AND CHRISTINE ARENSON, MD BACK TO BASICS: FIVE STEPS TO BETTER INFLUENZA VACCINATION RATES nfluenza results in up to 710,000 hospitalizations and up to 56,000 deaths per year in the United States.1 Although the effectiveness of flu vaccines varies, vaccination is still the best way to reduce flu-related illnesses and deaths. In addition to protecting individuals, a high vaccination rate within a population also offers “herd immunity,” which reduces the chance of a flu outbreak and helps protect the most vulnerable, such as infants and others unable to receive the vaccine. Since 2010, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Pre- vention (CDC) has recommended flu vaccination for patients six months and older who do not have contraindications.1 Because of the impact on quality and cost, Medicare and other payers are increasingly incorporating flu vaccination rates as an individual quality measure in value-based payment models. So improvements can affect not only your patients’ health but also your bottom line. Unfortunately, the flu vaccine rate remains low. Only 59.3 percent of children and 41.7 percent of adults received an influenza vaccination during the 2015 – 2016 flu season.2 Downloaded from the Family Practice Management website at www.aafp.org/fpm. Copyright © 2017 American Academy of| www.aafp.org/fpm Family Physicians. |For the private, noncommercial use of one individual user of the website. 30 | FAMILY PRACTICE MANAGEMENT November/December 2017 All other rights reserved. Contact copyrights@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests. © M I K E AU S T I N I Getting more patients immunized against the flu does not require complicated strategies. Our family medicine practice has 48 faculty members and providers in downtown Philadelphia serving 35,000 patients through more than 80,000 visits per year. More than half of our patients are racial or ethnic minorities, and many of our patients come from underserved communities. To meet the needs of such a large and diverse patient population, our practice leaders must navigate many competing quality priorities. After becoming part of the Delaware Valley Accountable Care Organization (ACO) in 2015, we were charged with improving our flu vaccination rate of 66 percent, which was below our goal. We considered several systemand provider-level strategies and were able to improve our 2016 – 2017 flu vaccination rate to 82 percent using five key tactics. (See “Key tactics for improving flu vaccination rates.”) 1. Find a champion Identify a physician or other health professional in your office to lead the flu vaccination campaign. The champion should be both familiar with current vaccination guidelines and enthusiastic about improving flu vaccine rates. He or she should communicate regularly with office providers and staff to share current vaccination information and bolster enthusiasm and commitment to flu vaccination. In some offices, a champion also recruits an immunization coordinator from among the providers or staff to oversee logistics of vaccine purchasing, storage, administration to patients, and billing.3 In our practice, we benefited from having multiple champions from our practice quality team, including our medical director, assistant medical director, and several embedded team nurses. The leaders of our institution and ACO supported our efforts in a number of ways, including our implementation of standing orders. 2. Use standing orders Because physicians must accomplish many tasks in an office visit, consider using protocols to empower other team members to assess immunization status and administer vaccinations without an examination or a direct order from the physician. The Community Preventive KEY TACTICS FOR IMPROVING FLU VACCINATION RATES 1. Find a champion 2. Use standing orders 3. Optimize your documentation 4. Provide regular reminders 5. Give ongoing feedback Services Task Force and the ACIP recommend the use of standing orders based on strong evidence of their effectiveness.4,5 The American Academy of Family Physicians recently supported Take a Stand: Use Standing Orders to Improve Adult Immunization Rates, a campaign led by the Immunization Action Coalition (IAC) to promote the use of vaccination standing orders.4 The IAC website contains many resources to help practices get started, including standing order requirements and templates to aid in the development of a comprehensive protocol. (See “Elements of a standing order for vaccines,” page 32.) Since state laws vary, consult your state immunization program or licensing boards to determine who can sign a standing order in your state and which health professionals are permitted to administer vaccinations.5 You should also obtain necessary legal approvals from your organization. It will also be necessary to thoroughly train clinicians and staff on the standing order protocol. The training should also emphasize the importance of providing CDC Vaccine Information Statements (see https://www.cdc.gov/ vaccines/hcp/vis/index.html), properly documenting the vaccine lot number, and entering other key information in the medical record. Our compliance officers approved the use of standing orders so that medical assistants could administer flu vaccines. As part of the patient visit, the medical assistant informs the patient that “The doctor would like you to have the flu shot” and administers the shot unless the patient refuses. Using encouraging, opt-out language – rather than asking if the patient would like the flu shot – increases the likelihood that a patient will accept About the Authors Amy Cunningham is a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. Dr. Stoeckle is a clinical instructor and population health fellow in the Department of Family and Community Medicine. Dr. Diaz is an assistant professor in the Department of Family and Community Medicine and assistant medical director and quality improvement director for Jefferson Family Medicine Associates in Philadelphia. Dr. Valko is a professor in the Department of Family and Community Medicine and medical director of Jefferson Family Medicine Associates. Dr. Arenson is an alumni professor and chairwoman of the Department of Family and Community Medicine. Author disclosures: no relevant financial affiliations disclosed. November/December 2017 | www.aafp.org/fpm | FAMILY PRACTICE MANAGEMENT | 31 the vaccine. Some may argue that an opt-out policy reduces patient autonomy, but we feel the greater good that results from vaccination, such as herd immunity, makes this the right approach. The fact that the medical assistant delivers the message rather than the physician reduces the power differential somewhat, and we do still find that patients are comfortable refusing the vaccine. To increase flu vaccination rates, practices need to identify key health professionals who will lead the effort. Standing orders allow nonphysicians to assess immunization status and administer vaccinations, which frees physicians for higher level work. 3. Optimize your documentation Providers and support staff may need some brief training about how to appropriately document their flu vaccine discussions with patients. For instance, if a patient reports having received the vaccine elsewhere, that information needs to be captured in the chart. For the influenza vaccination measure contained in Medicare’s new Quality Payment Program, providers can report a performance exclusion if the patient already received the shot, has a relevant allergy, declined the shot, or could not receive the shot due to a health system reason such as a vaccine shortage. Enhanced documentation will improve your performance on flu vaccination quality measures. Furthermore, documenting vaccines received elsewhere and patient refusal helps ensure that you are targeting your vaccination efforts to the appropriate patients. Of course, documenting patient refusal should only be done after a careful provider-patient conversa- ELEMENTS OF A STANDING ORDER FOR VACCINES • Which populations should receive the vaccine. • W ho should not receive the vaccine based on indications, contraindications, or precautions. • How to administer the vaccine (including vaccine name, dosage, and route of administration). • W hat information is required by federal law (e.g., the Vaccine Information Statement). • How to document the vaccination in the medical record. • W hat medical emergencies may occur during vaccine administration and how to manage them. • How to report adverse events that occur after vaccine administration. Source: Using standing orders for administering vaccines: what you should know. Immunization Action Coalition. http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p3066.pdf. Accessed Sept. 6, 2017. 32 | FAMILY PRACTICE MANAGEMENT | www.aafp.org/fpm | November/December 2017 tion, because patients may change their mind regarding vaccination. (For more on this topic, see “How to Talk to Reluctant Patients About the Flu Shot,” FPM, Sept/Oct 2017, http:// www.aafp.org/fpm/2017/0900/p6.html.) 4. Provide regular reminders Reminding providers regularly about the flu vaccine – including guidelines, availability, tips for patient discussions, and procedures for documentation and billing – can also improve vaccination rates. Our office issued practice-wide email reminders and made vaccination-related announcements at physician and staff meetings. Point-of-care reminders can also boost vaccine administration. Some electronic health records (EHRs) can be programmed to issue a best practice alert notifying the provider if the patient being seen has received the flu vaccine that season and, if not, the reason it was not received. These alerts can substantially increase documented flu vaccine discussions and vaccination rates.6 If your practice cannot implement EHR alerts, other reminder methods can be effective. One practice created a brightly colored flu vaccine form that clinic staff attached to the front of each patient’s chart. The form encouraged providers to discuss flu vaccination with patients and record if the patient received the vaccine at the visit or the reason why not. From this simple intervention alone, the practice’s flu vaccination rate increased by 12 percent.7 Reminders regarding flu vaccination can also be sent to patients through EHR portal messages, emails, phone calls, or postcards. Text message reminders are an increasingly popular method of distributing flu vaccine reminders because they reach a large population quickly and inexpensively.8 5. Give ongoing feedback Regularly evaluating the practice’s p ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer

