Please response to one classmate
Details of the homework
Debriefing is an activity that involves thinking critically about your own experiences related to the virtual simulation you completed. In debriefings students:
Demonstrate understanding of concepts for the week
Engage in meaningful dialogue with classmates and/or instructor
Express opinions clearly and logically, in a professional manner
Use the rubric on this page as you compose your answers.
Scholarly sources are NOT required for this debriefing
Best Practices include:
Participation early in the week is encouraged to stimulate meaningful discussion among classmates and instructor.
Enter the debriefing often during the week to read and learn from posts.
Select different classmates for your reply each week.
Use the following format to reflect on the Week 4 iHuman Neurovascular Assessment. This was the Athena Washington case.
Paragraph One: What went well for you in the simulation? Provide examples of when you felt knowledgeable and confident in your skills. Do you feel the scenario was realistic? Why or why not?
Paragraph Two: What would you do differently next time if you were caring for a patient similar to Ms. Washington? Describe at least one area you identified where improvements could be made, specific to Ms. Washington’s assessment. Were you surprised by any of the feedback you were provided by iHuman? If yes, please explain.
Paragraph Three: What did you learn from this simulation that you could apply to nursing practice? Or, what did this simulation reinforce that you found valuable? Do you have any questions related to the scenario?
Athena Washington is a 48 year-old African American woman who is diagnosed with neurological deficit. I conducted her comprehensive head-to-toe assessment. I performed well on the first round of the assessment and fortunately did not have to repeat her assessment. The performance areas that went particularly well were the review of the EHR and health history. I am feeling more confident locating important information in the EHR such as imaging results, vitals, progress notes and orders. I am also feeling more confident asking the health history questions and being able to understand the patient from a holistic perspective.
The performance area that did not go as well as I would have liked is the physical assessment. I correctly identified all of the patient’s problems, but I fell short on conducting the cranial nerve assessments, and I guess I forgot to get the patient’s height and weight. I only conducted the cranial nerve assessments that I thought were most relevant. I think I reached a point with the patient’s assessment where I felt doing each individual cranial nerve was redundant to the prior focused assessments I had conducted, including the NIH scale. I was confused about the NIH scale portion of the simulation. I thought it was strange that the system told me that my assessment was wrong. I felt that I based my scores on what I observed in the patient, and to be told that my assessment score was wrong was surprising, a bit jarring frankly. Were I to conduct a comprehensive health assessment on a patient like AW again, I will be sure to assess all cranial nerves individually.
This simulation reinforced the importance of the cranial nerves and the NIH scale. The NIH scale is something that I will definitely carry over into my nursing practice. The assessment is very important with patients who are having symptoms of a possible stroke. At my hospital the requirement was to perform an NIH assessment once each shift followed by frequent neuro checks every four hours and as needed. I am also going to review each of the cranial nerve assessments and refresh my memory on each of these assessments. I have a few questions related to this simulation. First, Why was the SpO2 assessment deemed inappropriate for this patient? Second, did others feel that the assessment requirements on this case were very redundant? Third, how did others feel about the NIH portion of the simulation?
Please response to one classmate