Women Health – Week 7 Discussion 2nd REPLY

Reply to the following discussion by challenging the post. You will want to focus on their point of view, asking pertinent questions, adding to the responses by including information from other sources, and respectfully challenging a point of view, supported by references to other sources. Be objective, clear, and concise. Always use constructive language.It is important to support what you say with relevant citations in the APA format from both the course materials and outside resources.YS Discussion:Week 7 DiscussionPICOT QuestionFor the adults who suffer from hypertension in the United States (P), will the change of lifestyle (engaging in regular physical exercises and eating healthier and balanced meals) (I), compared to patients who use medication to treat their hypertension(C), help regulate their blood pressure more effectively (O), in a period 12 months (T)?The ProblemHypertension has been one of the main health issues of concern in the United States and across the world. It is imperative to note that as of April 2020, almost half of adults in the United States were suffering from hypertension. According to Ostchega et al. (2020), 47%, which is equivalent to 116 million, of all the adults in the United States has hypertension. Another notable point is that only 1 in every 4 people suffering from hypertension had their conditions under control. Hypertension is one of the leading causes of death. In the year 2019, more 500,000 deaths, which occurred in the United States, were associated with hypertension (Briggs et al., 2021). In some cases, hypertension was the primary cause while in others; it was the secondary cause of death. When it comes to costs associated with the condition, Ostchega et al. (2020) noted that between the year 2003 and 2014, the average amount of money used to address the problem was $131 billion every year. This indicates that large sums of funds are used to ensure that people who are suffering from hypertension are treated.From the research that has been conducted in the past, one of the main causes of hypertension is the changing lifestyle, which is associated with taking unhealthy food and lack of physical exercises. According to Mahmood et al. (2019), most of the people change their lifestyles due to the nature of their work. For example, one may be required to board a bus to his or her place of work. In some cases, he or she will leave too late and exhausted. This will make him or her desire to rest early when he or she gets home. In most cases, advancements made in technology has also ensured that people buy canned, processed, fast, and fried foods which are readily available and accessible (Mahmood et al., 2019). This has played a critical role in leading to increased cases of hypertension among the populations. In some cases, as indicated by Ostchega et al. (2020), there is inherited hypertension. However, it is important to note that hypertension can be managed and controlled through taking healthy diets and conducting different physical exercises (Mahmood et al., 2019).In this case, DASH diet and conducting physical exercises will play a critical role in ensuring that patients who suffer from hypertension are able to achieve positive health outcomes (Mahmood et al., 2019). Patients will be required to ensure that they eat healthy foods and carry out different physical exercises, which will be provided by the medical practitioners.StakeholdersThere will be different stakeholders who will take part in the implementation of the EBP plan. First, the medical practitioners will be involved in the plan. Health care organizations usually have different medical practitioners who play different roles in ensuring that the goals and objectives of their organizations are achieved (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2018). In this case, the plan will require a collective effort for it to be successful. The medical practitioners will be screening patients to find out their blood pressure. After the screening process, the medical practitioners will be duty bound to ensure that they educate the patients about some of the foods, which they should avoid, and the foods that will ensure that they effectively and successfully manage and control their blood pressure. The hypertension patients will also be stakeholders in this plan (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2018). They will be the ones to be treated through different non-pharmacological strategies. Thirdly, the IT team will also play a role in the implementation of the plan. They will help the medical practitioners and the patients in tracking the progress of the plan. For example, the patients will be progressively screened to find out whether there are any improvements in their blood pressure. Again, they will also ensure that the patients are assisted with any information, which they will require during the implementation of the plan (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2018).BarriersOne of the main barriers is the stakeholders failing to cooperate. For the plan to be successful, all the stakeholders, including the employees in the health care organization should ensure that they effectively play their role (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2018). The second barrier is lack of resources. For example, the organization will be required to ensure that there is a room in which the patients can carry out their physical exercises being guided and directed by the medical practitioners and gym trainers. Failing to have sufficient resources will make it hard for the goals and objectives of the plan to be achieved (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2018). Another barrier is failing to educate the patients effectively about the DASH diet. It is imperative to note that the patients of hypertension will rely on the information, which will be offered by the medical practitioners during the implementation of the plan (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2018).Effective Strategies to Disseminate Information about the Practice Change to Those Implementing ItTo disseminate information about the practice change, the implementation team will begin by educating the medical practitioners who will be offering different services to the patients. As noted by Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (2018), the medical practitioners will be playing a critical role of ensuring that patients are educated and informed about the non-pharmacological management of hypertension. After being educated, the medical practitioners will be allowed to share ideas, views and opinions regarding the plan. Some of them can be having helpful ideas, which can be added on the plan. Again, during the training sessions, health professionals who will take part in the implementation of the plan will be allowed to ask questions seeking clarification of issues about the change that they do not understand (Gray et al., 2016). Answering their questions will play a critical role in ensuring that they are more informed about the change. It is also imperative to note that another strategy that will be used is ensuring that all medical practitioners have booklets, which will guide them during that implementation process. These booklets will have all the information about the change and how it should be carried out. When it comes to the patient, there will be also sessions of education whereby they will be educated about the change that will be taking place. They will be informed about the non-pharmacological management of hypertension and why it will be important for them. Again, the implementation team will also set aside a few medical practitioners who will be responding to questions or concerns, which will be raised by the patients during the implementation (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2018).EvaluationEvaluation of the change will be taking place after every two weeks. For example, if a patient has been put on diet, he or she can lose weight and his or her blood pressure improves. To evaluate his or her progress, the weight of the patient will be measured and his or her blood pressure will be tested (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2018). Again, the implementation team will also evaluate the progress of the change by finding out whether the goals and objectives of the change are achieved. For example, if one of the goals is ensuring that at least half of the patients have normal blood pressure after the first two months, the team will find out whether this goal will achieved after the first two months (Gray et al., 2016).ReferencesBriggs, F. B. S., Hill, E., & Abboud, H. (2021). The prevalence of hypertension in multiple sclerosis based on 37 million electronic health records from the United States. European Journal of Neurology, 28(2), 558-566.Gray, J., Grove, S., & Sutherland, S. (2016). Burns and Grove’s the practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence (8th ed.). Elsevier. ISBN: 9780323377584.Mahmood, S., Shah, K. U., Khan, T. M., Nawaz, S., Rashid, H., Baqar, S. W. A., & Kamran, S. (2019). Non-pharmacological management of hypertension: in the light of current research. Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971-), 188(2), 437-452.Melnyk, B. & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare (4th ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins-LWW. ISBN: 9781496384539.Ostchega, Y., Fryar, C. D., Nwankwo, T., & Nguyen, D. T. (2020). Hypertension prevalence among adults aged 18 and over: United States, 2017–2018.

