NURS 8100 Week 5 Assignment 1: Policy Model Paper

NURS 8100 Week 5 Assignment 1: Policy Model Paper

The diverse health policy world is critical in defining any healthcare delivery system. Vulnerable populations deal with a wide range of challenging issues; these are the contextual factors that influence their particular requirements. Policy changes can be pushed forward through a variety of approaches. Individuals with COPD who continue to smoke require extensive smoking cessation help. There must be a change in policy to overcome the constraints of current initiatives and resolve the urgent problem. As part of advocacy for the most vulnerable members of society, a specific proposed state or federal policy will be explored regarding impact, practicability, and congruence with advocacy objectives. A policy that aligns with set priorities can advance effective healthcare delivery and better outcomes for COPD patients in North Carolina. Therefore, such policies encourage equal access, improve patient outcomes, and improve the healthcare landscape.

Population and the Population’s Need

Patients with COPD who continue to smoke make up the target population. Even after learning about the harmful effects of smoking, individuals face the problematic barrier of quitting. Cigarette Smoking is the main contributing factor to COPD, and quitting smoking is the sole measure that has been shown to slow the pace of FEV1 decline. According to Grim and Muchtaq (2022), quit rates among COPD patients are low, with some studies suggesting a 16-25% quit conversion rate. Implementing mandated education programs is necessary for this vulnerable demographic in particular. Such initiatives would help COPD patients quit smoking and give them the tools they need to succeed (Taghizadeh et al., 2020). They would also act as a catalyst for better disease management. The knowledge-to-action gap can be closed, promoting long-term behavior change and bettering health outcomes for this population by implementing comprehensive education campaigns explicitly designed to meet the needs of COPD patients. There is a need to investigate state and federal policies that align with the advocacy aims and have the potential to close this crucial gap in healthcare delivery after realizing the urgency and importance of this need.

The policy that aligns with Advocacy Priorities

The “Breathe Easy NC: Becoming Tobacco Free” project is the current state policy that aligns with the aims of advocating for COPD patients. By establishing statewide tobacco prevention and cessation programs, public awareness campaigns, and educational activities, this comprehensive policy strives to combat tobacco use and its harmful consequences on public health (Chugh et al., 2023). The policy, created to assist smoking cessation efforts and improve disease management, gives vulnerable populations—including those with COPD—the tools they need to beat nicotine addiction and achieve better overall health outcomes. The initiative aims to build a coordinated effort to achieve a tobacco-free North Carolina by encouraging collaboration with healthcare providers, community organizations, and local governments (The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS), 2023). The “Breathe Easy NC” policy is a crucial step in the right direction. Still, it must be continually evaluated and advocated for to adequately meet the unique requirements of COPD patients and advance a healthier, tobacco-free future for all people.

Missing Factors of the Policy

Issues still need to be considered, despite the excellent efforts of the present “Breathe Easy NC: Becoming Tobacco Free” strategy in tackling tobacco use in North Carolina. A critical component is the availability of specialized resources and support services, especially for COPD patients who have difficulty quitting smoking. Even though the strategy emphasizes statewide activities, there is a need for focused interventions that consider the particular challenges this vulnerable community faces. Increased availability and accessibility of evidence-based treatment alternatives, such as counseling services, medication, and follow-up support, could also be advantageous for the policy (Grim & Muchtaq, 2022). The strategy’s effectiveness might also be increased by incorporating thorough training for healthcare professionals on COPD patients’ best options for quitting smoking (Lindson et al., 2021). By filling in these gaps, the state’s current policy can be strengthened to meet the needs of COPD patients better, guarantee all-encompassing support, and raise the chances of effective smoking cessation outcomes.

Proposed change

There is a need to introduce a thorough patient support program to improve the efficacy of the current strategy for COPD patients in North Carolina. This program would provide specialized resources, counseling, and follow-up services to assist COPD patients in quitting smoking. The suggested adjustment intends to increase quit rates and long-term success in smoking cessation by offering individualized support, addressing the particular requirements and difficulties of COPD patients, and offering continuous assistance throughout the process (Taghizadeh et al., 2020). The program’s accessibility and reach can be increased by including telehealth services and digital tools, ensuring that COPD patients throughout the state can access the help they need to stop smoking and enhance their respiratory health.

