NOTE- Case study is attached in the file below
Case Study 4 addresses Student Learning Outcomes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Choose a case study scenario in the Module documents or one in your own professional experience addressing a topic in the Module. Research the issues and answer the relevant questions. Using the six-step method identify the competing ethical principles, any legal issues, all possible outcomes from the different courses of action, and your proposed course of action to resolve the issues. Use the ANA Code of Ethics to support your course of action. Writing in a professional manner, your paper should include an introductory paragraph defining and outlining the issues, a body discussing the issues, and summary of the major issues.
You should use APA format with a cover sheet (page 1), body of the paper no more than four (4) pages (pages 2 -5), double-spaced with 12-point font, and a list of references (APA format) on the last page (page 6). Turn your Case Study 3 online under the Assignment tab. Refer to the Case Study Grading Rubric for specific grading criteria. Provide at least 3 current peer reviewed sources in your references in addition to the ANA Code of Ethics. You may use your textbook as a reference, but it will not count as a peer reviewed source. Grade your paper prior to submission to determine that your paper addresses the requirements and expectations addressed in the Grading Rubric and syllabus.
Rubric
Case Study Online (3)Case Study Online (3)CriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContentContent is deep and rich with application to broader scope and population using the six-step method4 ptsExemplaryContent demonstrates metacognition with thorough and systematic analysis of own and others’ assumptions and positions. Carefully evaluates the relevance of contexts.3 ptsProficientContent is thorough and covers all elements. Identifies own and others’ assumptions or positions2 ptsBasicMinimally covers essential elements. Questions some assumptions. Identifies own and may be aware of others’ positions1 ptsUnacceptableMinimal and superficial content. Issue or problem stated is without clarification or description.4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeComprehensiveIssue or problem is stated concisely with critical analysis of all competing ethical principles supporting different solution actions, outcomes4 ptsExemplaryIssue or problem with critical analysis of all relevant information for full understanding.3 ptsProficientIssue or problem is considered critically and clarified so understanding is not seriously impeded by omissions.2 ptsBasicIssue or problem to be considered critically is stated but leaves some terms undefined, ambiguous, or unexplored.1 ptsUnacceptableMinimally covers issues or misses some required elements.4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical ThinkingSpecific position takes into account the complexities and nuances of the problem/issue/s. Includes relevant legal issues and expected outcomes for all different courses of action4 ptsExemplarySpecific position identifies complexities and nuances of issues with limits of own position acknowledged. Others’ points of view are synthesized within position. Conclusions and related outcomes are logical and reflect informed evaluation and ability to place evidence and perspectives.3 ptsProficientSpecific position takes into account the complexities of the issue or problem. Others’ points of view are acknowledged. Conclusion is logically tied to the range of information. Related outcomes (consequences and implications) are identified2 ptsBasicSpecific position acknowledges different sides of issue. Conclusion is logically tied to chosen information to fit the desired conclusion. Some related outcomes (consequences and implications) are identified.1 ptsUnacceptableSpecific position is stated but simplistic and obvious. Conclusion is inconsistently tied to some of the information discussed. Relate outcomes (consequences and implications) are oversimplified.4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvidenceEvidence from at least 3 peer reviewed sources and the ANA Code of Ethics4 ptsExemplaryInformation is taken from 4 sources with enough interpretation and evaluation to develop comprehensive analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are questioned thoroughly.3 ptsProficientInformation is taken from 3 sources with enough interpretation and evaluation to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are subject to questioning.2 ptsBasicInformation is taken from 2 sources with some interpretation and evaluation but not enough to develop coherent analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact with little questioning.1 ptsUnacceptableInformation is taken from 1 source without interpretation or evaluation. Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact without questioning.4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeScholarly PresentationAdheres to APA format with cover page, body not to exceed four (4) pages, double- spaced in 12-point font. Citations and references properly formatted. Correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation.4 ptsExemplaryThere are 1-2 APA format errors or errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation3 ptsProficientThere are 3-5 minor APA format errors or errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation.2 ptsBasicThere are 6-10 APA format errors or errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation.1 ptsUnacceptableThere are more than 10 significant errors in APA format and grammar, spelling, and punctuation.4 pts
Total Points: 20