PowerpointLeaderS

Please follow the points . Thanks

Discussion 1 Leadership Theories in Practice

Discussion 1 Leadership Theories in PracticeA walk through the Business section of any bookstore or a quick Internet search on the topic will reveal a seemingly endless supply of writings on leadership. Formal research literature is also teeming with volumes on the subject.However, your own observation and experiences may suggest these theories are not always so easily found in practice. Not that the potential isn’t there; current evidence suggests that leadership factors such as emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behaviors, for example, can be highly effective for leading nurses and organizations.Yet, how well are these theories put to practice?In this Discussion, you will examine formal leadership theories. You will compare these theories to behaviors you have observed firsthand and discuss their effectiveness in impacting your organization.To Prepare:· Review the Resources and examine the leadership theories and behaviors introduced.·Identify two to three scholarly resources, in addition to this Module’s readings, that evaluate the impact of leadership behaviors in creating healthy work environments.·Reflect on the leadership behaviors presented in the three resources that you selected for review.·Posttwo key insights you had from the scholarly resources you selected. Describe a leader whom you have seen use such behaviors and skills, or a situation where you have seen these behaviors and skills used in practice. Be specific and provide examples.Then, explain to what extent these skills were effective and how their practice impacted the workplace.READING RESOURCESMarshall, E., & Broome, M. (2017). Transformational leadership in nursing: From expert clinician to influential leader (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.Chapter 1, “Expert Clinician      to Transformational Leader in a Complex Health Care Organization:      Foundations” (pp. 7–20 ONLY)Chapter 6, “Frameworks for      Becoming a Transformational Leader” (pp. 145–170)Chapter 7, “Becoming a Leader: It’s All About      You” (pp. 171–194)ARTICLEDuggan, K., Aisaka, K., Tabak, R. G., Smith, C., Erwin, P., & Brownson, R. C. (2015). Implementing administrative evidence-based practices: Lessons from the field in six local health departments across the United States. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1). doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0891-3. Retrieved from https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-015-0891-3AbstractBackgroundAdministrative evidence based practices (A-EBPs) are agency level structures and activities positively associated with performance measures (e.g., achieving core public health functions, carrying out evidence-based interventions). The objectives of this study were to examine the contextual conditions and explore differences in local health department (LHD) characteristics that influence the implementation of A-EBPs.MethodsQualitative case studies were conducted based on data from 35 practitioners in six LHDs across the United States. The sample was chosen using an A-EBP score from our 2012 national survey and was linked to secondary data from the National Public Health Performance Standards Program. Three LHDs that scored high and three LHDs that scored low on both measures were selected as case study sites. The 37-question interview guide explored LHD use of an evidence based decision making process, including A-EBPs and evidence-based programs and policies. Each interview took 30–60 min. Standard qualitative methodology was used for data coding and analysis using NVivo software.ResultsAs might be expected, high-capacity LHDs were more likely to have strong leadership, partnerships, financial flexibility, workforce development activities, and an organizational culture supportive of evidence based decision making and implementation of A-EBPs. They were also more likely to describe having strong or important relationships with universities and other educational resources, increasing their access to resources and allowing them to more easily share knowledge and expertise.ConclusionsDifferences between high- and low-capacity LHDs in A-EBP domains highlight the importance of investments in these areas and the potential those investments have to contribute to overall efficiency and performance. Further research may identify avenues to enhance resources in these domains to create an organizational culture supportive of A-EBPs.Peer Review reportsBackgroundThe tenets of evidence-based decision making (EBDM) in public health have been formally developed over the past 15 years in several countries. Evidence-based decision making is a process that involves the integration of the best available research evidence, practitioner expertise, and the characteristics, needs, and preferences of the community [1–9]. In local health departments (LHDs), this process includes the implementation of administrative evidence based practices (A-EBPs) [9]. Administrative evidence based practices are agency level structures and activities positively associated with performance measures (e.g., achieving core public health functions, carrying out evidence-based interventions) [10]. There are five broad domains of A-EBPs: leadership, workforce development, partnerships, financial processes, and organizational culture and climate (Table 1). These domains were previously developed from a literature review of evidence reviews that aimed to identify administrative practices