Assessment Task 3: Vulnerable Populations Advocacy Assignment
Weighting: 40%
Due date: Friday 25th October 2019, 12 midday (All Students).
Purpose: Develop a compelling piece of advocacy for a current issue that impacts the health of a specific vulnerable population in the local, national, or global community.
Word count: should be no more than 2,500 words in length +/- 10%
Format: You may use headings to structure your report. The Report will be presented as a formal academic paper and conform to the Federation University, Faculty of Health, Student Academic Handbook (Higher Education). Academic writing should be formatted according to the Federation University, General Guide to Writing and Study Skills.
Referencing: Referencing should be included using APA 6th Edition guidelines. It is expected that the students use peer reviewed sources for referencing. For this assessment and to support your findings, you are to use at least 15 peer-reviewed references in your paper. You may use and add to the references used in Assessment Task 1- E-Poster.
Turnitin: Turnitin software will be used in this course for Assessment Task 3 to assist students with their academic writing and to verify the originality of assessment tasks. It will be used to assess and give feedback.
FAILURE TO SUBMIT WORK THROUGH TURNITIN FOR THESE TASKS WILL RESULT IN A ZERO GRADE
for this assessment. Please ensure you only use the link provided with the assessment task. If you have any issues with your submissions through the Turnitin Link provided on Moodle, you need to make contact with the Information Technology Service Desk (ph: 5327 9999) to resolve the problem. If the problem cannot be resolved prior to the due date, you must email the Course Coordinator immediately. Please note that you should always attempt to complete and submit your assignment as early as possible to avoid any potential problems.
Marking:
University staff will mark this assessment task. Pre-marking moderation will apply to this assessment task. A marking guide for this assessment task is included on page 4.
Feedback:
Results and feedback for this assessment task will be available on Moodle on 22nd November 2019 12pm. Description: In this assignment students are required to:
Choose a vulnerable population you either have previously been involved in the care of OR a vulnerable population you have an interest in. This should be clearly defined such as adult females in corrections or LGBQTI youth in regional secondary schools, or refugees from war torn countries. You may choose any population from an Australian local or national perspective. If you want to choose a global population ie refugees or an indigenous culture ensure you approach the assignment within the Australian context.
Within your assignment you need to discuss:
• Discuss WHY your chosen population is considered vulnerable and include:
o Social determinants of health and how they impact this population;
o Health inequalities (the differences in health status between population groups) such as differences in wellbeing, risk of disease, abuse/violence, healthy life expectancy, morbidity and mortality; o Health inequities (differences in health status between population groups that are socially produced, systematic in their unequal distribution across the population, avoidable and unfair) such as difference in access, affordability, income etc;
o Health outcomes – Discuss key health issues impacting this population ie certain disease, mental health issues, injuries etc. (approx.1200 words)
• DISCUSS ONE specific health disparity impacting this population:
(Health disparity: difference in access or availability of facilities or services):
o Present relevant evidence that demonstrates that a health disparity exists ie evidence of lack of sexual health clinics in regional/rural and remote areas or no afterhours GP clinic to deliver vaccination for at risk migrant workers. You may use tables or graphs to display this information. Remember these should add to your discussion not replace discussion. o Describe the impact on health that includes consideration of the relevant social, environmental, economic, and cultural factors. Ie. Higher incidence of STIs such as chlamydia in the LGBQTI population related to safe sex practices and risk factors specific to this group. This is further exacerbated by poor attendance to healthcare facilities for fear of discrimination by healthcare professionals. Here you can make educated links between the cascading effects a health disparity can have on a range of health issues. For example the lesbian client who does not feel comfortable attending the GP for sexual health checkups is also isolated for other preventative health screening such as cervical screening or breast checks, increasing her risk of undiagnosed breast or cervical cancer.
(approx. 700 words)
• Identify a target audience in a position to make policy decisions or allocate resources for this population. This may be related to allocating resources or funding, approving services, implementing practice changes, or agreeing to a collaborative partnership. Such as a local Foundation, a School Board, the Health Department, a Board of Directors or group of Trustees. Make a rationale for your choice: why does this audience have proven decision making abilities with regards to the chosen population?
