PRAC 6635 Week 9 Assignment 1
July 4, 2025Week 9: Assignment 2 Reflections on Evidence-Based Practice, Clinical Practice Guidelines, and Standards of Care
As an advanced practice provider, you may encounter situations where your clinical judgment differs from your colleagues. For this reflective assignment, you will begin to gain experience in recognizing Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for Standards of Care from evidence-based practices. You will critically evaluate a treatment plan you feel your preceptor may have deviated from Clinical Practice Guidelines and develop your own clinical reasoning skills. This assignment will begin to prepare you for next quarter’s implementation of treatment planning and interventions in patient cases. Keep what you learned from this assignment in your critical thinking processes for future Practicum Experiences.
Weekly Resources
- Carlat, D. J. (2024). The psychiatric interview (5th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
- Chapter 32, “Assessing Personality Disorders”
- Chapter 33, “How to Educate Your Patient”
- Appendix C, “Patient Education Handouts”
- HSoft Corporation. (2020). Meditrek: Home. https://edu.meditrek.com/Default.html
Note: Use this website to log into Meditrek to report your clinical hours and patient encounters.
- Document: Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Template
- Document: Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Exemplar
Recommended
- American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Sexual dysfunctions. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.).
- American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Personality disorders. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.).
- American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Paraphilic disorders. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.).
- Boland, R. Verdiun, M. L. & Ruiz, P. (2022). Kaplan & Sadock’s synopsis of psychiatry (12th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
- Walden University. (2020). College of Nursing practicum manual: Master of science in nursing (MSN) and post-master’s certificate programs. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/fieldexperience/son/formsanddocuments
- Walden University Field Experience. (2020a). Field experience: College of Nursing. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/fieldexperience/son/home
- Walden University Field Experience. (2020b). Student practicum resources: NP student orientation. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/StudentPracticum/NP_StudentOrientation
To Prepare
- Identify a Case:
- Choose a patient case from your clinical experience where you and your preceptor approached the treatment plan differently.
- Research evidence-based information pertinent to your chosen patient for treatment Clinical Practice Guidelines and Standards of Care.
Submission Requirements:
- Length: 3-4 pages, double-spaced, APA format.
- Cite at least 3 peer-reviewed sources to support your analysis.
Evaluation Criteria:
- Clarity and completeness of the case summary.
- Depth of analysis and comparison between treatment plans.
- Use of evidence-based rationale for your alternative plan.
- Reflection on learning and future application.
- Proper use of APA formatting and references.
The Assignment
Write a paper:
Briefly summarize:
- The patient case, including all relevant information: the patient’s history, assessment findings, medications, any pertinent testing, presenting symptoms, and the final diagnosis (ensure patient confidentiality).
Compare Treatment Plans:
- Describe your preceptor’s recommended treatment plan and interventions.
- Explain the alternative treatment plan you would have recommended as a nurse practitioner based upon Clinical Practice Guidelines and Standards of Care.
Justify Your Approach:
- Use evidence-based guidelines, clinical research, and relevant literature to support your alternative plan.
- Discuss why you believe your approach would be effective, considering the patient’s history, condition, and individual needs.
Reflect on Differences: - Analyze the differences between your plan and your preceptor’s.
- Consider factors such as clinical experience, knowledge, patient-centered care, and the influence of evidence-based practice in decision-making.
Lessons Learned:
- Reflect on how this experience has influenced your clinical practice and approach to treatment planning.
- Discuss how you can apply what you learned to future patient care.
- How might you approach another provider professionally in the future when you find treatment plans differing during collaboration on the patient case?
By Day 7
Submit your Reflection Paper. You do not need your preceptor’s signature for this assignment.
submission information
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.
- To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK9Assgn2_LastName_Firstinitial
- Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
- Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.