of varying priority, determined by the length of time needed to modify them or the strength of their research support [10]. The five broad domains, and their 11 subdomains, are described as both high-priority and locally modifiable in a short to medium timeframe [10]. Use of A-EBPs in LHDs is important because these practices have been shown to be effective in boosting performance, contributing to accreditation efforts, and may ultimately lead to improved health of the population [9, 10]. In addition, the Public Health Accreditation Board requires that LHDs use and contribute to the evidence base, and likewise requires effective administrative practices – thus use of A-EBPs may fulfill multiple domains within the LHD accreditation process [11]. Since LHDs in the United States are using A-EBPs to varying degrees [12, 13], it is important to examine the contextual conditions that influence the implementation of A-EBPs. The purpose of this study, then, is to explore differences in LHD characteristics that may in part explain the differences in implementation of A-EBPs. In particular, this study will focus on contextual differences between high- and low-capacity LHDs, further defined below.Table 1 Administrative evidence-based practices (A-EBPs)a in local health departmentsFull size tableMethodsA mixed methods approach was utilized to expand upon quantitative findings from the LEAD PublicHealth National Survey (LEAD survey) and further examine differences in LHD characteristics that influence the use of A-EBPs [12, 13]. Qualitative case studies were conducted among a select number of LHDs, in conjunction with a set of quantitative studies on the definition and use of A-EBPs in LHDs [9, 10, 12, 14–17]. The case study sample was selected using an A-EBP score from the LEAD survey (described elsewhere) [12] and secondary data from the National Public Health Performance Standards Program (NPHPSP). A set of A-EBP scores were derived from thirteen 7-point Likert scale questions from the LEAD survey and sum scores were then ranked into quartiles. Secondary data from the NPHPSP was linked to the LEAD survey; in concordance with NPHPSP scoring methodology, an overall performance score was computed as a simple average of the 10 Essential Public Health Services scores and then ranked into quartiles. “High-capacity” was defined as A-EBP scores in the top quartiles and “low-capacity” defined as scores in the bottom quartiles for both the LEAD survey and the NPHPSP.Three LHDs that were in the top quartile and three from the bottom quartile of both measures were used as case study sites. The 6 sites were selected to provide a variation in geographic dispersion, governance structure and jurisdiction size. A goal of 6–8 interviews was used to achieve content saturation. Previous research shows that meaningful themes can be developed after 6 interviews and saturation is often present with 12 interviews [18]. All of the LHDs that were selected and approached agreed to participate in this research.Case study guide developmentThe interview guide (see Additional file 1) was developed based on previous literature [19–22], prior work by members of the research team (both researchers and practitioners) [23, 24], and research team input to explore LHD use of an EBDM process, including A-EBPs and evidence-based programs and policies. Evidence-based programs and policies include interventions, programs, and policies with evidence (based on published research) of improving health. Interview guide questions were developed to qualitatively supplement the data gaps from the quantitative national survey [12, 15]. The guide included the following topic areas: 1) biographical information; 2) awareness of the existence of an EBDM process; 3) administrative support for EBDM; 4) knowledge of the LHD accreditation process; 5) political climate and support for EBDM; 6) dissemination strategies that would further EBDM; and 7) key networks and partnerships to support EBDM.Cognitive response testingIn May 2013, the case study guide underwent cognitive response testing to elicit questions that were either unclear or potentially difficult to answer. Cognitive response testing is routinely used in refining questionnaires to improve the quality of data collection [25–28]. These 45–60 min phone interviews were conducted by the project manager with directors of LHDs in two states not selected as case study sites. The cognitive response testing sample (n = 6) was purposively selected by members of the research team. Upon verification of consent, all interviews were audio recorded, and field notes were taken during the interviews. Participants were instructed to provide feedback on questions lacking clarity and items that could be viewed as potentially difficult to answer. After the tester verbalized each question, the participant was allowed time to provide relevant feedback on each item. Information from these interviews was used to modify items and formulate the revised questionnaire for reliability testing. The final interview guide included 37 questions in the seven topic areas previously listed.Case study interviewsInterviews were conducted with 35 practitioners (including directors and assistant ant directors) from the six case study sites in June-July of 2013, with an average of five interviews per LHD. LHD directors and assistant directors selected a variety of practitioners/professional staff for interviews including program managers, clinic managers, and administrative or financial managers because these individuals were likely to be knowledgeable