OR if you discover that resources or practices are currently available but not well utilised discuss how these could be used to promote better health equity and equality for your chosen vulnerable population AND
• Propose specific recommendations for a project to this audience who are in a position of making decisions to improve health outcomes for the specific health disparity within this population OR conversely build capacity. These recommendations should include the role of a nurse in achieving better health outcomes and be supported by research that they will have some impact. Such recommendations could include nurse led clinics, education sessions, targeted screening, changing practice (more accessible facilities, services or better trained staff). Be specific about how your recommendations will attempt to overcome the health disparity you highlight and how these may achieve improved health outcomes for this group.
Example: improved mental health access for new refugees in regional areas by case workers. Referrals to mental health nurse practitioner within GP clinics will improve access. Research shows improved mental health outcomes when there is early identification of depression, anxiety or post- traumatic stress disorder in refugees (citation). Improved mental health access to a qualified professional leads to better management of mental health issues that may impact quality of life, especially with ability to obtain work and maintain personal and family relationships (citation).
For ideas on innovative nurse led programs and clinics that are already providing care to vulnerable populations and providing valuable services check out the Australian Primary Health Care Nurses Association:
https://www.apna.asn.au/nursing-tools/nurse-clinics/case-studies (approx. 300 words)
• To conclude, make a descriptive statement that links your recommendations to one of the Standards for Practice for Registered Nurses (2016). In your statement include the standard you feel your exploration of this group links with your ability to achieve person centred care AND why it is important to advocate for vulnerable populations as nurses. For example: Providing specific sex health education to LGBQTI teens could link to Standard 3.2: provides the information and education required to enhance people’s control over health.
See the Registered Nurse Standards for Practice: http://www.nursingmidwiferyboard.gov.au/Codes-
Guidelines-Statements/Professional-standards/registered-nurse-standards-for-practice.aspx
(approx. 300 words)
NURBN 3021 2018: Vulnerable Populations Advocacy Assignment Marking Rubric
High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Marginal Unsatisfactory
Excellent description of the vulnerable group. All key social determinants identified and
comprehensive
discussion of their impact.(20 marks) Good description of the vulnerable group. Most social determinants identified and good discussion of their impact.(16 marks) Minimal de s c rip tio n of the vulnerable group. Most social determinants identified and some discussion of their impact.(12 marks) Unclear description of the vulnerable group. Some social determinants identified though poor discussion of their impact. (8 marks) A brief description of the vulnerable group. Minimal or incorrect social determinants discussed and minimal or incorrect discussion of their impact. (4 marks) Vulnerable population not introduced or discussed.
(0 marks)
Excellent discussion of inequalities and inequities.
Comprehensive
discussion of their impact. (10 marks) Good discussion of inequalities and inequities. Good discussion of their impact. (8 marks) Minimal o r i r rel ev a n t discussion of inequalities and inequities. Unclear discussion of their impact.(6 marks) Unclear discussion of inequalities and inequities.
