Florida International University Week 6 Sickle Cell Disease Analysis Paper

Question Description

APA style, no plagiarism, peer review references minimum 6

This paper should clearly and comprehensively discuss a chronic health disease. Select a topic from the list provided by your course faculty. ((the topic is sickle cell disease )))

The paper should be organized into the following sections:

Introduction (Identification of the problem) with a clear presentation of the problem as well as the significance and a scholarly overview of the papers content. No heading is used for the Introduction per APA current edition.
Background and Significance of the disease, to include: Definition, description, signs and symptoms, and current incidence and/or prevalence statistics by state with a comparison to national statistics pertaining to the disease.? Create a table of incidence and prevalence rates by your geographic county/city or state with a comparison to national statistics. Use the APA text for formatting guidelines (tables). This is a table that you create using relevant data, it should not be a table from another source using copy/paste.
Surveillance and Reporting: Current surveillance methods and mandated reporting processes as related to the chronic health condition chosen should be specific.
Epidemiological Analysis: Conduct a descriptive epidemiology analysis of the health condition. Be sure to include all of the 5 Ws: What, Who, Where, When, Why. Use details associated with all of the Ws, such as the Who which should include an analysis of the determinants of health. Include costs (both financial and social) associated with the disease or problem. The 5W’s of descriptive epidemiology:
1. What = health issue of concern
2. Who = person
3. Where = place
4. When = time
5. Why/how = causes, risk factors, modes of transmission
Screening and Guidelines: Review how the disease is diagnosed and current national standards (guidelines). Pick one screening test and review its sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and cost.
Plan: Integrating evidence, provide a plan of how a nurse practitioner will address this chronic health condition after graduation. Provide three specific interventions that are based on the evidence and include how you will measure outcomes (how will you know that the interventions have utility, are useful?) Note:? Consider primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions as well as the integration of health policy advocacy efforts. All interventions should be based on evidence connected to a resource such as a scholarly piece of research.
Summary/Conclusion: Conclude in a clear manner with a brief overview of the keys points from each section of the paper utilizing integration of resources.
The paper should be formatted and organized into the following sections which focus on the chosen chronic health condition.
Adhere to all paper preparation guidelines (see below).

Preparing the Paper:

Page length: 7-10 pages, excluding title page and references.
APA format current?edition
Include scholarly in-text references throughout and a reference list.
Include at least one table that the student creates to present information. Please refer to the Requirements or rubric for further details. APA formatting required.

ASSIGNMENT CONTENT
Category	Pts	%	Description
Identification of the Health Problem	15	7.5%	Comprehensively and succinctly states the problem/concern. Clear presentation of the problem as well as the significance with a scholarly overview of the papers content.
Background and Significance of the Health Problem	30	15%	Background and significance is complete, presents risks, disease impact and includes a review of incidence and prevalence of the disease within the students state compared to national data. Evidence supports background. A student created table is included using APA format.
Current Surveillance and Reporting Methods	30	15%	Current state and national disease surveillance methods are reviewed along with currently gathered types of statistics and information on whether the disease is mandated for reporting. Supported by evidence.
Descriptive Epidemiological Analysis of Health Problem	35	17%	Comprehensive review and analysis of descriptive epidemiological points for the chronic health problem. The 5 Ws of epidemiological analysis should be fully identified. Supported by scholarly evidence.
Screening, Diagnosis, Guidelines	30	15%	Review of current guidelines for screening and diagnosis. Screening tool statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests are presented.
Plan of Action	30	15%	Integrating evidence, provide a plan of how a nurse practitioner will address this chronic health condition after graduation. Provide three specific interventions that are based on the evidence and include how you will measure outcomes (how will you know that the interventions have utility, are useful?) Note:? Consider primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions as well as the integration of health policy advocacy efforts. All interventions should be based on evidence connected to a resource such as a scholarly piece of research.
Conclusion	15	7.5%	The conclusion thoroughly, clearly, succinctly, and logically presents major points of the paper with clear direction for action. Includes scholarly references
	185	92%	Total CONTENT Points=185 pts
ASSIGNMENT FORMAT
Category	Points	%	Description
APA current ed.	10	5%	APA is consistently utilized according to the current edition throughout the paper.
Grammar, Syntax, Spelling	5	3%	The paper is free from grammar, unscholarly context or voice and spelling is accurate throughout.
	15	8%	Total FORMAT Points=15 pts
	200	100%	ASSIGNMENT TOTAL=200 points

Rubric

NR503_Week 6 Chronic Health_Sept19

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAssignment Content Possible Points = 185 PointsIntroduction of Healthcare Problem/Concern

15.0 pts

Excellent

Comprehensively and succinctly states the problem/concern. Clear presentation of the problem as well as the significance with a scholarly overview of the papers content.

14.0 pts

V. Good

Identifies the problem/concern with adequate but not in-depth presentation.

12.0 pts

Satisfactory

Identification of problem/concern is limited.

8.0 pts

Needs Improvement

Improvement- Identification of problem/concern is unclear.

0.0 pts

Unsatisfactory

Improvement- Identification of problem/concern is unclear.

15.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeBackground/Significance

30.0 pts

Excellent

Background and significance is complete, presents risks, disease impact and includes a review of incidence and prevalence of the disease within the students state compared to national data. Evidence supports background. A student created table is included.