about the LHD’s EBDM practices. Each interview was conducted by two members of the research team and took 30–60 min, depending on the length of answers and knowledge of the practitioner. All participants provided informed consent before the interview began. This study received IRB approval from Washington University in St. Louis.AnalysisThe interviews were tape recorded with the respondent’s permission and transcribed verbatim. Standard qualitative methodology was used for data coding using NVivo software. Four team members were trained on coding to ensure reliability among raters. A codebook was complied with inductive codes, and both inductive and deductive codes were used when coding the transcripts. Coders were assigned transcripts to code independently, after which the codebook was refined to capture new themes and subcategories. Updated codebooks were distributed after each coding session. Coding pairs systematically coded three interviews using NVivo noting any discrepancies and alternate coding. Once these transcripts were coded and the codebook refined, inter-rater reliability was evaluated using NVivo with a final percent agreement among coders of 98 %. Data from each LHD was summarized and combined into high-capacity LHD and low-capacity LHD categories. Node reports were generated to explore common themes in the high-capacity and low-capacity LHDs and then summarized into thematic reports for each of the five A-EBP domains.ResultsOf the three LHDs categorized as high-capacity, two had local governance and one had shared governance between the state and LHD. One LHD was in each of these three jurisdiction sizes: 500,000+; 100,000–499,999; and 25,000–49,999. Two of these LHDs were in the Midwest census region and one in the South census region. The three LHDs categorized as low-capacity had two state-governed health departments and one with shared governance. Two of them had population jurisdiction sizes between 50,000–99,999 persons, and one between 25,000–49,999 persons. There was one LHD in each of the census regions of the South, Northeast, and West.From the thematic reports, the similarities and differences of high-capacity and low-capacity LHDs were compared across the five A-EBP domains and organized into an A-EBP table (Table 2). Based on the A-EBP table, specific themes and patterns were identified and explored. The domain of relationships and partnerships was very similar for both high- and low-capacity LHDs—both groups reported that they value partnerships and often share expertise and staff time with their partners. The only difference that appeared was specific to internal relationships within the LHD. Consequently, we have limited the discussion of partnerships to the differences in internal relationships that have been grouped under organizational culture and climate. The domains of workforce development, leadership, and organizational climate and culture had the most dramatic differences between high and low capacity LHDs.Table 2 Comparison of high and low capacity local health departments (LHDs) by A-EBP domainFull size tableWorkforce developmentHigh-capacity LHDs often mentioned training as an important aspect of their work; for example, employees mentioned opportunities to attend state and national conferences. Two of the high-capacity LHDs also mentioned using staff meetings to have on-site trainings about the EBDM process, accreditation documentation, or continuous quality improvement. One participant from a high-capacity LHD described:“there is a line item for education or continuing education [for] our staff. So if people need a certain type of training […] we have that and we provide that to our employees to make sure they’re all certified.”Staff at low-capacity LHDs expressed the desire to attend trainings and conferences, but said funding constraints and travel restrictions do not allow them to attend. One participant from a low-capacity LHD mentioned:“We can go to [one specific] conference, but anything else, we do on our own. It hasn’t always been like that, but it has the last several years.”LeadershipLeadership encompasses values and expectations of leaders as well as participatory decision making at the LHD. Leadership at both sets of LHDs expressed the knowledge that it is desirable to use evidence-based programs and policies, but employees at the high-capacity LHDs more often noted behaviors of the leaders as being intentional for the purpose of promoting the use of EBPs. Leaders at the high-capacity LHDs were more likely to be fully supportive of EBPs, to actively provide direction and training for staff in EBPs, and to convey the expectation that the LHD would continuously grow and change. When asked about decision making, staff at high-capacity LHDs mentioned group decision making, ideas generated by non-managerial staff, and all-staff meeting time used for the purpose of gathering and distributing ideas. One participant from a high-capacity LHD commented,“It’s important enough to administration that they have the time to do the research and to attend the academic classes or the trainings and things that they need to keep us current on best practices.”Staff at low-capacity LHDs, in contrast, had mixed feelings about leaders’ support for EBPs; one mentioned that“I’ve found it from my director, but not necessarily some of the other leaders.”Additionally, lack of communication regarding expectations for using EBPs, as well as how and when to use them, emerged as a theme in low-capacity LHDs. Decision making at the low-capacity LHDs was often done by the management