Unclear/irrelevant discussion of their impact.(4 marks) Unclear discussion of inequalities and inequities. No or poor discussion of their
impact. (2 marks) No relevant health inequalities or inequities discussed (0 marks)
Excellent discussion of health outcomes. Comprehensive
discussion of their impact. (10 marks) Good discussion of health
outcomes. Good
discussion of their impact. (8 marks) Minimal o r i r rel ev a n t discussion of health outcomes. Unclear discussion of their impact.(6marks) Unclear discussion of health outcomes. Unclear/irrelevant discussion of their impact.(4 marks) Unclear discussion of health outcomes. No or poor discussion of their impact. ( 2 marks) No relevant health outcomes discussed (0 marks)
Excellent description of ONE health disparity supported by relevant evidence. Health impacts identified and
comprehensive
discussion of the factors unde rpinni ng them. (20 marks) Good description of ONE health disparity supported by relevant evidence. Health impacts identified and good discussion of the factors unde rpinni ng them. (16 marks) Minimal or irrelevant description of ONE health disparity supported by relevant evidence. Some health impacts identified with reasonable discussion of the factors unde rpinni ng the m.(12 marks) Unclear description of ONE health disparity supported by irrelevant evidence. Health impacts identified and minimal or irrelevant discussion of the factors
unde rpinni ng them. (8 marks) Unclear description of ONE health disparity supported by minimal or irrelevant evidence. No health impacts identified and no discussion of the factors unde rpinni ng them. (4 marks) No relevant health disparity discussed AND no health impacts discussed. (0 marks)
Excellent and thoughtful identification of chosen audience. Excellent rationale for choice. (10marks) Good identification of chosen audience. Clear and rationale for choice
(8 Marks) Audience identified though irrelevant. Reasonable rationale for choice. (6 marks) Unclear identification of audience. Poor or rationale for choice
(4 marks) Unclear identification of audience. No rationale for choice. (2 marks ) No target audience identified, no rationale. (0 marks)
Compelling and thoughtful recommendations for project to improve health outcomes supported by evidence. Excellent rationale for role of nurse. (10 marks) Clear and concise recommendations for project to improve health outcomes supported by evidence. Good rationale for role of nurse. (8 marks) Some recommendations for project to improve health outcomes supported by irrelevant evidence, however good rationale for role of nurse. (6 marks) Unclear or minimal recommendations for project to improve health outcomes without supportive evidence. Reasonable rationale for role of nurse. (4 marks) Unclear recommendations for project to improve health outcomes without supportive evidence. No or irrelevant rationale for role of nurse. (2 marks) No recommendation noted, No rationale for role of the nurse. (0 marks)
Excellent and thoughtful identification of a Standard of Practice relevant to the advocacy project. Excellent rationale for advocacy of vulnerable
populations.(10marks) Good identification of a Standard of Practice that is mostly relevant to the advocacy project. Good rationale for advocacy of vulnerable populations. (8 marks) Clear identification of a Standard of practice with unclear relevance to advocacy project. Reasonable rationale for advocacy of vulnerable populations. (6 marks) Unclear identification of a Standard of practice with unclear relevance to advocacy project. Poor rationale for advocacy of vulnerable populations. (4 marks) Unclear identification of a Standard of practice with no relevance to advocacy project. Poor or no rationale for advocacy of vulnerable populations. (2 marks) No identification of Standard of Practice, no relevance, no rationale of advocacy.
(0 marks)
All of the following five elements included: 1.Five or more references used to support project and offer direction for further information. 2. All references are peer reviewed 3. All references are current - published within the past 5-7 years 4. All references are relevant to the project. 5. References are of high quality (mostly primary sources) (5 marks) Four of the following five elements included: 1.Five or more references used to support project and offer direction for further information. 2. All references are peer reviewed 3. All references are current - published within the past 5-7 years 4. All references are relevant to the project. 5. References are of high quality (mostly primary sources) (4 marks) Three of the following five elements included: 1.Five or more references used to support project and offer direction for further information. 2. All references are peer reviewed 3. All references are current - published within the past 5-7 years 4. All references are relevant to the project. 5. References are of high quality (mostly primary sources) (3 marks) Two of the following five elements included: 1.Five or more references used to support project and offer direction for further information. 2. All references are peer reviewed 3. All references are current - published within the past 5-7 years 4. All references are relevant to the project. 5. References are of high quality (mostly primary sources). (2 marks) One of the following five elements included: 1.Five or more references used to support project and offer direction for further information. 2. All references are peer reviewed 3. All references are current - published within the past 5-7 years 4. All references are relevant to the project. 5. References are of high quality (mostly primary sources). (1 mark) No references provided/ no
submission
(0 marks)
Excellent layout. Writing is concise and thorough. No spelling or grammatical errors. (5 marks) Good layout. Writing is concise and thorough. No spelling or grammatical errors. (4 marks) Clear layout. Writing may be concise but lacks clarity. Few minor spelling or grammatical errors. (3 marks) Unclear layout. Writing is not concise or thorough. Few minor spelling or grammatical errors. (2 marks) Unclear layout. Writing is not concise or thorough. Many major spelling or grammatical errors. (1 marks) Writing cannot be followed. Poor or absent use of spelling and grammar checks (0 marks)