27.0 pts

V. Good

Background is complete, presents risk, disease impact and at least one set of incidence and prevalence statistics supported by evidence, for instance state data or national data is presented, but not both. Or, full data is presented but student table is not included.

26.0 pts

Satisfactory

Background missing one or more key points and at least one set of incidence and prevalence statistics are presented. Lack of evidence or limited presentation of the background. A table is included which may or may not be student created; may be limited in data.

15.0 pts

Needs Improvement

Background missing more than one key point and at least one set of incidence and prevalence statistics are presented, or there is no supported evidence. Unclear conclusions or presentation. No student created table is included; or if included is limited in scope or is not student created.

0.0 pts

Unsatisfactory

Background and significance of the disease is not provided.

30.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSurveillance and Reporting

30.0 pts

Excellent

Current state and national disease surveillance methods are reviewed along with currently gathered types of statistics and information on whether the disease is mandated for reporting. All writing is supported by evidence.

27.0 pts

V. Good

State and national disease surveillance methods are reviewed, currently gathered types of statistics is scant, reporting requirements discussed. All writing is supported by evidence.

26.0 pts

Satisfactory

State or national surveillance statistics are discussed as an overview, lacking detail / depth. Mandated reporting may be absent. Writing is supported by evidence but may be inconsistent.

15.0 pts

Needs Improvement

One of either state or national disease surveillance methods reviewed; currently gathered types of statistics may be missing or information on whether the disease is mandated for reporting is missing. There is a lack of depth with inconsistent use of evidence.

0.0 pts

Unsatisfactory

Content not discussed.

30.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescriptive Epidemiology

35.0 pts

Excellent

Comprehensive review and analysis of descriptive epidemiological points for the chronic health problem. The 5 Ws of epidemiological analysis should be fully identified. Supported by scholarly evidence.

32.0 pts

V. Good

Review and analysis has depth in general but may be missing one of the 5 Ws OR may be scant in one area of the 5 Ws. All writing is supported by evidence.

29.0 pts

Satisfactory

Review and analysis superficial in all of the 5 Ws OR may be scant or missing 2 or more of the Ws. Evidence is present but may not be throughout all content areas.

18.0 pts

Needs Improvement

Review and analysis is missing depth throughout all of the content areas. Evidence may or may not support the writing.

0.0 pts

Unsatisfactory

No analysis provided.

35.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeScreening, Diagnosis, Guidelines

30.0 pts

Excellent

Comprehensive review of current guidelines for screening and diagnosis. Screening tool statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests are presented.

27.0 pts

V. Good

Adequate review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests is presented.

26.0 pts

Satisfactory

Limited review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests.

15.0 pts

Needs Improvement

Minimal or unclear review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests. There is a lack of depth with inconsistent use of evidence.

0.0 pts

Unsatisfactory

Review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests not provided.

30.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePlan

30.0 pts

Excellent

Integrating evidence, provide a plan of how a nurse practitioner will address this chronic health condition after graduation. Provide three specific interventions that are based on the evidence and include how you will measure outcomes (how will you know that the interventions have utility, are useful?) Note:? Consider primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions as well as the integration of health policy advocacy efforts. All interventions should be based on evidence connected to a resource such as a scholarly piece of research.

27.0 pts

V. Good

An adequate, but not fully comprehensive, plan of action specific to the problem, and the geographic area is presented with 3 evidenced based actions that will be taken to address the impact, outcomes, or prevalence of the disease.

26.0 pts

Satisfactory

A limited plan of action specific to the problem, and the geographic area, outcomes, or prevalence of the disease. Three actions or less may be presented with limited or little evidence.

15.0 pts

Needs Improvement

Minimal or unclear review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests. Actions are minimal or unclear, or lack specificity, are not supported directly by evidence or are not direct actions the student can take in practice. There is a lack of depth with inconsistent use of evidence.

0.0 pts

Unsatisfactory

Plan of action not provided.

30.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummary/Conclusion = 185 Points

15.0 pts

Excellent

The conclusion thoroughly, clearly, succinctly, and logically presents major points of the paper with clear direction for action. Includes scholarly references.

14.0 pts

V. Good

The conclusion adequately and logically presents major points of the paper with clear direction for action, but lacks one major point or is not succinct. Includes scholarly references.

12.0 pts

Satisfactory

The conclusion is a limited review of key points of the paper, is not succinct, or lacks one or more major points of the paper or clear direction for action. Scholarly references may or may not be included.

8.0 pts

Needs Improvement

Conclusion is unclear or significantly limited in overview of the paper. Scholarly references may or may not be included.

0.0 pts

Unsatisfactory

No Summary/conclusion is included.

15.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAssignment Format Possible Points =15 PointsAPA 6th ed.

10.0 pts

Excellent

APA is consistently utilized according to the 6th edition throughout the paper.

9.0 pts

V. Good

One or two errors in APA format

8.0 pts

Satisfactory

Three-Five errors in APA format

5.0 pts

Needs Improvement

Six errors in APA format

0.0 pts

Unsatisfactory

Greater than six errors in APA formatting.

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar, Syntax, Spelling

5.0 pts

Excellent

There are no grammar, unscholarly context or voice errors in the paper and spelling is accurate throughout.

4.0 pts

V. Good

One or two errors

3.0 pts

Satisfactory

Three-five errors

2.0 pts

Needs Improvement

Six errors

0.0 pts

Unsatisfactory

Greater than six errors

5.0 pts

^{"Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, guaranteeing you "A" results."}