team or director. However, many decisions were said to be made at the state or regional level without input from anyone at the LHD.Organizational climate and cultureAccess to information, support of innovation, and learning orientation are part of organizational culture and climate. Overall, staff at high-capacity LHDs had better resources to access more information; they described access to university libraries, academic journal subscriptions, or trainings to get information. In contrast, staff at the low-capacity LHDs had little access to online or printed paper journals. Regarding support of innovation, the culture at high-capacity LHDs was described as encouraging to new ideas and open to changes that would improve the overall LHD. One participant from a high-capacity LHD commented that their LHD encourages employees to:“Always try to improve things, try new things, that’s fine. And if you make a mistake doing that, you’re not going to be fired for that, you’re not going to be reprimanded for that; you’re going to try something new, something different.”They also mentioned more collaboration within their LHD; one participant described that:“one of the things that we have done an exceptional job at doing is breaking down silos [….] we have more of a global approach, an open approach, that allows us to get things done and get things done fairly efficiently.”Low-capacity LHDs, on the other hand, were described as having cultures that were averse to change and without flexibility due to state mandated programs. On the topic of new ideas and changes, one participant from a low-capacity LHD described:“There are some up and coming individuals who have different ideas and different ways of doing things, but I can’t say at this point that it’s extremely well-received.”Related to the A-EBP domain of relationships and partnerships, low-capacity LHDs overall were also less likely to highlight multidisciplinary relationships, instead only mentioning collaboration with specific individuals or directors within their departments.Financial practicesDifferences between high- and low-capacity LHDs were evident in the domain of financial practices as well. This was most apparent when looking at the reported flexibility of funding within the department. Low-capacity LHDs had little to no flexible funding and reported they can only implement state mandated programs. Some of these LHDs were experiencing staffing shortages and felt they were unable to implement programs fully due to this shortage and to budget constraints. One participant from a low-capacity LHD mentioned:“Because we do not have latitude in how we spend money, I think … it probably impedes our ability to think about solutions to problems that could be affected had we been able to obtain and sustain [funding for programs].”High-capacity LHDs also reported that they would like more funding, but had some flexible funding to use on the programs they thought were best for their LHD. They also seemed to be more optimistic about meeting goals despite financial difficulties. One participant from a high-capacity LHD pointed out:“There’s always a gap [between what we would like to have and what’s available]. As long as we’re on board and we recognize those challenges, we do the best we can to meet all those goals.”DiscussionHigh-capacity LHDs were more likely to have the leadership, organizational culture, and financial capacity to support workforce development activities, through sending staff to trainings and conferences and/or using meetings and training opportunities. In addition, high-capacity LHDs mentioned that more supportive, communicative leadership goes farther in building a department that is resilient to setbacks or problems that may arise. More specifically, they seemed to have more accepting, supportive cultures that value innovation and encourage collaborative communication compared to low-capacity LHDs. High-capacity LHDs were also more likely to mention working with a wider range of staff across their LHD, instead of particular individuals or staff within their own work unit. Financial constraints were a huge barrier for both high- and low-capacity LHDs; however, high-capacity LHDs seemed more flexible and open to making things work. Low-capacity LHDs were more likely to describe limited or insufficient funding as an insurmountable obstacle. Lastly, high-capacity LHDs were more likely to describe having strong or important relationships with universities and other educational resources, which increases their access to resources and allows them to more easily share knowledge and expertise.Relationship to findings from previous researchWorkforce development emphasizes the importance of focusing on the core competencies for public health professionals, incorporating them into LHD missions, visions, and goals. Providing trainings for employees in quality improvement or EBDM, leadership skills, multidisciplinary approaches, and other areas increases growth and learning, enhancing the capacity and reach of a LHD [17, 29]. Workforce development has been linked to better performance, which ultimately leads to better community health outcomes [17, 29].Enhancing leadership includes having competent leaders that can effectively communicate missions and visions, and are knowledgeable about and supportive of quality improvement, accreditation, national performance standards, EBDM, participatory decision-making and non-hierarchical collaboration [30]. It may also involve having leaders with sufficient amounts of skill, experience, and influence, as well as