DNP-825 Benchmark – Population Heath: Part II

Grand Canyon University DNP-825 Benchmark – Population Heath: Part II  – Step-By-Step Guide

This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Grand Canyon University DNP-825 Benchmark – Population Heath: Part II  assignment based on general principles of academic writing. Here, we will show you the A, B, Cs of completing an academic paper, irrespective of the instructions. After guiding you through what to do, the guide will leave one or two sample essays at the end to highlight the various sections discussed below.

How to Research and Prepare for DNP-825 Benchmark – Population Heath: Part II    

Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Grand Canyon University NUR 550 Benchmark – Evidence-Based Practice Project: Literature Review depends on the preparation done beforehand. The first thing to do once you receive an assignment is to quickly skim through the requirements. Once that is done, start going through the instructions one by one to clearly understand what the instructor wants. The most important thing here is to understand the required format—whether it is APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.

After understanding the requirements of the paper, the next phase is to gather relevant materials. The first place to start the research process is the weekly resources. Go through the resources provided in the instructions to determine which ones fit the assignment. After reviewing the provided resources, use the university library to search for additional resources. After gathering sufficient and necessary resources, you are now ready to start drafting your paper.

How to Write the Introduction for DNP-825 Benchmark – Population Heath: Part II    

The introduction for the Grand Canyon University DNP-825 Benchmark – Population Heath: Part II      is where you tell the instructor what your paper will encompass. In three to four statements, highlight the important points that will form the basis of your paper. Here, you can include statistics to show the importance of the topic you will be discussing. At the end of the introduction, write a clear purpose statement outlining what exactly will be contained in the paper. This statement will start with “The purpose of this paper…” and then proceed to outline the various sections of the instructions.

How to Write the Body for DNP-825 Benchmark – Population Heath: Part II    

After the introduction, move into the main part of the DNP-825 Benchmark – Population Heath: Part II     assignment, which is the body. Given that the paper you will be writing is not experimental, the way you organize the headings and subheadings of your paper is critically important. In some cases, you might have to use more subheadings to properly organize the assignment. The organization will depend on the rubric provided. Carefully examine the rubric, as it will contain all the detailed requirements of the assignment. Sometimes, the rubric will have information that the normal instructions lack.

Another important factor to consider at this point is how to do citations. In-text citations are fundamental as they support the arguments and points you make in the paper. At this point, the resources gathered at the beginning will come in handy. Integrating the ideas of the authors with your own will ensure that you produce a comprehensive paper. Also, follow the given citation format. In most cases, APA 7 is the preferred format for nursing assignments.

How to Write the Conclusion for DNP-825 Benchmark – Population Heath: Part II    

After completing the main sections, write the conclusion of your paper. The conclusion is a summary of the main points you made in your paper. However, you need to rewrite the points and not simply copy and paste them. By restating the points from each subheading, you will provide a nuanced overview of the assignment to the reader.

How to Format the References List for DNP-825 Benchmark – Population Heath: Part II    

The very last part of your paper involves listing the sources used in your paper. These sources should be listed in alphabetical order and double-spaced. Additionally, use a hanging indent for each source that appears in this list. Lastly, only the sources cited within the body of the paper should appear here.

Stuck? Let Us Help You

Completing assignments can sometimes be overwhelming, especially with the multitude of academic and personal responsibilities you may have. If you find yourself stuck or unsure at any point in the process, don’t hesitate to reach out for professional assistance. Our assignment writing services are designed to help you achieve your academic goals with ease. 

Our team of experienced writers is well-versed in academic writing and familiar with the specific requirements of the DNP-825 Benchmark – Population Heath: Part II     assignment. We can provide you with personalized support, ensuring your assignment is well-researched, properly formatted, and thoroughly edited. Get a feel of the quality we guarantee – ORDER NOW. 

Sample Answer for DNP-825 Benchmark – Population Heath: Part II

Lung Cancer

Lung cancer is a common cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The risk factors for lung cancer are well documented and these include but are not limited to cigarette smoking, family history of lung cancer, indoor exposure to radon and occupational exposure to carcinogens such as asbestos and nickel. Moreover, group 1 carcinogens have been implicated in many cancers and air pollution belongs to this group. Air pollution from factories has been established as a risk factor for lung cancer. The relative risk of lung cancer in cigarette smokers is 60-fold compared to non-smokers (Kumar et al., 2021). The effect of carcinogens has been widely studied and they can predispose non-smokers to lung cancer while being synergistic with cigarette smoke in cancer development for cigarette smokers. Asbestos exposure can lead to a 5-fold risk of lung cancer in exposed individuals while if the exposure occurs in a cigarette smoker, the risk is 55-fold (Kumar et al., 2021). Lung cancer is a major public concern as a majority of patients are diagnosed late when the prognosis is poor and have evidence of metastases. Interventions should be developed to improve the health outcomes of cigarette smokers and address the issue of lung cancer.

