NR305-10247: Health Assessment for the Practicing RN #5

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

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 assignment 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

Total 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

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?

Grading

To view the grading criteria/rubric, please click on the 3 dots in the box at the end of the solid gray bar above the discussion board title and then Show Rubric. See Syllabus for Grading Rubric Definitions.

Sample Solution

I’m getting better and better at navigating through the scenario each time. I felt confident in my assessment skills. When I started this class, I struggled to know what iHuman wanted during an assessment. Now I know what iHuman wants when listening to lung, heart, and bowel sounds in the correct order and length of time (cycles). iHuman does an excellent job of making that scenario as realistic as possible. I saw Mrs. Washington’s facial droop during the assessment, which reminded me that the patient was a neuro patient. 
  A head-to-toe assessment usually works in a regular evaluation, but I should have jumped straight into the neuro assessment after my ABCs. I was looking to do an NIH stroke scale, but iHuman already had done that for us. In my scenario, I should have focused more on the Neuro questions and assessed each cranial nerve. I ran out of questions to do that during my first attempt since I was doing a non-focused head-to-toe. Next time, I will cater my questions to a more focused exam in an emergent situation. I wasn’t surprised about iHuman’s feedback after realizing I ran out of questions to complete the neuro assessment. 
  I was reminded to eliminate questions that are not pertinent during an emergent situation. Ask relevant questions that will help you assess your patient quickly in a timely fashion. I usually do this in the Emergency setting, but it was challenging to do this in the iHuman simulation. The only question I have is why does iHuman have you do an in-depth assessment (listening to all the lung, heart, and bowel sounds) for the length of time and order it wants if this is an emergent situation?Â