Assignment: Special Issues Vulnerable Adults

Details:

Develop a PowerPoint presentation of 15-18 slides, addressing clinical issues in the elderly and neglect and abuse of dependent adults and the elderly. Create speaker notes for each of the slides. Include the following in your presentation:

Part 1: Clinical Issues (cognitive decline, depression, anxiety, substance use, etc.)

Physical consequence of the clinical issue
Emotional consequences of the clinical issue
Cognitive consequence of the clinical issue.
Spiritual consequences of the clinical issue

Part 2: Abuse and Neglect

Common forms of vulnerable adult and elderly neglect.

Warning signs of vulnerable adult and elderly abuse.

Legal and ethical considerations for reporting abuse and/or neglect of vulnerable adults and the elderly.

In addition, include slides for a title, introduction, conclusion, and references (four slides minimum).

Include a minimum of four scholarly references in your presentation.

Include speaker notes below each content-related slide that represent what would be said if giving the presentation in person. Expand upon the information included in the slide and do not simply restate it.

Please ensure the speaker notes include a minimum of 50 words.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and in-text citations and references should be presented using APA documentation 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.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: Assignment: Special Issues Vulnerable Adults

Vulnerable population and methods for their safeguard

INTRODUCTION

The inherited skepticism of disregard and contempt for human rights from the past has left powerful influences, making autonomy, justice and safety the citadels for current ethical research practices. Civil rights violations from the infamous Nazi and Tuskegee to radiation human experimentations have promoted sustained maturation and augmentation of clinical bioethical research environments. The lack of informed consent (IC), or coercive, guileful, forceful influences and methods that were used to obtain consent from potential participants; this associated with impaired risk-benefit scales, unjustified research population selections have prompted international regulations to stand firm on principles advocating conscientious clinical and ethical research systems. Following marketing approvals, medicinal products are conventionally utilized by pharmaceutical organizations, medical practitioners and allied bodies across a wide range of age groups, genders, special populations, nationalities and races, who unfortunately had not been satisfactorily represented in pertinent clinical studies resulting in deficient evidence-based health care.

Vulnerable population

There are several definitions available for the term “vulnerable population”, the words simply imply the disadvantaged sub-segment of the community[1] requiring utmost care, specific ancillary considerations and augmented protections in research. The vulnerable individuals’ freedom and capability to protect one-self from intended or inherent risks is variably abbreviated, from decreased freewill to inability to make informed choices. Vulnerable communities need assiduous attention during designing studies with unique recruitment considerations and quality scrutiny measurements of overall safety and efficacy strategies ensuing research. Ethical dilemmas are widely prevalent in research involving these populations with regard to communications, data privacy and therapeutic deliberations. Non-therapeutic research participation is granted if the envisaged risks are minimal[2] and well-being of this community is not compromised. Research with this sub-segment of population is validated if reasonable direct benefits are foreseen, in compliance with local legal regulations.[1,3] The vulnerable populations refers to but not limited to children, minors, pregnant women, fetuses, human in vitro fertilization, prisoners, employees, military persons and students in hierarchical organizations, terminally ill, comatose, physically and intellectually challenged individuals, institutionalized, elderly individuals, visual or hearing impaired, ethnic minorities, refugees, international research, economically and educationally disabled and healthy volunteers.[1,4] Due to their circumstances, the communities may be inclined to participate in a clinical study or be unjustifiably influenced by the expectations of predicted benefits associated with participation.[3]

There is an aggrandized awareness with pressing needs to include potential participants from heterogeneous demographics and variegated vulnerable backgrounds, both from the regulatory and patient groups.[5]

The cornerstones of vulnerable participant safeguard ubiquitously comprises of comprehensive IC process, authorized substitute decision makers, addressing privacy and confidentiality concerns, justified benefit versus risk assessments, equitable justice and methods of subject selection.[2,6]

Discussion on methods for safeguard

Changes in benefit to risk ratios, either aggravated risks than those assumed and or a decrease in direct benefits presaged to the vulnerable participant should deter fresh enrolment and stagger or discontinue further participation up till the issue is appropriately corrected. The interim analyses of research may be made available in public domain to apprise the scientific community of the integrity of the study and initiate public trust.

Development of comprehensive safety monitoring plans with Data Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) supervision and wherever applicable with Observational Study Monitoring Boards are crucial. Their role may be optimized by involving them in both, early and late trial phases[7] soliciting vulnerable subjects, to contribute recommendations to the scientific caliber, integrity, safety, lucidity, timeliness, and quality of data and documentation. Compliance to advocated norms and sustained monitoring by ethical review boards (ERBs),[8] governmental agencies and independent DSMC is obligatory.