Addressing Lung Cancer in Cigarette Smokers

Cigarette smoking has been identified as the cause of 87% of deaths in the United States due to lung cancer (O’Keeffe et al., 2018). Various interventions may be applied to curb lung cancer. A viable intervention would be to address the major cause of lung cancer, cigarette smoking. A probable intervention to reduce the prevalence and incidences of lung cancers in cigarette smokers is quitting cigarettes. Cigarette cessation programs can be developed to help cigarette smokers. Cigarette cessation can reduce the morbidity, mortality, prevalence and incidences of lung cancer. The deaths from lung cancer can be reduced by 38% if smoking cessation is combined with routine lung cancer screening in smokers (Tindle et al., 2018). Screening for lung cancer alone has been attributed to a reduction of cancer deaths by 20%. The dangers of continual cigarette consumption during lung cancer treatment include the risk of recurrence, treatment side effects and diminished treatment response (Minnix et al., 2018). These are indicators that quitting cigarettes is a viable option for tackling lung cancer incidence and prevalence. It has been identified that the deaths from lung cancer can be decreased by about 30-40% if smokers quit when they are diagnosed with lung cancer (Minnix et al., 2018). It is also relevant that the benefits of cigarette cessation may be similar to cancer treatment and in some cases may be superior to some of the treatment options available. Cessation may therefore increase survival rates, improve treatment response, decrease morbidity from symptoms, improve life quality and reduce the chances of recurrence after lung cancer treatment.

Plan for a Smoking Cessation Program, Stakeholders Needed and Potential Challenges

The smoking cessation program will entail education sessions, telephone calls and medication administration. The education programs will include outreach programs, seminars and health fairs. Participants will be educated on the various risk factors for lung cancer, prevention strategies and management of the health risks brought about by cigarette smoking. Cigarette smoking has been implicated in many cancers other than lung cancer and passing this information may evoke a choice for cessation. The participants and general public will also be educated on coping strategies and possible medication interventions to help in the management of tobacco addiction. Participants will also be given newsletters, brochures and placards detailing the effects of cigarette smoking on health. Participants will be required to a small commitment fee of 20$. This fee is more of a registration fee and not a fee to suffice the interventions in the program as it would be insufficient. The program is set to run for 1 year. The estimated budget for the intervention program is about 500,000$. Telephone calls will be scheduled between qualified smoking cessation counsellors and cigarette addicts to hold one on one cessations to provide support for quitting. Various stakeholders will be involved in the program. The program will require the input of physicians, pharmacists, registered nurses, trained smoking cessation counsellors, permission from local authorities to hold public gatherings, public health specialists, health educators and volunteers. Physicians can provide referrals for potential participants. The professionals in the health field can provide health education and health promotion messages to participants. Pharmacists can provide various medications that can assist in tackling tobacco addiction. These include therapeutic options such as nicotine replacement therapy. They can also offer medical advice to participants already displaying effects and diseases related to cigarette smoking.

Various challenges may be encountered in the implementation of this program. This program may be inaccessible to others who may benefit from it (Minnix et al., 2018). This may stem from geographical barriers and travel costs which may not be feasible. This program can be tackled by offering online support opportunities and maximizing telephone calls. Toll-free numbers can be provided to ease this. Registration fees can also be moderated based on income estimations (Chiu et al., 2021). The awareness of the program may be an issue. This can be broadened by the promotion of the program. Promotion can be done through televised advertisements, radio advertisements and billboards. Moreover, social media pages can also be developed to create public awareness. Physicians and other healthcare professionals can play a central role in promotion (O’Keeffe et al., 2018). They can target possible patients with tobacco addiction in the hospital setting, discuss the program with other health providers during hospital meetings and dispense brochures regarding the program to patients and other caregivers. The financial requirements may be significant. This may need the involvement of potential donor organizations and other forms of charity.

