NR 305 Week 5 Discussion: Debriefing iHuman: Chamberlain College

Course  

NR 305 Health Assessment

DETAILS 

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 (PO 4)
  • CO 3: Describe physical, psychosocial, cultural, and spiritual influences on an individual’s health (PO 1)
  • CO 4: Demonstrate effective communication skills during health assessment and (PO 3) 

Directions

  • Debriefing is an activity that involves thinking critically about your own experiences … to the virtual simulation you 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
  • Scholarly sources are NOT required for this debriefing
  • Best Practices include:
    • Participation early in the week is … to stimulate meaningful

discussion among classmates and instructor.

  • Enter the debriefing often during the week to read and learn from
  • Select different classmates for your reply each 

Debriefing

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

  • Paragraph One: What went well for you in the simulation? Provide examples of when you felt……. Do you feel the scenario was realistic? Why or why not?
  • Paragraph Two: What would you do differently next time? Describe at least one area you

SOLUTION

In the ihuman cases, the nursing students are subjected to situations where they have to ask questions to the patients to collect information about the different diseases based on the patient’s diagnosis. The patients are simulated and can give feedback on the relevant disease. In week 4, ihuman, we studied the Neurovascular Assessment based on the Athena Washington case (Schreiber, 2016). Debriefing on the case, I was aware of many suitable quizzes to inquire about the signs and symptoms she was experiencing and the various symptoms she had experienced before. I was confident in my knowledge and capabilities when considering her symptoms and undertaking the physical assessment. In this case, I was more advanced in noticing the lung’s signs and symptoms in the best view despite the fact I’m always specializing in the four main anterior and the other four posterior lungs site. I feel the scenario was realistic since Ms.

Washington had the signs and symptoms that a particular patient diagnosed with stroke whom I had taken care of experienced the same.

Next time I’m taking care of the patients resembling Ms. Washington, I will consider hearing and adhering to the major complaints and the signs that my patient portrays and use them to understand the feedback I get. The response I received from humans never surprised me. But instead, I was only disappointed in myself. Still, I was able to work on the numerous physical assessments stated as unnecessary by professionals, and the several quizzes asked were irrelevant. Furthermore, I failed to inquire about more quizzes about the related relevant signs and symptoms, which covered her main interest views.

In this simulation, I did not gain much new knowledge about the patient since it was more of a flashback of what I had done in the sector of adults when I was working at La Heart Hospital and was just repetition. In the previous experience, I undertook more of the same….please click the purchase button below to access the entire solution at $10