Geriatric Care Environments Online Discussion Instructions

BSN 425 — Gerontological Nursing Discussion Board Assignment

Effective communication and peer learning form essential components of professional nursing practice. You will engage with classmates through structured online discussions that examine real-world scenarios in geriatric care, share clinical observations, and explore evidence-based interventions for older adult populations.

Discussion Topic: Age-Friendly Healthcare Environments

Healthcare environments significantly impact outcomes for older adults. Physical spaces, communication approaches, and organizational practices can either support or hinder the wellbeing of elderly patients. Consider how environmental modifications and person-centered care strategies enhance safety, dignity, and quality of life for geriatric populations.

Initial Post Requirements

Create a substantive initial post of 400 to 500 words that addresses the following components:

Part 1: Environmental Assessment

Describe a healthcare setting you have observed or worked in that serves older adults. Examples include hospitals, long-term care facilities, outpatient clinics, or home health environments. Analyze specific environmental factors that impact elderly patients:

• Physical design elements such as lighting, flooring, signage, and room layout
• Safety features including handrails, call systems, and fall prevention measures
• Sensory considerations for patients with vision or hearing impairments
• Spaces that promote social interaction versus isolation

Part 2: Evidence-Based Improvements

Identify two specific improvements that could enhance the environment for older adults. Support your recommendations with evidence from peer-reviewed sources published within the last five years. Explain how each improvement addresses the needs of elderly patients and promotes better health outcomes.

Part 3: Nursing Advocacy

Discuss the role nurses play in advocating for age-friendly healthcare environments. How can bedside nurses, nurse managers, or nurse leaders influence environmental modifications? What barriers might nurses encounter when proposing changes, and how can these obstacles be addressed?

Citation Requirements

Include at least two scholarly references in your initial post. Acceptable sources include peer-reviewed journal articles, clinical practice guidelines from professional organizations, or research studies focused on geriatric care environments. Format citations and references using APA 7th edition style.

Response Post Requirements

Respond to at least two classmates with posts of 200 to 250 words each. Your responses should extend the discussion rather than simply agreeing or summarizing. Consider these approaches:

• Share additional evidence that supports or challenges the environmental modifications suggested by your peer
• Describe a similar or contrasting observation from your own clinical experience
• Ask thoughtful questions that encourage deeper analysis of the issues raised
• Offer alternative perspectives on nursing advocacy strategies
• Connect your classmate’s ideas to broader concepts in gerontological nursing

Include at least one additional scholarly source in your combined response posts. Demonstrate professional communication and respectful dialogue in all interactions.

Timeline and Deadlines

• Initial post due: Thursday at 11:59 PM
• Response posts due: Sunday at 11:59 PM

Late submissions will receive a 10% deduction per day. Posts submitted after the discussion week closes will not receive credit.

Grading Rubric

Initial Post Quality (50 points)

Content Depth and Critical Thinking (25 points)

• Excellent (23-25): Provides detailed environmental assessment with specific examples; offers insightful analysis of how factors impact elderly patients; demonstrates sophisticated understanding of age-friendly care principles
• Proficient (20-22): Includes adequate environmental assessment with relevant examples; analyzes impact on older adults; shows solid understanding of geriatric care concepts
• Developing (17-19): Offers limited environmental assessment; provides superficial analysis; demonstrates basic understanding of concepts
• Unsatisfactory (0-16): Lacks environmental assessment; minimal analysis; fails to address assignment requirements

Evidence and Support (15 points)

• Excellent (14-15): Integrates current, relevant research effectively; recommendations clearly supported by evidence; sources are credible and appropriate
• Proficient (12-13): Uses appropriate research sources; recommendations supported by evidence; sources are acceptable
• Developing (10-11): Limited use of research; weak connection between evidence and recommendations; questionable source quality
• Unsatisfactory (0-9): Insufficient research; lacks evidence-based support; inappropriate or missing sources

Writing Quality and APA Format (10 points)

• Excellent (9-10): Clear, professional writing; correct grammar and mechanics; proper APA citations; meets word count
• Proficient (8): Generally clear writing; minor grammar errors; mostly correct APA format; appropriate length
• Developing (6-7): Unclear writing; multiple grammar errors; inconsistent APA format; incorrect length
• Unsatisfactory (0-5): Poor writing quality; numerous errors; missing or incorrect citations; significantly off length

Response Posts (30 points total, 15 points each)

Substantive Contribution (10 points per response)

• Excellent (9-10): Extends discussion meaningfully; adds new insights or perspectives; demonstrates critical engagement with peer’s ideas
• Proficient (8): Contributes relevant ideas; shows engagement with peer’s post; adequate depth
• Developing (6-7): Limited contribution; minimal engagement; superficial comments
• Unsatisfactory (0-5): Does not extend discussion; agrees without analysis; off-topic

Evidence and Professionalism (5 points per response)

• Excellent (5): Includes supporting evidence; professional tone; respectful dialogue; correct grammar and citations
• Proficient (4): Adequate support; professional communication; minor errors
• Developing (3): Limited support; somewhat unprofessional tone; multiple errors
• Unsatisfactory (0-2): No supporting evidence; unprofessional communication; significant errors

Timeliness and Participation (20 points)

• Full credit (20): Initial post submitted by Thursday; both responses submitted by Sunday; actively engaged throughout discussion week
• Partial credit (15): Initial post slightly late; responses submitted on time; adequate engagement
• Minimal credit (10): Initial post late; limited responses; minimal engagement
• No credit (0): Missing posts or submitted after discussion closes

Discussion Tips for Success

Start early to allow time for research and thoughtful writing. Review the rubric before composing your posts to ensure you address all requirements. Engage authentically with classmates by reading their posts carefully and responding with genuine interest. Use your clinical experiences to enrich the discussion while maintaining patient confidentiality. Proofread all posts before submitting to catch errors and improve clarity.

Participate in online discussion boards examining age-friendly healthcare environments for older adults, analyzing environmental factors that impact geriatric patients, and proposing evidence-based improvements that promote safety and dignity in various care settings.

References

1. Auais, M., Alvarado, B., Guerra, R., Curcio, C., Freeman, E. E., Ylli, A., & Dube, L. (2019). Fear of falling and its association with life-space mobility of older adults: A cross-sectional analysis using data from five international sites. Age and Ageing, 48(3), 613-619. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afz003
2. Calcaterra, V., Veggiotti, P., Palestrini, C., De Giorgis, V., Mazzola, E., Stefanelli, E., Albertini, R., Borgonovo, S., Pelizzo, G., & Cena, H. (2021). Post-operative benefits of animal-assisted therapy in pediatric surgery: A randomised study. PLoS ONE, 16(2), e0246620. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246620
3. Fang, M. L., Canham, S. L., Battersby, L., Sixsmith, J., Wada, M., & Sixsmith, A. (2019). Exploring privilege in the digital divide: Implications for theory, policy, and practice. The Gerontologist, 59(1), e1-e15. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny037
4. Hung, L., Phinney, A., Chaudhury, H., Rodney, P., Tabamo, J., & Bohl, D. (2021). Appreciating the driving forces of responsive behaviors in long-term care: An interpretive descriptive study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77(2), 814-826. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14634
5. Parke, B., Hunter, K. F., Bostrom, A. M., Seitz, D., Jokinen, N., & Mayhew, A. (2020). Identifying modifiable factors to improve quality for older adults in hospital: A scoping review. International Journal of Older People Nursing, 15(4), e12324. https://doi.org/10.1111/opn.12324