Any form of willful violations to Good Clinical Practices (GCP) with connotations to autonomy, voluntariness, distributive justice, other parameters of safeguards are to be imperatively scrutinized and those involved to be appropriately penalized by applicable authorities.

Protection of rights, well-being, safety with measurements of risk-benefit scales, privacy and confidentiality of vulnerable subjects and ascertaining appended safeguards[4] are prerogatives of ERBs. Infringement of methodologies in data collection and dissemination could bring individuals into disrepute, especially in research involving socially sensitive issues associated with stigma, as with HIV, mental illnesses, genetic[4] or of epidemiological natures. Confidentiality transgressions with unethical usage of personal data may occur endangering the social fabric of this already disadvantaged community. Therefore, establishment of updated security mechanisms of human research data protections is of paramount priority to industry, ERBs and supervising committees.

The trial documents require meeting the expectations of ERBs, especially with reference to vulnerable subjects’ protection.[9] Competent and trained ERBs overseeing sensitive studies should observe full-scheduled reviews[4] and may have representatives from specific populations during deliberations. The concerned ERBs prior to decision making may establish site research conditions, example a prison site[10] with relevance to participant rights, safety and well-being. The ERBs’ standard practices should include continued review for compliance whilst monitoring these trials.

Presently due to disparate factors, there is neither uniformity nor equitable standards in the understanding and grading of risks globally for these populations with relevance to extent of acceptability and evaluation of quantum of risks to establish consistent safeguards in biomedical research aiding stakeholders.

Role of regulatory in biomedical and behavioral research is maximal in providing scientific direction to industry and unambiguous thought-through instructions.[11] Regulatory governance is critical, more so in socially sensitive trials and also contributes to evolving a responsible media. International collaborations of regulatory organizations can establish scientific and regulatory policies to positively impact global safeguards for vulnerable populations.

Stringent reporting guidelines should be followed by industry in maintaining validated databases for safety data dissemination highlighted for this community, with risks being regularly interpreted by expert clinical evaluators, steering committees and timely recommendations shared between stakeholders. There is a continual need to federate and be vigilant to develop strategies for establishing appropriate advancements in monitoring plans according to trends scrutinized from research.

Participation for MSN

Threaded Discussion Guiding Principles

The ideas and beliefs underpinning the threaded discussions (TDs) guide students through engaging dialogues as they achieve the desired learning outcomes/competencies associated with their course in a manner that empowers them to organize, integrate, apply and critically appraise their knowledge to their selected field of practice. The use of TDs provides students with opportunities to contribute level-appropriate knowledge and experience to the topic in a safe, caring, and fluid environment that models professional and social interaction. The TD’s ebb and flow is based upon the composition of student and faculty interaction in the quest for relevant scholarship. Participation in the TDs generates opportunities for students to actively engage in the written ideas of others by carefully reading, researching, reflecting, and responding to the contributions of their peers and course faculty. TDs foster the development of members into a community of learners as they share ideas and inquiries, consider perspectives that may be different from their own, and integrate knowledge from other disciplines.

Participation Guidelines

Each weekly threaded discussion is worth up to 25 points. Students must post a minimum of two times in each graded thread. The two posts in each individual thread must be on separate days. The student must provide an answer to each graded thread topic posted by the course instructor, by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week. If the student does not provide an answer to each graded thread topic (not a response to a student peer) before the Wednesday deadline, 5 points are deducted for each discussion thread in which late entry occurs (up to a 10-point deduction for that week). Subsequent posts, including essential responses to peers, must occur by the Sunday deadline, 11:59 p.m. MT of each week.

Direct Quotes

Good writing calls for the limited use of direct quotes. Direct quotes in Threaded Discussions are to be limited to one short quotation (not to exceed 15 words). The quote must add substantively to the discussion. Points will be deducted under the Grammar, Syntax, APA category.