Health Promotion Theory

A theory that can be applied is the health belief theory (Pribadi & Devy, 2020). Participants in the program can be educated regarding cigarette smoking and its potential consequences. They can be educated on lung cancer risks related to cigarette smoking behaviour. They can also be educated on the benefits of cessation. They can also be enlightened on challenges to cessation and the coping strategies that can be applied (Upadhyay et al., 2019). With this information, tobacco addicts can gain insight into their susceptibility to cigarette diseases including lung cancer, the consequences of continual smoking, the benefits of cessation and some of the challenges in cessation and coping difficulties (Pribadi & Devy, 2020). These may provide the addicts with information to evaluate their risk for lung cancer and other consequences to enable them to make informed decisions regarding their smoking behaviour (Upadhyay et al., 2019). It may spark a drive to quit smoking behaviour and the potential to seek cigarette cessation programs.

Expected Outcomes

The expected outcomes include an increased number of participants enrolled with time, decreased incidences and prevalence of lung cancer and decreased prevalence of smoking (Minnix et al., 2018). Moreover, the focus, efficiency and quality of the telephone sessions are expected to improve as counsellors gain more experience with time. The number of clients supported through telephone sessions is expected to increase. Awareness and access to the program are also expected to increase. If the expected outcomes are not realised, the promotion of the program can be increased to create more awareness. The participants can be given evaluation forms to assess their satisfaction. The participants can also be questioned on the challenges that hinder cessation and the potential triggers for relapse (Tindle et al., 2018). Moreover, new processes and strategies can be developed to promote the growth and success of the program.

Contributors to Lung Cancer in Cigarette Smokers

The influence of environmental pollution plays a key role in lung cancer incidences in smokers. These pollutants increase the risk of progression to malignancy. Genetic differences among smokers can play a role. Some groups of smokers are at more risk of developing cancer due to genetics. Moreover, individuals with a family history of lung cancer may compound their risk of lung cancer with cigarette smoking (Kumar et al., 2021). Poverty may deny smokers access to screening programs and interventions such as curative surgery for early lesions. Low levels of income may also deny this vulnerable population access to preventive programs and medications to manage addiction (Minnix et al., 2018). A low level of education impacts awareness of the consequences of cigarette smoking and access to health promotion information.

Advocacy for Cigarette Smokers

I can support labour laws that mandate employers to provide safe working conditions for employees to mitigate occupational exposure to carcinogens. Carcinogens may increase their risk of lung cancer. Some of these individuals live in poverty. I can support family income supplementation programs and these can reduce the inequality in income (Oerther & Rosa, 2020). This can enable them to afford screening programs and curative treatments, especially at the early stages of disease. I can also take part in health education programs that educate them on prevention measures, the dangers of cigarette smoking, coping strategies and the benefits of cigarette cessation (Chiu et al., 2021). I can also collaborate with other health professionals to provide the best care and education for this group to ensure that they make informed decisions about their care. I can also support organizations and agencies that advocate for insurance for marginalised groups (Oerther & Rosa, 2020). Different areas of health can advocate for equity by maintaining the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, justice and non-maleficence. Additionally, I can consult management teams to include disadvantaged groups in their budgets to help in minimizing health care costs and provide treatment waivers (Chiu et al., 2021). These can improve health of these groups.

Conclusion

Lung cancer can cause significant morbidity and is a common cause of mortality among cigarette smokers. Cigarette cessation has been identified as a viable option to reduce the incidences, prevalence and mortality of lung cancer in cigarette smokers. Various stakeholders such as health professionals and donors may be needed for the success of cessation programs. Identification and management of potential challenges in cessation programs may promote the success of such programs. Various patient inequalities exist and this may predispose them to various diseases. Tackling patient inequalities and upholding ethical considerations can improve access to quality care and lead to improved patient outcomes.

Also Read

DNP 825A Reflective Journal

DNP 825 Population Management Syllabus

References

Chiu, P., Cummings, G. G., Thorne, S., & Schick-Makaroff, K. (2021). Policy advocacy and nursing organizations: A scoping review. Policy, Politics & Nursing Practice, 22(4), 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/15271544211050611

Kumar, V., Abbas, A. K., & Aster, J. C. (2021). Robbins Basic Pathology (V. Kumar, A. K. Abbas, & J. C. Aster, Eds.; 10th ed.). Elsevier – Health Sciences Division.