having a competent workforce that is able to take on leadership positions within the LHD. Leadership is especially important in that it is the driving factor behind other A-EBPs—leaders who understand the importance of EBDM are more likely to prioritize workforce development and emphasize a specific kind of organizational culture, effecting further growth within their LHD [31].An effective organizational culture has a learning orientation that encourages new thinking and adapting to new environmental conditions, rather than just doing what has been done in the past. It also includes support and training that incorporates innovation and new methods, valuing diversity and unique perspectives [17]. This is made possible through access to high-quality information and feedback from leaders about employee performance. Additionally, prior research suggests that the introduction and use of specific resources and tools across LHDs should be prioritized as an effective organizational strategy [32].Allocating resources and actively promoting the use of A-EBPs (e.g., supporting quality improvement, EBDM, training) can improve health department performance and community health overall [29]. Easily accessible tools and resources can reduce time and cost barriers to EBDM within LHDs, improving both effectiveness and efficiency [32]. Additionally, obtaining funding from multiple, diverse places gives LHDs greater flexibility in spending and lessens dependence on only a few core sources [33].Finally, building and enhancing relationships with multidisciplinary partners and being able to identify and clarify a shared vision helps to increase rates of change, sustainability, and capacity building over time [17, 29].ImplicationsLow-capacity LHDs may benefit from identifying more creative, cost-efficient strategies for enhancing workforce development. Research suggests that incorporating meetings and trainings that are more interactive and problem-specific, as well as emphasizing autonomy, prior knowledge, and relevancy, will be more effective in developing a more educated, competent workforce [34]. Workforce development training that emphasizes leadership skills may also be beneficial, as leaders can have a tremendous influence on other areas of the LHD and overall productivity, especially in terms of what kind of supportive communication and action takes place [35].Low-capacity LHDs could benefit from leaders who emphasize and value A-EBPs through communication, training opportunities, funding, and other means. Increased leadership support across various levels and departments within the LHD could facilitate change in organizational culture and climate, helping staff to be more comfortable with EBPs and the process of EBDM [36]. Also, high-capacity LHDs in this sample have leadership who value innovation and create a culture that supports risk taking by encouraging staff to try new ideas. If a new idea doesn’t work, they learn from it and try something else. This creates an environment that is supportive of change and is not of afraid of failure.Lastly, research has suggested that partnerships between academia and LHDs are critical for addressing public health needs and successfully improving a community’s overall health and well-being [37]. Thus, exploring avenues to enhance collaboration and resource exchange between universities and LHDs may help to lessen the gap between low- and high capacity LHDs.LimitationsThe main limitations of this study are that the data are self-reported and the sample size was small, thus limiting generalizability. In addition, practitioners interviewed were selected by the director and this could introduce selection bias. Finally, the LHDs in high and low capacity categories differed in size, governance structure, and geographic region – all of which may independently impact or influence performance capacity. Specifically, the group of high-capacity LHDs chosen by our ranking method had larger jurisdiction sizes in comparison to the group of low-capacity LHDs, which may have factored into their ability to address A-EBPs. A more in-depth exploration of how high- and low-capacity LHD performance differs based on size, governance structure and geographic region is an area needing further study.ConclusionDifferences between high- and low-capacity LHDs in A-EBP domains highlight the importance of investments in these areas and the potential those investments have to contribute to overall LHD efficiency and performance. Low-cost resources exist for low-capacity LHDs to better their performance, including free A-EBP issue briefs that give background information and specific resources related to each of the 5 A-EBP domains, a resource toolkit about A- EBPs that lists online resources available to LHDs [38], training courses to improve EBDM [39], and the National Association of City and County Health Officials’ EBDM resource site for LHD practitioners [40]. Additionally, low-capacity LHDs might consider seeking higher-capacity LHD mentors or partners, as well as increasing cross-jurisdictional sharing of resources. Enhancing access to resources and technical assistance to improve A-EBP use in LHDs should be explored further. Also, enhancing leadership skills to foster a more flexible environment supportive of innovation may enhance capacity in LHDs. Lastly, policy makers and researchers should strive to offer easily accessible trainings to LHDs. Investments in A-EBPs have the potential to increase readiness for LHD accreditation, improve overall performance, and improve health outcomes in communities.

