This assignment requires you to interview one person and requires an analysis of your interview experience.
Part I: Interview
Select a patient, a family member, or a friend to interview. Be sure to focus on the interviewee’s experience as a patient, regardless of whom you choose to interview.
Review The Joint Commission resource found in topic materials, which provides some guidelines for creating spiritual assessment tools for evaluating the spiritual needs of patients. Using this resource and any other guidelines/examples that you can find, create your own tool for assessing the spiritual needs of patients.
Your spiritual needs assessment survey must include a minimum of five questions that can be answered during the interview. During the interview, document the interviewee’s responses.
The transcript should include the questions asked and the answers provided. Be sure to record the responses during the interview by taking detailed notes. Omit specific names and other personal information through which the interviewee can be determined.
Part II: Analysis
Write a 500-750 word analysis of your interview experience. Be sure to exclude specific names and other personal information from the interview. Instead, provide demographics such as sex, age, ethnicity, and religion. Include the following in your response:
What went well?
Were there any barriers or challenges that inhibited your ability to complete the assessment tool? How would you address these in the future or change your assessment to better address these challenges?
How can this tool assist you in providing appropriate interventions to meet the needs of your patient?
Did you discover that illness and stress amplified the spiritual concern and needs of your interviewee? Explain your answer with examples.
Submit both the transcript of the interview and the analysis of your results. This should be submitted as one document. The interview transcript does not figure into the word count.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
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 Turnitin. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.
This benchmark assignment assesses the following competencies:
CONHCP Program Competencies for the RN-BSN:
5.2: Assess for the spiritual needs and provide appropriate interventions for individuals, families, and groups.
PLEASE I NEED YOU TO BE CAREFUL WITH THIS ASSIGNMENT, IT HAS AN INTERVIEW AND THEN AN ANALYSIS OF THAT INTERWIEW. ANALIZE ALL THE ASPECTS THE PROFESSOR IS ASKING FOR AND THE RUBRIC FOR THAT ASSIGNMENT. I NEED TO IMPROVE MY GRADES BECAUSE THE OTHER GRADES FROM THE PREVIOUS ASSIGNMENTS ARE TOO BAD.
Benchmark Assignment – Spiritual Needs Assessment and Reflection
Less Than Satisfactory
40.0 % Tool for Assessing the Spiritual Needs of Patients CONHCP: 5.2
Tool for assessing the spiritual needs of patients show little to no relevance to the experiences of patients. A transcript of the interview is either missing or not relevant.
Tool for assessing the spiritual needs of patients is present but lacks focus on experiences of patients. A clear transcript of the interview is provided.
Tool for assessing the spiritual needs of patients is present and focuses on experiences of patients. A clear transcript of the interview is provided.
Tool for assessing the spiritual needs of patients is present and focuses on experiences of patient. The tool uses reliable methods for gathering data. A clear transcript of the interview is provided.
Tool for assessing the spiritual needs of patients is present and focuses on experiences of patients. The tool uses effective methods for gathering data that produces the results intended. A clear transcript of the interview is provided.
30.0 % Analysis of Interview Experience
An analysis of the interview experience shows little to no relevance to the assignment instructions.
An analysis of the interview experience is included but addresses a few of the points included in the assignment instructions.
An analysis of the interview experience is included and addresses most of the points included in the assignment instructions.
An analysis of the interview experience is included and addresses all of the points included in the assignment instructions.
An analysis of the interview experience is included and addresses all of the points included in the assignment instructions. The analysis shows a deep understanding of the connections.
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
7.0 % Thesis Development and Purpose
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.
Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.
Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
8.0 % Argument Logic and Construction
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
5.0 % Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.
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.
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
5.0 % Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
All format elements are correct.
5.0 % Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
Sources are not documented.
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
100 % Total Weightage