Minnix, J. A., Karam-Hage, M., Blalock, J. A., & Cinciripini, P. M. (2018). The importance of incorporating smoking cessation into lung cancer screening. Translational Lung Cancer Research, 7(3), 272–280. https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr.2018.05.03

Oerther, S. E., & Rosa, W. E. (2020). Advocating for equality: The backbone of the Sustainable Development Goals. The American Journal of Nursing, 120(12), 60–62. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000724256.31342.4b

O’Keeffe, L. M., Taylor, G., Huxley, R. R., Mitchell, P., Woodward, M., & Peters, S. A. E. (2018). Smoking as a risk factor for lung cancer in women and men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open, 8(10), e021611. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021611

Pribadi, E. T., & Devy, S. R. (2020). Application of the Health Belief Model on the intention to stop smoking behavior among young adult women. Journal of Public Health Research, 9(2), 1817. https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2020.1817

Tindle, H. A., Stevenson Duncan, M., Greevy, R. A., Vasan, R. S., Kundu, S., Massion, P. P., & Freiberg, M. S. (2018). Lifetime smoking history and risk of lung cancer: Results from the Framingham heart study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 110(11), 1201–1207. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djy041

Upadhyay, S., Lord, J., & Gakh, M. (2019). Health-information seeking and intention to quit smoking: Do health beliefs have a mediating role? Tobacco Use Insights, 12, 1179173X19871310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1179173X19871310

DNP-825A Clinical Site QI-IRB Report Sample

Clinical Site QI-IRB Report  

Research is an important role of nurses prepared at the doctoral level. Research enables them to discover new aspects of nursing care, management, and education that can be adopted to improve outcomes. They also implement quality improvement interventions in their practice sites to address inefficiencies in performance. Institutions have institutional review boards that oversee the research and quality improvement initiatives that nurses prepared at the doctoral level undertake (Aldridge, 2022; Slutsman & Nieman, 2018). Consequently, it is important to understand the processes utilized in getting institutional review board approvals in different institutions.  

Nurses intending to undertake research or quality improvement initiatives in my practice site are expected to undergo the processes laid by the institutional review board. The first step is the submission of the research proposal or quality improvement proposal to the organization’s quality assurance team. The quality assurance assesses the proposals to determine their need in the organization. They also determine if the proposal meets the requirements of being considered as either quality improvement or research projects in the hospital. In some instances, they reach out to the researcher to obtain more insights on the proposed projects. The quality assurance team provides feedback on the next course of action for the researcher. For example, if approved at this stage, one is allowed to submit the proposal to the institutional review board. If not one has the opportunity to revise the proposal according to the comments that the quality review team gives the researcher. Any proposal must be approved by the quality assurance team before being submitted to the institution review board.  

The second step in the process is the submission of the proposal to the institutional review board. This is achieved by submitting it through the online system that has been developed for this purpose. One must ensure that the proposal meets the set requirements by the board. The requirements include addressing the crucial needs of the organization, scientific, and developed according to the structure that is approved by the board. Once submitted, the researcher waits up to two months for the initial response from the board. The board is expected to convene a meeting within this period to review the proposal. The board can either approve the proposal directly, request for a revision of some aspects of the proposal, or reject it.  

The board has developed timelines that must be met if a proposal is to be revised. In most cases, the researcher has up to two months to respond to any concerns the board raises about the research or quality improvement initiative. Any delay will translate into the need for the researcher starting from the initial stages involving the submission of a proposal to the quality assurance department. If approved, the researcher is allowed to proceed with the project undertaking as proposed in the research or the quality improvement initiative. The institutional review board has been inexistence for long in the hospital. It ensures that the researches or quality improvement initiatives undertaken by the practitioners safeguard the rights of the study participants. They also ensure that they promote safety, quality, and efficiency in the patient care (Duffy et al., 2020; Grady, 2019; Rodriguez et al., 2021).  

Conclusion 

The submission of a research or quality improvement initiatives in the hospital is a two-step process. One must be approved by the quality assurance department before being submitted to the institutional review board. The institutional review board assesses the ethical nature of the proposals and makes decisions about them. Therefore, researchers and healthcare providers should be informed about the processes utilized in the organization to enable them undertake their projects efficiently.  

References 

Aldridge, M. D. (2022). Maneuvering the Institutional Review Board Process: A Guide for Critical Care Nurses and Researchers. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 41(1), 24–28. 

Duffy, K. A., Ziolek, T. A., & Epperson, C. N. (2020). Filling the regulatory gap: Potential role of institutional review boards in promoting consideration of sex as a biological variable. Journal of Women’s Health, 29(6), 868–875. 

Grady, C. (2019). Bioethics in the oversight of clinical research: Institutional review boards and data and safety monitoring boards. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 29(1), 33–49. 

Rodriguez, E., Pahlevan-Lbrekic, C., & Larson, E. L. (2021). Facilitating Timely Institutional Review Board Review: Common Issues and Recommendations. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 16(3), 255–262. 

Slutsman, J., & Nieman, L. (2018). Institutional review boards. In Principles and practice of clinical research (pp. 47–61). Elsevier.