Graduate orientation in the emergency room (ER)

 

Scenario:
You recently finished new graduate orientation in the emergency room (ER) of a rural, 60-bed hospital, and tonight is the first shift you have worked independently. The Intensive Care Unit of the hospital has only four beds and usually sends the sickest clients in need of complex care to a regional medical facility located 50 miles from your location. During orientation, you were told the purpose of treatment in this ER is triage, stabilize, and send home or send to a larger network facility.
Tonight, your first client is an 82-year-old female named Ruth. Ruth was dropped off at the ER by a neighbor who said that she had nausea and vomiting for a week. Her husband was recently admitted to an Alzheimer’s Unit at a local Long-Term Care facility, and the neighbor thought stress was making it hard for Ruth to eat, but tonight she vomited up fresh blood and appeared dizzy. The neighbor also brought in a bag of medication she found in the home but was unsure which medication belonged to Ruth or her husband.

When you enter the room to begin the assessment, you find a frail woman sitting in a wheelchair with apparent labored breathing. She appears dirty with matted hair clothed in a bathrobe with numerous food stains and has a heavy smell of cigarette smoke. You notice the chart has a highlighted area noting the client has only Medicaid for insurance. You ask her if she understands why she is in the ER, and she asks, “Where is my husband? He is usually home by now.”

Past medical history:
• Two pack per day smoker for 58 years
• Type I Diabetic

Assessment data:
• Blood pressure: 178/98
• Heart rate: 84 beats per minute
• Oxygen saturation: 84
• Temperature: 101.8 degrees Fahrenheit
• Hyperactive bowel sounds in all 4 quadrants
• An open wound on the bottom of right foot

Content

You are feeling overwhelmed with your first client but remember first you need to evaluate internal and external cues to develop a priority hypothesis to guide clinical reasoning. Create notes for this client’s plan of care including:
• Design a hypothesis for each of the four modes of inquiry: empirical, ethical, aesthetic and sociopolitical.
• Prioritize the most relevant hypothesis aligned with data in the scenario and demonstrate appropriate clinical reasoning.
• Design an evaluation plan for the priority hypothesis.

 

Sample Solution

arian theory is based on the belief that a moral decision is based on the outcome of the action, if that action produces the most benefit and maximizes utility for the greater number of people in a population, then it is morally sound (Holland, 2015). Based on this perspective, banning of CEDs would benefit majority of people by leading to a healthier population. Energy drinks being consumed not only negatively impacts the person consuming it, but it also puts a burden on the healthcare system due to the increase in the amount of cases related to CED consumptions in hospitals. Outlawing the sale of CEDs to persons under 16 would minimize the amount of people being hospitalized as a result of consumption of these drinks and therefore, increase the utility of health care systems for everyone. Burden of emergency visits to the hospitals would reduce because according to studies hospitalizations due to energy drink consumption increased by a double between 2007 and 2011 (NCCIH, 2018). Utilitarianism perspective would support the outlawing because this would help in the reduction of hospitalization in Quebec which in turn would increase utility and benefit majority of the people.

Mill’s harm principle believes power can be justly exercised over members of a community even against their will, when it is an act that will prevent harm to others (Holland, 2014). This principle would support the outlawing the consumption of Caffeinated Energy Drinks among persons younger than 16, this is due to the fact that other actions put into place to reduce consumption in the past have not been effective. There have been different measures put in place by the government in other to restrict the way these CEDs are produced and also consumed (NCCIH, 2018). The harm principle would support outlawing of Caffeinated Energy Drinks by Government of Quebec because energy drinks have a lot of side effects which are more dangerous to children and young adults (NCCIH, 2018). Although, these regulations have helped reduce the health impacts that are associated with consumptions of these beverages, outlawing them among persons under 16 years of age would help curtail the harms associated with them among these grou

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.