NR 305 Week 4: Discussion: Debriefing of Week 3 iHuman Cardiovascular Assessment (Graded)

Chamberlain University NR 305 Week 4: Discussion: Debriefing of Week 3 iHuman Cardiovascular Assessment (Graded)– Step-By-Step Guide

This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Chamberlain University  NR 305 Week 4: Discussion: Debriefing of Week 3 iHuman Cardiovascular Assessment (Graded)  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 NR 305 Week 4: Discussion: Debriefing of Week 3 iHuman Cardiovascular Assessment (Graded)                        

Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Chamberlain University  NR 305 Week 4: Discussion: Debriefing of Week 3 iHuman Cardiovascular Assessment (Graded) 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 NR 305 Week 4: Discussion: Debriefing of Week 3 iHuman Cardiovascular Assessment (Graded)                        

The introduction for the Chamberlain University  NR 305 Week 4: Discussion: Debriefing of Week 3 iHuman Cardiovascular Assessment (Graded) 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 NR 305 Week 4: Discussion: Debriefing of Week 3 iHuman Cardiovascular Assessment (Graded)                        

After the introduction, move into the main part of the NR 305 Week 4: Discussion: Debriefing of Week 3 iHuman Cardiovascular Assessment (Graded)  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 NR 305 Week 4: Discussion: Debriefing of Week 3 iHuman Cardiovascular Assessment (Graded)                        

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 NR 305 Week 4: Discussion: Debriefing of Week 3 iHuman Cardiovascular Assessment (Graded)                        

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 NR 305 Week 4: Discussion: Debriefing of Week 3 iHuman Cardiovascular Assessment (Graded)  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 NR 305 Week 4: Discussion: Debriefing of Week 3 iHuman Cardiovascular Assessment (Graded)

In the Week 3 iHuman Cardiovascular Assessment simulation featuring Mr. Michael Granger, there were several aspects that went well for me. I felt knowledgeable and confident in my ability to perform a thorough cardiovascular assessment. For instance, I successfully gathered Mr. Granger’s medical history, including his risk factors such as hypertension, which helped me formulate a comprehensive picture of his health. Additionally, I was able to accurately assess his vital signs, including blood pressure, heart rate, and respiratory rate, and interpret them in the context of his condition. Overall, the scenario felt realistic, as it presented a patient with common cardiovascular issues, and the information provided was consistent with what one might encounter in a real clinical setting.

Looking back on the simulation, there are a few things I would do differently if I were caring for a patient similar to Mr. Granger. One area where improvements could be made is in my communication skills. I realized that I could have been more empathetic and patient-centered in my interactions with Mr. Granger. Additionally, I should have provided more education and counseling on lifestyle modifications, such as quitting smoking and adhering to a heart-healthy diet. I was somewhat surprised by the feedback from iHuman, particularly in terms of my communication skills. It highlighted the importance of effective patient-provider communication and how it can impact the overall quality of care. This feedback reminded me that in nursing practice, it’s not just about the technical skills but also about building trust and rapport with patients.

This simulation reinforced the importance of holistic patient assessment and individualized care planning in nursing practice. It emphasized that a patient’s medical history, lifestyle, and risk factors are crucial in determining their cardiovascular health. Moreover, it underscored the need for clear and empathetic communication with patients, as this can significantly affect their understanding of their condition and their motivation to make positive lifestyle changes. Moving forward, I plan to apply these lessons by focusing on patient-centered care, actively listening to patients’ concerns, and providing them with the necessary information and support to manage their cardiovascular health. I also have a question related to the scenario: How can I improve my skills in delivering difficult health-related messages to patients in a compassionate and understanding manner, especially when discussing topics like smoking cessation or lifestyle changes?

ALSO READ:

NR 305 Week 5 Discussion: Assessing for Family Violence (graded)

NR 305 Week 5: Discussion: Debriefing of Week 4 iHuman Neurovascular Assessment (Graded)

NR 305 Week 6: Discussion: Reflection on Nursing Assessment for Violence (Graded)

NR 305 Week 6 Discussion: Providing Culturally Competent Nursing Care (graded)

NR 305 Week 7 Discussion: Assessment Techniques (graded)

NR 305 Mental Health Assessment Amka Oxendine (iHuman) (Graded)

NR 305 Week 7 Debriefing of Week 6 iHuman Mental Health Assessment (Graded)

NR 305 Week 8 Discussion: Case Study or Share an Experience (graded)

NR 305 Week 8: Discussion: Reflection on End of Life Care (Graded)

