Nursing Leadership

 

PLEASE USE THIS LINK TO VIEW MODULE IN ORDER TO WRITE THE PAPER
https://webapps.srm-app.net/CanvasContent/SF/WCU_NURS_594_DE_TEMPLATE/Presentations/DNR%20Case%20Study/story_html5.html
Complete the DNR interactive case study scenario. After completion, reflect on what you have learned from the case study and how it relates to
miscommunication.
Think about a recent interaction you had or observed that resulted in miscommunication. Consider the following regarding your interaction:
Were verbal and nonverbal communication congruent?
What factors may have affected communication? (Examples include gender, generational differences, culture, values, environment, or language barriers.)
Were there any physiological or psychological issues that affected the communication process?
Finally, think about both the scenario and your recent interaction. Describe how you could act as a coach or mentor to your staff in both situations to avoid
miscommunication. In each situation, how would you debrief to avoid this happening again?

Sample Solution

Recently, I had the opportunity to observe an interaction between two people in which miscommunication greatly affected the outcome. The communication breakdown began when one person made a request of the other, who then responded with a statement that was different from what was expected. This exchange caused confusion on both sides and eventually led to an argument as neither party could understand what the other was asking for.

Through observing this interaction I noticed several factors which may have contributed to its failure; these included differences in gender, age, culture and language barriers. Firstly , there seemed be discrepancies between verbal non – verbal communication displayed by both parties ; whilst body language indicated aggression tone voice remained relatively neutral further adding mistrust issues already present . Furthermore , due generational gap misunderstandings were likely occur due various cultural norms associated respective backgrounds.

Similarly lack shared linguistic understanding created difficulties when attempting explain complex concepts ; since English wasn’t native language either party wrong words were being used during conversation resulting misinterpretations message being conveyed . Finally , it appears there psychological / physiological components at play here too – namely feelings frustration anger leading participants become defensive even hostile towards each other.

In conclusion , through analyzing recent example where miscommunication occurred multiple variables can identified which could lead such occurrences e.g gender/cultural differences or language barriers . By taking into account potential causes before entering any kind discussion we stand better chance resolving conflicts constructively ultimately avoiding any unwanted disputes arising unnecessarily .

Transient memory is the memory for a boost that goes on for a brief time (Carlson, 2001). In reasonable terms visual transient memory is frequently utilized for a relative reason when one can’t thoroughly search in two spots immediately however wish to look at least two prospects. Tuholski and partners allude to momentary memory similar to the attendant handling and stockpiling of data (Tuholski, Engle, and Baylis, 2001).

They additionally feature the way that mental capacity can frequently be antagonistically impacted by working memory limit. It means quite a bit to be sure about the typical limit of momentary memory as, without a legitimate comprehension of the flawless cerebrum’s working it is challenging to evaluate whether an individual has a shortage in capacity (Parkin, 1996).

 

This survey frames George Miller’s verifiable perspective on transient memory limit and how it tends to be impacted, prior to bringing the examination state-of-the-art and outlining a determination of approaches to estimating momentary memory limit. The verifiable perspective on momentary memory limit

 

Length of outright judgment

The range of outright judgment is characterized as the breaking point to the precision with which one can distinguish the greatness of a unidimensional boost variable (Miller, 1956), with this cutoff or length generally being around 7 + 2. Mill operator refers to Hayes memory length try as proof for his restricting range. In this members needed to review data read resoundingly to them and results obviously showed that there was a typical maximum restriction of 9 when double things were utilized.

This was regardless of the consistent data speculation, which has proposed that the range ought to be long if each introduced thing contained little data (Miller, 1956). The end from Hayes and Pollack’s tests (see figure 1) was that how much data sent expansions in a straight design alongside how much data per unit input (Miller, 1956). Figure 1. Estimations of memory for data wellsprings of various sorts and bit remainders, contrasted with anticipated results for steady data. Results from Hayes (left) and Pollack (right) refered to by (Miller, 1956)

 

Pieces and lumps

Mill operator alludes to a ‘digit’ of data as need might have arisen ‘to settle on a choice between two similarly probable other options’. In this manner a basic either or choice requires the slightest bit of data; with more expected for additional complicated choices, along a twofold pathway (Miller, 1956). Decimal digits are worth 3.3 pieces each, implying that a 7-digit telephone number (what is handily recollected) would include 23 pieces of data. Anyway an evident inconsistency to this is the way that, assuming an English word is worth around 10 pieces and just 23 pieces could be recollected then just 2-3 words could be recalled at any one time, clearly mistaken. The restricting range can all the more likely be figured out concerning the absorption of pieces

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.