Attached.

cap
by A Alfred

Submission date: 26-Mar-2020 11:38PM (UTC-0500)
Submission ID: 1283045195
File name: Proposed_Capstone_Change.docx (24.75K)
Word count: 940
Character count: 5622

cap
ORIGINALITY REPORT

33

%

SIMILARITY INDEX

22%

17%

33%

INTERNET SOURCES

PUBLICATIONS

STUDENT PAPERS

PRIMARY SOURCES

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Submitted to University of South Florida
Student Paper

Submitted to Georgetown University
Student Paper

Submitted to The University of Memphis
Student Paper

Submitted to The University of Manchester
Student Paper

Submitted to University of Keele
Student Paper

Submitted to Grand Canyon University
Student Paper

Submitted to The College of St. Scholastica
Student Paper

Submitted to Utah Education Network
Student Paper

Submitted to Adtalem Global Education
Student Paper

6%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%

10
11
12

1%

positivepsychology.com
Internet Source

1%

Submitted to Herzing University
Student Paper

1%

Submitted to Shepherd University
Student Paper

Exclude quotes

Off

Exclude bibliography

Off

Exclude matches

Off


Running head: PROPOSED CAPSTONE CHANGE

Proposed Capstone Change
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

1

PROPOSED CAPSTONE CHANGE

2

Proposed Capstone Change
Vaccines have been used over the years to promote the prevention of different diseases
and ensure that nations are not affected by preventable pandemics. Most vaccines are created by
reducing the virulence of the pathogen and injecting patients with the weakened pathogen to
promote the development of immunity against th...

Prof_Alfred (12634)
Purdue University

Anonymous
Solid work, thanks.

Anonymous
The tutor was great. I’m satisfied with the service.

Anonymous
Goes above and beyond expectations !

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4
Similar Questions
Related Tags