Conclusion

Health policy is crucial in defining any healthcare delivery system, especially for vulnerable populations such as COPD patients who struggle to quit smoking despite education efforts. Instituting targeted education campaigns can bridge the gap between knowledge and action and facilitate long-term behavior change, improving health outcomes for this vulnerable population. The advocacy goals are aligned with the “Breathe Easy NC: Becoming Tobacco Free” policy by establishing statewide tobacco prevention and cessation programs, increasing public awareness, and promoting collaboration among various stakeholders. However, certain lacking factors must be addressed, including specialized resources, support services, and specific strategies for COPD patients. Adding comprehensive patient support programs, such as therapy, drugs, and follow-up services, can increase the efficacy of the current policy. Utilizing telehealth and digital tools can increase accessibility and reach for COPD patients nationwide, enabling them to cease smoking and improve their respiratory health.

References

Chugh, A., Arora, M., Jain, N., Vidyasagaran, A., Readshaw, A., Sheikh, A., Eckhardt, J., Siddiqi, K., Chopra, M., Mishu, M. P., Kanaan, M., Rahman, M. A., Mehrotra, R., Huque, R., Forberger, S., Dahanayake, S., Khan, Z., Boeckmann, M., & Dogar, O. (2023). The global impact of tobacco control policies on smokeless tobacco use: A systematic review. The Lancet Global Health, 11(6), e953–e968. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2214-109x(23)00205-x

Grim, M., & Muchtaq, N. (2022). P191 Improved smoking cessation quit rates using health psychology behaviour change interventions in COPD patients. “Catch Me If You Can” – Opportunities to Improve Care in Airways Disease. https://doi.org/10.1136/thorax-2022-btsabstracts.32

Lindson, N., Pritchard, G., Hong, B., Fanshawe, T., Pipe, A., & Papadakis, S. (2021). Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd011556.pub2

Taghizadeh, F., Sharifpour, A., Zarghami, M., & Alipour, A. (2020). The effectiveness of individual interventions on smoking cessation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Sciences, 7(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.4103/jnms.jnms_38_19

The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS). (2023, March 15). North Carolina standard plan, tailored plan, and LME/MCO tobacco-free policy requirement | NC Medicaid. Medicaid.ncdhhs.gov. https://medicaid.ncdhhs.gov/blog/2023/03/15/north-carolina-standard-plan-tailored-plan-and-lmemco-tobacco-free-policy-requirement#:~:text=Breathe%20Easy%20NC%3A%20Becoming%20Tobacco%20Free%20is%20a%20statewide%20initiative

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

 

WEEK 5-7 DISCUSSION #1 INSTRUCTIONS
INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK
Welcome to WEEK FIVE! We started the semester looking at health policy and the role of health policy in our healthcare delivery system. You were asked to identify a vulnerable population, a SPECIFIC NEED of that vulnerable population, and the contextual factors that surround meeting the identified need. This week, we begin the process of identifying strategies to move that policy forward. For this week, you are asked to identify a proposed state and/or federal policy that aligns with your priorities for your vulnerable population. (HELPFUL HINT: the more specific your population and the population’s need is — the “easier” your search will be.)