borderline case: ethics of patient care

For this assignment, you will be applying defining attributes to an actual patient case. Please listen to the NPR podcast, If You Have Dementia, Can You Hasten Death As You Wished? (4:00 minutes). Additionally, review Wilkinson’s (1997) defining attributes in Developing a Concept Analysis of Autonomy in Nursing Practice (PDF).Please respond to the following prompts:Review Wilkinson’s (1997)      defining attributes and describe how the NPR podcast, If You Have      Dementia, Can you Hasten Death As You Wished? case story meets the      definition of a borderline case.Describe the ethical issues the      case raises.If it were changed to meet      criteria for a model case, what ethical issues would come to the      forefront?The paper should integrate a minimum of three readings and/or other evidence-based research articles no more than three years old and use APA formatting for citations and references. 2 pages APA

Reflection 2

1. What advice did Maverick, Starr’s father give her as a young child if she was ever pulled over by the police?2. Did Starr follow her father’s advice when Khalil was pulled over by the policeman?3. How did you feel when the shots rang out in the first few scenes (book or movie)?4. How does Starr describe her adaptation to Williamson high school? Is the transition easy for her?5. What were your feelings after Khalil was pulled over by the policeman? What was the trigger that the policeman reacted to? Did the policeman do the right thing? That’s a difficult question to answer. You may feel conflicted at this point. Just describe your feelings.6. How does this book mirror the current events in our society? Provide recent examples of civil unrest.7. Do you believe the current pandemic has fostered a more volatile society? Provide rationale.

Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies,NURS 5052/NURS 6052/NURS 6052N/NRSE 6052C/NURS 6052C/NURS 5052C/NURS 6052A/NRSE 6052A: Essentials of Evidence-Based Practice

Is there a difference between “common practice” and “best practice”?When you first went to work for your current organization, experienced colleagues may have shared with you details about processes and procedures. Perhaps you even attended an orientation session to brief you on these matters. As a “rookie,” you likely kept the nature of your questions to those with answers that would best help you perform your new role.Over time and with experience, perhaps you recognized aspects of these processes and procedures that you wanted to question further. This is the realm of clinical inquiry.Clinical inquiry is the practice of asking questions about clinical practice. To continuously improve patient care, all nurses should consistently use clinical inquiry to question why they are doing something the way they are doing it. Do they know why it is done this way, or is it just because we have always done it this way? Is it a common practice or a best practice?In this Assignment, you will identify clinical areas of interest and inquiry and practice searching for research in support of maintaining or changing these practices. You will also analyze this research to compare research methodologies employed.To Prepare:Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry. Keep in mind that the clinical issue you identify for your research will stay the same for the entire course.Based on the clinical issue of interest and using keywords related to the clinical issue of interest, search at least four different databases in the Walden Library to identify at least four relevant peer-reviewed articles related to your clinical issue of interest. You should not be using systematic reviews for this assignment, select original research articles.Review the results of your peer-reviewed research and reflect on the process of using an unfiltered database to search for peer-reviewed research.Reflect on the types of research methodologies contained in the four relevant peer-reviewed articles you selected.Part 1: Identifying Research MethodologiesAfter reading each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, use the Matrix Worksheet template to analyze the methodologies applied in each of the four peer-reviewed articles. Your analysis should include the following:The full citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format.A brief (1-paragraph) statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest, including a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest.A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article.A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the research methodology used. Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific.A brief (1- to 2-paragraph) description of the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles you selected.

