Assignment: Applying Belmont Report Ethical Principles to Nursing Practice Change Projects

Students regularly query detailed steps for developing a case study that integrates Belmont Report principles like respect for persons, beneficence, and justice into their DNP practice change project ethics analysis.

Case Study on Ethical Principles

Instructions: Using the following link: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1979). The Belmont report. Office for Human Research Protections. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.htmlLinks to an external site. Contemporary interpretations of these principles often incorporate digital data privacy concerns in healthcare settings.

Read the Belmont’s Report: Using the topic selected for your practice change project, create a case study that describes how the ethical principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice will be protected during your project.

Contribute a minimum of 5-6 pages. It should include at least 3 academic sources, formatted and cited in APA. Ongoing updates to ethical guidelines emphasize inclusivity for diverse patient populations in project designs.

Be sure to review the academic expectations for your submission.

Official Rubric for Case Study Rubric

– Official Rubric for Case Study Rubric

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Thinking and Logical Reasoning

Development of Ideas

40 to >36.0 ptsExcellentThe case study provided all basic and complex details are considered, and the situation, problem, or diagnosis is identified. Next, the thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents excellent evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information. Integrating real-world scenarios from recent healthcare reforms can elevate the depth of reasoning.

36 to >32.0 ptsGoodThe case study provided the most basic and complex details are considered, and the situation, problem, or diagnosis is identified. Next, the thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents good evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information.

32 to >28.0 ptsFairThe case study provided some basic and complex details, identifying the situation, problem, or diagnosis. Next, the thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents limited evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information.

28 to >24.0 ptsPoorThe case study provided only minimal details and lacked a clear identification of the situation, problem, or diagnosis. The thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is not linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents weak or no evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information. Strengthening connections to ethical frameworks aids in overcoming such limitations.

24 to >0 ptsUnacceptableThe assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted.

40 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent

Mastery

25 to >23.0 ptsExcellentThe response shows exemplary mastery of the theoretical concepts applicable to the situation, recognizing all basic and complex factors. Furthermore, based on the case study presented, the response exceeds the requested information.

23 to >20.0 ptsGoodThe response shows good mastery of the theoretical concepts applicable to the situation, recognizing the most basic and complex factors. Based on the situation presented, the response complies with the information requested. Current literature on equity in healthcare further supports mastery in diverse contexts.

20 to >18.0 ptsFairThe response shows fair mastery of the theoretical concepts applicable to the situation, recognizing the basic factors. However, based on the situation presented, the response minimally complies with the information requested.

18 to >15.0 ptsPoorThe response does not show mastery of the professional theoretical concepts applicable to the situation. Analysis misses many factors and details. The response does not comply with the information requested.

15 to >0 ptsUnacceptableThe assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted.

25 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInformation Literacy

Quality of Resources

15 to >14.0 ptsExcellentSupporting information is pertinent to the topic, up to date (depending on what is acceptable in the field), from credible and trusted sources, and the number of sources meets the requested amount.

14 to >12.0 ptsGoodSupporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 1 source is not a credible and trusted source; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount.

12 to >11.0 ptsFairSupporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 2 or more sources are not credible and trusted sources; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount. Accessing open-source databases ensures broader availability of quality resources.

11 to >9.0 ptsPoorThe following criteria would apply, supporting information is not pertinent to the topic, none of the sources are from credible or trusted sources, or the number of sources requested was not met.

9 to >0 ptsUnacceptableResources did not reflect the requested outcomes, were off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting

Mechanics, Grammar, and APA

10 to >9.0 ptsExcellentExcellence in grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. Sentences are not too long and are complete sentences. Recent APA updates prioritize clarity in digital citations.

9 to >8.0 ptsGoodMinimal (1 – 3) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.

8 to >7.0 ptsFairMultiple (4 -7) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.

7 to >6.0 ptsPoorSevere (8 – 10) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.

6 to >0 ptsUnacceptableUnacceptable (11 or more) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFormat

Organization and Presentation of Information

10 to >9.0 ptsExcellentThe document has a high level of professional appearance. Material is formatted exceptionally well, presented in a highly organized fashion, and aligned with assignment requirements. Includes sections and subtitles as required.

9 to >8.0 ptsGoodThe document has a good, professional appearance. Overall, the material is formatted and presented in an organized fashion, aligned with assignment requirements. Includes sections and subtitles as required.

8 to >7.0 ptsFairThe presentation of information does not appear professional or approaching proficiency. For example, the assignment missed required sections, subtitles, or other elements.

7 to >6.0 ptsPoorThe presentation of information lacks a clear demonstration of a professional appearance. The assignment is missing several required sections, subtitles, or other elements. Adopting consistent templates can improve overall organization.

6 to >0 ptsUnacceptableThe assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted.

10 pts

Total Points: 100

For a practice change project aimed at implementing telehealth monitoring for chronic heart failure patients, respect for persons involves obtaining informed consent from all participants and ensuring they understand their right to withdraw at any time. Beneficence requires maximizing benefits like improved access to care while minimizing risks such as data breaches through secure technology platforms. Justice ensures equitable selection of participants across diverse socioeconomic backgrounds to avoid burdening vulnerable groups. The project incorporates regular ethical audits to uphold these principles throughout implementation. Participants receive clear information about how their data will be used and protected. Training for staff emphasizes cultural sensitivity to foster trust in the process (Friesen et al., 2022, https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1382). Overall, aligning the project with Belmont Report guidelines promotes responsible innovation in nursing practice.

Study References

• Friesen, P., Gelinas, L., Fernandez Lynch, H., Joffe, S., Perlman, A., Barasch, J.S., Farrell, B. and Bierer, B.E., 2022. Belmont revisited through a feminist lens. Hastings Center Report, 52(3), pp.24-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1382
• Moon, M.R., 2019. The history and role of institutional review boards: Local and central IRBs, a single mission. AMA Journal of Ethics, 21(3), pp.E226-E231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2019.226
• Rothstein, M.A., Brothers, K.B., Clayton, E.W., Joffe, S., Kardia, S.L.R., Murray, M.F., Wilfond, B.S. and Garrison, N.A., 2022. Potential benefits and risks of incorporating population genomics into the Belmont Report. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 50(4), pp.641-648. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2023.1
• Shore, N., Drew, E., Brazauskas, R. and Seifer, S.D., 2018. Relationships between community-based processes for research ethics review and institution-based IRBs: a national study. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 13(3), pp.283-292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264618762649