Description
Benchmark – Patient’s Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis
View Rubric
Assessment TraitsBenchmark
Requires Lopeswrite
Assessment Description
In addition to the topic Resources, use the chart you completed and questions you answered in the Topic 3 about “Case Study: Healing and Autonomy” as the basis for your responses in this assignment.
Answer the following questions about a patient’s spiritual needs in light of the Christian worldview.
In 200-250 words, respond to the following: Should the physician allow Mike to continue making decisions that seem to him to be irrational and harmful to James, or would that mean a disrespect of a patient’s autonomy? Explain your rationale.
In 400-500 words, respond to the following: How ought the Christian think about sickness and health? How should a Christian think about medical intervention? What should Mike as a Christian do? How should he reason about trusting God and treating James in relation to what is truly honoring the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence in James’s care?
In 200-250 words, respond to the following: How would a spiritual needs assessment help the physician assist Mike determine appropriate interventions for James and for his family or others involved in his care?
Remember to support your responses with the topic Resources.
While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
Benchmark Information
This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies:
BS in Health Sciences 1.2; BS Nursing (RN to BSN ) 5.2
Assess for the spiritual needs and provide appropriate interventions for individuals, families, and groups.
Attachments
PHI-413V-RS-T3T5CaseStudyHealingAndAutonomy.docx
SUBMIT ASSIGNMENT
Field Experience Site Information Form
Active
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Benchmark – Patient’s Spiritual Needs:
Case Analysis – Rubric
LISTGRID
PRINT TO PDF
Rubric Criteria
Collapse All Rubric CriteriaCollapse All
Decision-Making and Principle of Autonomy
60 points
Criteria Description
Decision-Making and Principle of Autonomy
5. Excellent
60 points
Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are analyzed from both perspectives
with a deep understanding of the complexity of the principle of autonomy. Analysis is supported by
the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses.
4. Good
51 points
Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are clearly analyzed from both
perspectives with details according to the principle of autonomy. Analysis is supported by the case
study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses.
3. Satisfactory
45 points
Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are clearly analyzed from both
perspectives, but the analysis according to the principle of autonomy lack details. Analysis is not
supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
39 points
Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are analyzed from both perspectives,
but the analysis according to the principle of autonomy is unclear. Analysis is not supported by the
case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are not analyzed according to the
principle of autonomy.
Decision-Making, Christian Perspective, and the Principles of Beneficence and Nonmaleficence
60 points
Criteria Description
Decision-Making, Christian Perspective, and the Principles of Beneficence and Nonmaleficence
5. Excellent
60 points
Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are analyzed with deep understanding
of the complexity of the Christian perspective, as well as with the principles of beneficence and
nonmaleficence. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment
responses.
4. Good
51 points
Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are clearly analyzed with details
according to the Christian perspective and the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Analysis
is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses.
3. Satisfactory
45 points
Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are clearly analyzed according to the
Christian perspective and the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence but lacks details. Analysis
is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
39 points
Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are analyzed according to the Christian
perspective and the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, but the analysis is unclear. Analysis
is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are not analyzed according to the
Christian perspective and the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence.
Spiritual Needs Assessment and Intervention (B)
60 points
Criteria Description
Spiritual Needs Assessment and Intervention (C1.2, 5.2)
5. Excellent
60 points
How a spiritual needs assessment would help the physician assist the father determine appropriate
interventions for his son, his family, or others involved in the care of his son is clearly analyzed with a
deep understanding of the connection between a spiritual needs assessment and providing
appropriate interventions. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3
assignment responses.
4. Good
51 points
How a spiritual needs assessment would help the physician assist the father determine appropriate
interventions for his son, his family, or others involved in the care of his son is clearly analyzed with
details. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment
responses.
3. Satisfactory
45 points
How a spiritual needs assessment would help the physician assist the father determine appropriate
interventions for his son, his family, or others involved in the care of his son is clearly analyzed but
lacks details. Analysis is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment
responses.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
39 points
How a spiritual needs assessment would help the physician assist the father determine appropriate
interventions for his son, his family, or others involved in the care of his son is analyzed, but unclear.
Analysis is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
How a spiritual needs assessment would help the physician assist the father determine appropriate
interventions for his son, his family, or others involved in the care of his son is not analyzed.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
10 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
5. Excellent
10 points
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
4. Good
8.5 points
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of
effective sentence structures and figures of speech.
3. Satisfactory
7.5 points
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct
and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
6.5 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice
(register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate
word choice or sentence construction is used.
Documentation of Sources
10 points
Criteria Description
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to
assignment and style)
5. Excellent
10 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format
is free of error.
4. Good
8.5 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
3. Satisfactory
7.5 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors
may be present.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
6.5 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style,
with numerous formatting errors.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Sources are not documented.
Case Study: Healing and Autonomy
Mike and Joanne are the parents of James and Samuel, identical twins born 8 years ago. James is
currently suffering from acute glomerulonephritis, kidney failure. James was originally brought
into the hospital for complications associated with a strep throat infection. The spread of the A
streptococcus infection led to the subsequent kidney failure. James’s condition was acute enough
to warrant immediate treatment. Usually cases of acute glomerulonephritis caused by strep
infection tend to improve on their own or with an antibiotic. However, James also had elevated
blood pressure and enough fluid buildup that required temporary dialysis to relieve.
The attending physician suggested immediate dialysis. After some time of discussion with
Joanne, Mike informs the physician that they are going to forego the dialysis and place their faith
in God. Mike and Joanne had been moved by a sermon their pastor had given a week ago, and
also had witnessed a close friend regain mobility when she was prayed over at a healing service
after a serious stroke. They thought it more prudent to take James immediately to a faith healing
service instead of putting James through multiple rounds of dialysis. Yet, Mike and Joanne
agreed to return to the hospital after the faith healing services later in the week, and in hopes that
James would be healed by then.
Two days later the family returned and was forced to place James on dialysis, as his condition
had deteriorated. Mike felt perplexed and tormented by his decision to not treat James earlier.
Had he not enough faith? Was God punishing him or James? To make matters worse, James’s
kidneys had deteriorated such that his dialysis was now not a temporary matter and was in need
of a kidney transplant. Crushed and desperate, Mike and Joanne immediately offered to donate
one of their own kidneys to James, but they were not compatible donors. Over the next few
weeks, amidst daily rounds of dialysis, some of their close friends and church members also
offered to donate a kidney to James. However, none of them were tissue matches.
James’s nephrologist called to schedule a private appointment with Mike and Joanne. James was
stable, given the regular dialysis, but would require a kidney transplant within the year. Given
the desperate situation, the nephrologist informed Mike and Joanne of a donor that was an ideal
tissue match, but as of yet had not been considered—James’s brother Samuel.
Mike vacillates and struggles to decide whether he should have his other son Samuel lose a
kidney or perhaps wait for God to do a miracle this time around. Perhaps this is where the real
testing of his faith will come in? Mike reasons, “This time around it is a matter of life and death.
What could require greater faith than that?”
© 2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