NR 305 Week 8 Discussion: AACN Essentials Informatics Self-Assessment (graded)

Sample Answer 2 for NR 305 Week 4: Discussion: Debriefing of Week 3 iHuman Cardiovascular Assessment (Graded)

Last week with the Michael Granger assignment I felt a lot more comfortable going through the history questions. I knew what base questions to ask and then pinpointed the areas that I needed more information on to perform the rest of the assessment. For example, Mr. Granger said that he had an 8-lb weight gain, leg swelling, and shortness of breath during the history questioning, so I made sure to focus on those areas and ask more in-depth questions. I was trying to figure out when the symptoms started, if he had tried to treat any of them, and if they got worse at certain times. This then helped in the physical assessment because I knew the areas I wanted to really focus on for abnormalities. I feel like this is a very realistic scenario because I have had several patients with these exact symptoms and experiences when I worked in the ICU.

One thing I would like to have done differently is to get a second opinion on the sounds in the heart. I have a terrible time distinguishing between different heart sounds, no matter how many videos I watch or audios I listen to. So, I would have liked to grab another nurse or even my charge nurse to listen to the sounds to verify what I was hearing, because the first time around I diagnosed the sound as a heart murmur. Listening to heart sounds and being able to differentiate between them is something that I have and will continue to work on. It is a necessary skill for our job, it’s just a tough one for me. I did receive feedback from iHuman on this one, which did not surprise me, because I labeled the heart sound incorrectly. The other piece of feedback that I received that did surprise me a little bit (but in retrospect shouldn’t have) was that I labeled the blood pressure as normotensive, and it was supposed to be high. I have been a nurse for a few years now and I know that the textbook blood pressure is 120/80, but I have had patients with blood pressures all over the place and we tend to not balk too much at a blood pressure that is like 138/88 or something along that line. Yes, that is high and coupled with Mr. Granger’s other symptoms is not ideal, so I understand why I got the feedback on that one.

From this simulation, I learned the importance of distinguishing between heart sounds and realizing that if I can’t figure it out, I need to ask for help in that area. I also learned that even though I have been doing this for a while now I still need to pay attention to all my patient’s symptoms collectively. I tend to focus on symptoms that are very severe and diminishing symptoms that I feel can be treated quickly. While this may work for a few patients it’s not good practice to maintain. I need to evaluate everything that is going on with my patients to figure out why they are having certain symptoms, be able to communicate with the doctor about what the patient may need, and, most importantly, for patient safety. I tend to get into a daily routine when I have patients with a lot of similar symptoms, and I need to remember that it is important to differentiate between my patients and treat their symptoms individually.

Sample Answer 3 for NR 305 Week 4: Discussion: Debriefing of Week 3 iHuman Cardiovascular Assessment (Graded)

The week 3 iHuman case on Mr. Granger went much smoother than the previous cases. I feel like I know how to maneuver the different tabs and not accidentally click past important material. When conducting the history portion of the assessment, I am confident and detail orientated. I know when Mr. Granger answered yes to closed-ended questions that I must dig deeper with open-ended questions. Typically, when I began questioning further, I uncovered pertinent information that was quite useful later in the case. During the EMR review, I felt knowledgeable because of my previous experience in Case Management, which enables me to quickly identify abnormalities. The scenario was realistic and reminded me of many of the frequent findings encountered on most medical floors. A great majority of my patients have been non-compliant with diet, so I enjoyed working through a problem encountered often.

Next time I begin my iHuman Case, I will slow down. I feel like I must rush through the case. I was rushed and accidentally clicked a female assessment of breasts. This is most likely due to having many patients assigned to me and feeling rushed in real life. Although we would all love to spend an hour with each patient being as thorough as possible, it’s not realistic. I would do things differently if I encountered a similar patient to Mr. Granger. I would focus my questions in the beginning on what he’s presenting with. I would ask questions based on acute finding and then go towards questions about issues that are chronic or we have no history of. It was surprising to receive feedback that I still did not listen to the bowel sounds long enough in each quadrant. I also did not listen for the pulses in the carotid artery long enough. I was taught to go to the brachial or radial pulses on an awake patient, however, when I see all the opinions highlighted, it makes me want to try them all.

This case taught me a lot about the art of pacing yourself and not rushing through an assessment. It is so easy to miss very important details when you are racing against the shift with call lights screaming and terrible nurse to patient ratios. The iHuman simulations give me the opportunity to pause and learn proper techniques with thorough feedback. At no time was Mr. Granger going to code on me during the case, which is comforting to know. This course provides a safe environment to make mistakes and learn from them.