Grading Rubric Guidelines

Performance Category	10	9	8	4	0
Scholarliness Demonstrates achievement of scholarly inquiry for professional and academic decisions.	Provides relevant evidence of scholarly inquiry clearly stating how the evidence informed or changed professional or academic decisions Evaluates literature resources to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis. Uses valid, relevant, and reliable outside sources to contribute to the threaded discussion	Provides relevant evidence of scholarly inquiry but does not clearly state how the evidence informed or changed professional or academic decisions. Evaluates information from source(s) to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Uses some valid, relevant, reliable outside sources to contribute to the threaded discussion.	Discusses using scholarly inquiry but does not state how scholarly inquiry informed or changed professional or academic decisions. Information is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/evaluation, but not enough to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Little valid, relevant, or reliable outside sources are used to contribute to the threaded discussion. Demonstrates little or no understanding of the topic.	Discusses using scholarly inquiry but does not state how scholarly inquiry informed or changed professional or academic decisions. Information is taken from source(s) without any interpretation/evaluation. The posting uses information that is not valid, relevant, or reliable	No evidence of the use of scholarly inquiry to inform or change professional or academic decisions. Information is not valid, relevant, or reliable
Performance Category	10	9	8	4	0
Application of Course Knowledge – Demonstrate the ability to analyze, synthesize, and/or apply principles and concepts learned in the course lesson and outside readings and relate them to real-life professional situations	Posts make direct reference to concepts discussed in the lesson or drawn from relevant outside sources; Applies concepts to personal experience in the professional setting and or relevant application to real life.	Posts make direct reference to concepts discussed in the lesson or drawn from relevant outside sources. Applies concepts to personal experience in their professional setting and or relevant application to real life Interactions with classmates are relevant to the discussion topic but do not make direct reference to lesson content	Posts are generally on topic but do not build knowledge by incorporating concepts and principles from the lesson. Does not attempt to apply lesson concepts to personal experience in their professional setting and or relevant application to real life Does not demonstrate a solid understanding of the principles and concepts presented in the lesson	Posts do not adequately address the question posed either by the discussion prompt or the instructor’s launch post. Posts are superficial and do not reflect an understanding of the lesson content Does not attempt to apply lesson concepts to personal experience in their professional setting and or relevant application to real life	Posts are not related to the topics provided by the discussion prompt or by the instructor; attempts by the instructor to redirect the student are ignored No discussion of lesson concepts to personal experience in the professional setting and or relevant application to real life
Performance Category	5	4	3	2	0
Interactive Dialogue Replies to each graded thread topic posted by the course instructor, by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week, and posts a minimum of two times in each graded thread, on separate days. (5 points possible per graded thread)	Exceeds minimum post requirements Replies to each graded thread topic posted by the course instructor, by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week, and posts three or more times in each graded thread, over three separate days. Replies to a post posed by faculty and to a peer Summarizes what was learned from the lesson, readings, and other student posts for the week.	Replies to each graded thread topic posted by the course instructor, by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week, and posts a minimum of two times in each graded thread, on separate days Replies to a question posed by a peer Summarizes what was learned from the lesson, readings, and other student posts for the week.	Meets expectations of 2 posts on 2 different days. The main post is not made by the Wednesday deadline Does not reply to a question posed by a peer or faculty	Has only one post for the week Discussion posts contain few, if any, new ideas or applications; often are a rehashing or summary of other students’ comments	Does not post to the thread No connections are made to the topic
	Minus 1 Point	Minus 2 Point	Minus 3 Point	Minus 4 Point	Minus 5 Point
Grammar, Syntax, APA Note: if there are only a few errors in these criteria, please note this for the student in as an area for improvement. If the student does not make the needed corrections in upcoming weeks, then points should be deducted. Points deducted for improper grammar, syntax and APA style of writing. The source of information is the APA Manual 6th Edition	2-3 errors in APA format. Written responses have 2-3 grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors. Writing style is generally clear, focused, and facilitates communication.	4-5 errors in APA format. Writing responses have 4-5 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Writing style is somewhat focused.	6-7 errors in APA format. Writing responses have 6-7 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Writing style is slightly focused making discussion difficult to understand.	8-10 errors in APA format. Writing responses have 8-10 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Writing style is not focused, making discussion difficult to understand.	Post contains greater than 10 errors in APA format. Written responses have more than 10 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Writing style does not facilitate communication. The student continues to make repeated mistakes in any of the above areas after written correction by the instructor
	0 points lost				-5 points lost
Total Participation Requirements per discussion thread	The student answers the threaded discussion question or topic on one day and posts a second response on another day.				The student does not meet the minimum requirement of two postings on two different days
Early Participation Requirement per discussion thread	The student must provide a substantive answer to the graded discussion question(s) or topic(s), posted by the course instructor (not a response to a peer), by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT of each week.				The student does not meet the requirement of a substantive response to the stated question or topic by Wednesday at 11:59 pm MT.

NOTE: To receive credit for a week’s discussion, students may begin posting no earlier than the Sunday immediately before each week opens. Unless otherwise specified, access to most weeks begins on Sunday at 12:01 a.m. MT, and that week’s assignments are due by the next Sunday by 11:59 p.m. MT. Week 8 opens at 12:01 a.m. MT Sunday and closes at 11:59 p.m. MT Wednesday. Any assignments and all discussion requirements must be completed by 11:59 p.m. MT Wednesday of the eighth week.

Assignment: Special Issues Vulnerable Adults