Rubric
| PRAC_6635_Week9_Assignment2_Rubric | ||
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome The case summary is clear, complete, and includes all relevant information. It covers the patient’s history, assessment findings, medications, any pertinent testing, presenting symptoms, and the final diagnosis. | 10 to >8.0 pts Excellent The response thoroughly and accurately describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history, current medications, allergies, and review of diagnosis. 8 to >4.0 pts Good The response accurately describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history, current medications, allergies, and review of diagnosis. 4 to >2.0 pts Fair The response describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history, current medications, allergies, and review of diagnosis, but is somewhat vague or contains minor inaccuracies. 2 to >0 pts Poor The response provides an incomplete or inaccurate description of the patient’s subjective complaint, history, current medications, allergies, and review of diagnosis. | 10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Provide a thorough, insightful comparison between the alternative plan and the preceptor’s approach, analyzing key differences in clinical experience, knowledge, and patient-centered care. Thoughtfully discuss how evidence-based practice influenced decision-making in both plans, demonstrating an understanding of its role in patient care. | 25 to >21.0 pts Excellent The response provides a thorough, insightful comparison between the alternative plan and the preceptor’s approach, analyzing key differences in clinical experience, knowledge, and patient-centered care. 21 to >16.0 pts Good The response compares the two approaches with reasonable detail but may miss some key differences or lack depth in analysis. 16 to >10.0 pts Fair The response provides a limited comparison, without fully exploring the differences in clinical experience or decision-making processes. 10 to >0 pts Poor The response fails to provide a meaningful comparison between the plans, or the analysis is overly simplistic or inaccurate. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Reflect on the differences between alternative treatment plan and preceptor’s plan. Critically analyze the rationale behind each approach and identify how these differences inform clinical decision-making and professional growth in patient care. | 25 to >21.0 pts Excellent The response demonstrates a thorough, insightful reflection on the alternative plan and the preceptor’s approach, analyzing key differences in clinical experience, knowledge, and patient-centered care. 21 to >16.0 pts Good The response demonstrates reflection on the two approaches with reasonable detail but may miss some key differences or lack depth in analysis. 16 to >10.0 pts Fair The response demonstrates a limited reflection, without fully exploring the differences in clinical experience or decision-making processes. 10 to >0 pts Poor The response fails to demonstrate a meaningful reflection on the plans, or the analysis is overly simplistic or inaccurate. Reflections on the case are vague or missing. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Reflect on the lessons learned from comparing treatment plan approaches, assessing how the experience has influenced clinical decision-making and identify how these insights will guide approach to future patient care and collaboration with other healthcare providers. | 25 to >21.0 pts Excellent The response offers a thorough reflection on how the experience has influenced clinical practice and treatment planning, showing growth in clinical reasoning, decision-making, and patient care. It clearly explains how lessons learned will guide future patient care, with specific examples. It also provides a thoughtful approach to handling differing treatment plans, emphasizing respectful, evidence-based communication and collaboration. 21 to >16.0 pts Good The response offers a solid reflection on how the experience has influenced clinical practice and treatment planning, though some areas lack depth. It shows growth in clinical reasoning, decision-making, and patient care, but examples may be underdeveloped. It explains how lessons can be applied to future care with relevant examples and provides a reasonable approach to handling differing treatment plans, though not all aspects of collaboration are fully explored. 16 to >10.0 pts Fair The response provides a basic reflection on how the experience influenced clinical practice and treatment planning but lacks detail. Shows limited growth in reasoning and decision-making. Mentions applying lessons to future care, but examples are vague. Offers a minimal approach to handling differing treatment plans, with limited focus on professionalism or evidence-based communication. 10 to >0 pts Poor The response offers little to no reflection on how the experience influenced clinical practice or treatment planning, showing no growth in reasoning or decision-making. It fails to explain how lessons will be applied to future care and provides no meaningful approach to handling differing treatment plans, lacking professionalism or evidence-based focus. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation | 5 to >4.0 pts Excellent Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 to >3.0 pts Good Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 to >2.0 pts Fair Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 2 to >0 pts Poor Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused–neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria. | 5 to >4.0 pts Excellent Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria. 4 to >3.0 pts Good Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet are brief and not descriptive. 3 to >2.0 pts Fair Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. 2 to >0 pts Poor Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running heads, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. Support the alternative plan with at least three evidence-based guidelines or peer-reviewed journal articles. All sources must be current (no more than five years old), credible, and clearly aligned with the patient’s case. | 5 to >4.0 pts Excellent Uses correct APA format with no errors. The response provides at least three current, evidence-based resources from the literature to support the alternative treatment plan for the patient. Each resource represents the latest in standards of care and provides strong justification for treatment decisions. 4 to >3.0 pts Good Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. The response provides at least three current, evidence-based resources from the literature to support the alternative treatment plan for the patient. Each resource represents current standards of care and supports treatment decisions. Missing justification discussion. 3 to >2.0 pts Fair Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. Two evidence-based resources are provided to support alternative treatment decisions; may not represent the latest in standards of care or may only provide vague or weak justification for the treatment plan. 2 to >0 pts Poor Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. One or no resources are provided to support alternative treatment decisions. The resources may not be current or evidence-based or do not support the treatment plan. | 5 pts |
Total Points: 100