You may wish to format your discussion post in this manner:
Introduction
Your population and the population’s need (Be specific).
Current state or/and federal policy that aligns to your advocacy priorities.
Missing factors of the current state / federal policy
Proposed Change
Conclusion
I look forward to another wonderful week of learning and discussion!!
LEARNING RESOURCES TO ASSIST WITH ASSIGNMENT:
• Dawes, D. E. (2020). The political determinants of health. Johns Hopkins University Press.
o Chapter 5, “Wining the Game That Never Ends: Success Means Continuous Employment of the Political Determinants of Health” (pp. 112–130)
• Porche, D. J. (2023). Health policy: Applications for nurses and other healthcare professionals (3rd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
o Chapter 12, “Evidence Informing Policymaking ” (pp. 175–183)
o Chapter 15, “Politics: Theory and Practice” (pp. 201–237)
• Document: Personal Legislative Agenda and Action Plan Exemplar (Word Document)Download Personal Legislative Agenda and Action Plan Exemplar (Word Document)
• Alliance for Strong Families and Communities. (2019). Policy, advocacy, and communications toolkit. https://alliance1.org/web/resources/pubs/policy-advocacy-communications-toolkit.aspx
• Association of Public Health Nurses Public Health Policy Committee. (2021). Public health policy advocacy guidebook and tool kitLinks to an external site.. https://www.phnurse.org/assets/docs/APHN%20Public%20Health%20Policy%20Advocacy%20Guidebook%20and%20Toolkit%20_May%202021.pdf
• Congress.govLinks to an external site.. (2022). https://www.congress.gov/
• Congress.gov. (2022). State legislative websitesLinks to an external site. [Interactive media]. https://www.congress.gov/state-legislature-websites
• Gustafson, A. (2017, December 12). How to be a political influence—as an average citizen. CurrentsLinks to an external site.. https://smea.uw.edu/currents/how-to-be-a-political-influence-as-an-average-citizen/
• Rees, A. (2013, August 6). Digital and online activismLinks to an external site.. Reset: Digital for Good. https://en.reset.org/digital-and-online-activism/
• White, N. (2018). Introduction: Why read the Effective Activist Guide. In Effective activist: An evidence-based guide to progressive social changeLinks to an external site. (pp. 6–10). Effective Activist. https://effectiveactivist.com/intro/

Grading rubric:
Main Posting:Response to the Discussion question is reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. 44 to >39.0 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s) … Is reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources … No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. … Supported by at least three current credible sources 39 to >34.0 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
Responds to most of the Discussion question(s) … Is somewhat reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module … 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. … Supported by at least three credible references 34 to >30.0 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
Responds to some of the Discussion question(s) … One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. … Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis … Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module … Cited with fewer than two credible references 30 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
Does not respond to the Discussion question(s) … Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria … Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis … Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module … Contains only one or no credible references
44 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting:Writing 6 to >5.0 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
Written clearly and concisely … Contains no grammatical or spelling errors … Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style 5 to >4.0 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
Written concisely … May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors … Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style 4 to >3.0 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
Written somewhat concisely … May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors … Contains some APA formatting errors 3 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
Not written clearly or concisely … Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors … Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style
6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting:Timely and full participation 10 to >8.0 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation … Posts main Discussion by due date 8 to >7.0 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
Meets requirements for full participation … Posts main Discussion by due date 7 to >6.0 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
Posts main Discussion by due date 6 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
Does not meet requirements for full participation … Does not post main Discussion by due date
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response:Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 to >8.0 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. … Responds to questions posed by faculty … The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. 8 to >7.0 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. 7 to >6.0 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
Response is on topic and may have some depth. 6 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
9 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response:Writing 6 to >5.0 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. … Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. … Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources … Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 5 to >4.0 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. … Responses to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. … Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources … Response is written in standard, edited English. 4 to >3.0 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. … Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. … Few or no credible sources are cited. 3 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. … Responses to faculty questions are missing. … No credible sources are cited.
6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response:Timely and full participation 5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation … Posts by due date 4 to >3.0 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
Meets requirements for full participation … Posts by due date 3 to >2.0 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
Posts by due date 2 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
Does not meet requirements for full participation … Does not post by due date
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response:Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources 9 to >8.0 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. … Responds to questions posed by faculty … The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. 8 to >7.0 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. 7 to >6.0 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
Response is on topic and may have some depth. 6 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
9 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response:Writing 6 to >5.0 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. … Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. … Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources … Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 5 to >4.0 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. … Responses to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. … Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources … Response is written in standard, edited English. 4 to >3.0 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. … Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. … Few or no credible sources are cited. 3 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. … Responses to faculty questions are missing. … No credible sources are cited.
6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response:Timely and full participation 5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation … Posts by due date 4 to >3.0 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
Meets requirements for full participation … Posts by due date 3 to >2.0 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
Posts by due date 2 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
Does not meet requirements for full participation … Does not post by due date
5 pts
Total Points: 100