CASE STUDY: Family Member with Alzheimer’s Disease: Mark and Jacqueline

CASE STUDY: Family Member with Alzheimer’s Disease: Mark and Jacqueline Mark and Jacqueline have been married for 30 years. They have grown children who live in another state. Jacqueline’s mother has moved in with the couple because she has Alzheimer’s disease. Jacqueline is an only child and always promised her mother that she would care for her in her old age. Her mother is unaware of her surroundings and often calls out for her daughter Jackie when Jacqueline is in the room. Jacqueline reassures her mother that she is there to help, but to no avail. Jacqueline is unable to visit her children on holidays because she must attend to her mother’s daily needs. She is reluctant to visit friends or even go out to a movie because of her mother’s care needs or because she is too tired. Even though she has eliminated most leisure activities with Mark, Jacqueline goes to bed at night with many of her caregiving tasks unfinished. She tries to visit with her mother during the day, but her mother rejects any contact with her daughter. Planning for the upcoming holidays seems impossible to Mark, because of his wife’s inability to focus on anything except her mother’s care. Jacqueline has difficulty sleeping at night and is unable to discuss plans even a few days in advance. She is unable to visit friends and is reluctant to have friends visit because of the unpredictable behavior of her mother and her need to attend to the daily care. Reflective Questions 1. How do you think this situation reflects Jacqueline’s sense of role performance? 2. How do you think that Jacqueline may be contributing to her own health?

Short answer

In 3 or 4 sentences, explain the appropriate drug therapy for a patient who presents with MDD and a history of alcohol abuse. Which drugs are contraindicated, if any, and why? Be specific. What is the timeframe that the patient should see resolution of symptoms?List 4 predictors of late onset generalized anxiety disorder.List 4 potential neurobiology causes of psychotic major depression.An episode of major depression is defined as a period of time lasting at least 2 weeks. List at least 5 symptoms required for the episode to occur. Be specific.List 3 classes of drugs, with a corresponding example for each class, that precipitate insomnia. Be specific.

Nursing reflection paper

one page paperapa formatreferences from the last 5 years

Analysis

·B. Narrative Analysis:In Section B, students must submit a scholarly reflective narrative that demonstrates how all of the artifacts submitted, and the course in which the artifacts were produced, meet each MSN program outcome. This Narrative Analysis format should use APA format, to include a cover page, running head, headings, and a reference list. Other elements, such as an APA formatted table, may also be included. Strict adherence to APA format is required. Examples of references that would support this Narrative Analysis might include a required journal reading from a course, material from a nurse practitioner professional web site to include a board of nursing site, or other peer-reviewed scholarly articles. Course textbooks may be used.Narrative Analysis1. Using synthesis and evaluation, the student authors a 3,000-4,500 word scholarly reflective narrative that demonstrates how all of the artifacts submitted, and the course in which the artifacts were produced, meet each MSN/FNP Program Outcome; AND2. The student provides summative evaluation of their own professional growth and development as a graduate student in the COGNITIVE, PSYCHOMOTOR, and AFFECTIVE domains as it pertains to the FNP Program; AND3. The student provides summative evaluation of their own professional growth and development as a graduate student as it pertains to AACN’s MSN Essentials for Graduate Education; AND4. The student provides summative evaluation of their own professional growth and development as a graduate student as it pertains to the National Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculties (NONPF) Competencies; AND5. The student reflects how one’s own cultural competence has been transformed.Nursing FNP Program Outcomes:1. Provide high   quality, safe, patient, centered care grounded in holistic health principles.2. Create a caring   environment for achieving quality health outcomes.3. Engage in lifelong   personal and professional growth through reflective practice andappreciation of   cultural diversity.4. Integrate   professional values through scholarship and service in health care.5. Advocates for   positive health outcomes through compassionate, evidence-based,collaborative   advanced nursing practice.