(SOLUTION) NR305 Week 5 Discussion: Debriefing of Week 4 iHuman Neurovascular Assessment

Purpose

The purpose of this debriefing is to re-examine the experience completing the Week 4 iHuman Neurovascular Assessment assignment while engaging in dialogue with faculty and peers. In the debriefings, students:

  • Reflect on the simulation activity
  • Share what went well and consider alternative actions
  • Engage in meaningful dialogue with classmates
  • Express opinions clearly and logically, in a professional manner

Course Outcomes

This debriefing enables the student to meet the following course outcomes:

CO 2: Differentiate between normal and abnormal health assessment findings. (PO 4)

CO 3: Describe physical, psychosocial, cultural, and spiritual influences on an individual’s health status. (PO 1)

CO 4: Demonstrate effective communication skills during health assessment and documentation. (PO 3)

Due Date

  • During the assigned week (Sunday the start of the assigned week through Sunday the end of the assigned week):
    • Posts in the discussion at least two times, and
    • Posts in the discussion on two different days

Points Possible

50 points

Directions

  • Debriefing is an activity that involves thinking critically about your own experiences related to the virtual simulation you completed. In debriefings students:
    • Demonstrate understanding of concepts for the week
    • Engage in meaningful dialogue with classmates and/or instructor
    • Express opinions clearly and logically, in a professional manner
  • Use the rubric on this page as you compose your answers.
  • Scholarly sources are NOT required for this debriefing
  • Best Practices include:
    • Participation early in the week is encouraged to stimulate meaningful discussion among classmates and instructor.
    • Enter the debriefing often during the week to read and learn from posts.
    • Select different classmates for your reply each week.

Debriefing

Debriefing

Use the following format to reflect on the Week 4 iHuman Neurovascular Assessment. This was the Athena Washington case.

  • Paragraph One: What went well for you in the simulation? Provide examples of when you felt knowledgeable and confident in your skills. Do you feel the scenario was realistic? Why or why not?
  • Paragraph Two: What would you do differently next time if you were caring for a patient similar to Ms. Washington? Describe at least one area you identified where improvements could be made, specific to Ms. Washington’s assessment. Were you surprised by any of the feedback you were provided by iHuman? If yes, please explain.
  • Paragraph Three: What did you learn from this simulation that you could apply to nursing practice? Or, what did this simulation reinforce that you found valuable? Do you have any questions related to the scenario?

SOLUTION

In this week’s neurovascular assessment, I had a good understanding of Ms. Washington’s symptoms and medication. This is one area that I felt knowledgeable and confident. I felt confident anticipating the medications during the pre-work exercises. Ms. Washington was kept NPO due to failing the nursing bedside swallow screen. So, IV medications were the best route to go. The scenario was realistic because her symptoms played out like those of a stroke. She developed a severe headache the night before admission. Then woke up to left-sided weakness, disorientation, and slurred speech.

Next time, I would pay more attention to the initial photo of the patient. Initially, I did not see Ms. Washington’s left facial droop at first. During the physical assessment, I was then able to identify her left facial droop. Please click the purchase button to access the entire copy at $5