My Account

NURS 8100 Allegory of the Orchard

NURS 8100 Allegory of the Orchard

Allegory of the Orchard

The Allegory of the Orchard illustrates the impact of political determinants of health on health outcomes. The allegory makes sense when applied to African Americans with chronic conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. The analogy identifies political determinants of health, including access to resources, healthcare policies, public health interventions, social and economic factors, and prioritization of policies that affect health outcomes. The determinants apply to health outcomes in African Americans with chronic conditions. For example, access to healthcare services influences the health outcomes of African Americans with chronic conditions (Dawes et al., 2022). Barriers, including the high cost of healthcare services, lead to challenges in accessing chronic health services among African Americans.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
NURS 8100 Allegory of the Orchard
Just from $7/Page
Order Essay

Socioeconomic factors such as unemployment, low educational attainment, and poverty are social determinants of health for this population. These factors affect access to high-quality care for chronic health problems affecting African Americans (Entress & Anderson, 2020). Healthcare policies, including those related to health insurance coverage, affect health outcomes. For example, Medicaid and Medicare policies lessen the disease burden for African Americans with chronic health problems. Public health interventions such as health education and screening can identify chronic conditions and facilitate early treatment (Hill-Briggs et al., 2021; Lin, 2022). However, inadequate resource allocation to these interventions results in delayed diagnoses, poor prognosis, and disproportionate disease burden among African Americans.

I am the right person to be politically involved in addressing the political determinants of health affecting African Americans with chronic conditions. Firstly, I have the right advocacy knowledge and skills to influence political determinants of health. I can use them to ensure the adopted policies align with the prioritized needs of African Americans with chronic conditions. I am also proficient in translating evidence into practice. I can select evidence-based practices to address the political determinants of health and implement them for improved health outcomes for the population. I am also skilled in empowering communities and populations on health issues (White-Williams et al., 2020). I can empower African Americans to utilize the available resources and advocate for policies that enable them to achieve their health goals.

References

Dawes, D. E., Amador, C. M., & Dunlap, N. J. (2022). The Political Determinants of Health: A Global Panacea for Health Inequities. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Global Public Health. https://oxfordre.com/publichealth/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190632366.001.0001/acrefore-9780190632366-e-466

Entress, R. M., & Anderson, K. M. (2020). The Politics of Health Care: Health Disparities, the Affordable Care Act, and Solutions for Success. Social Work in Public Health, 35(4), 152–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2020.1767750

Hill-Briggs, F., Adler, N. E., Berkowitz, S. A., Chin, M. H., Gary-Webb, T. L., Navas-Acien, A., Thornton, P. L., & Haire-Joshu, D. (2021). Social Determinants of Health and Diabetes: A Scientific Review. Diabetes Care, 44(1), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci20-0053

Lin, K. (2022). The Political Determinants of Health. Family Medicine, 54(1), 65–66. https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2022.776082

White-Williams, C., Rossi, L. P., Bittner, V. A., Driscoll, A., Durant, R. W., Granger, B. B., Graven, L. J., Kitko, L., Newlin, K., Shirey, M., & On behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Clinical Cardiology; and Council on Epidemiology and Prevention. (2020). Addressing Social Determinants of Health in the Care of Patients With Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation, 141(22), e841–e863. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000767

CLICK HERE TO ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER

Welcome to Week One!! This week, we begin our exploration of health policy and how health policy impacts health outcomes. Our readings this week introduced us to how social and political determinants of health impact the health outcomes of the US population. For our discussion board this week, you are asked to APPLY your understanding of social and political determinants to a group of patients that you are familiar with from your clinical practice. You may wish to format your post in the following manner:

1. Introduction and Identified Group of Patients or Population: First, for the purposes of the class — you are asked to identify a group of patients that you are familiar with or/and whom you provide care for. ***PLEASE*** take a few minutes to identify a group that you are familiar with as you will be asked to refer to this group as part of your discussion over the few weeks. For example: Children with asthma; pregnant women diagnosed with diabetes; migrant farm workers, etc.

2. Identified Health Outcome(s): Given your patient population, what specific HEALTH outcome are you addressing in your group of patients? Keep in mind that this is a HEALTH POLICY course, so our focus is health and health outcomes. For example: Asthma exacerbation is a leading cause of emergency department visits and hospitalizations among children. However, with proper medication and preventive measures, hospitalizations can be reduced. Please make sure that you are identifying A HEALTH or HEALTH-related OUTCOME.

3. Your Role as a DNP in Addressing the Health Outcomes / Being Politically Involved: Keep in mind that THE ROLE of the DNP is the TRANSLATION of the evidence. Given what you learned this week, what is your ROLE as a nurse to advocate for your specific population?

Allegory of the Orchard

The Allegory of the Orchard presents barriers and challenges of underserved, vulnerable, or marginalized populations and communities. These barriers and challenges highlight the importance of understanding the impact of political determinants of health on such groups. This allegory encourages an identification, understanding, analysis, and response to these factors as members of the healthcare community.

For this Discussion, consider the role of the political determinants of health on underserved, vulnerable, or marginalized populations and communities. How might advocates address the health disparities to promote equity and access to high quality healthcare?

Resources

 

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

Learning Resources

Required Resources

Readings

  • Dawes, D. E. (2020). The political determinants of health. Johns Hopkins University Press.
    • “Foreword (pp. ix–xi)
    • Chapter 1, “The Allegory of the Orchard: The Political Determinants of Health Inequalities” (pp. 1–17)
  • Porche, D. J. (2023). Health policy: Applications for nurses and other healthcare professionals (3rd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
    • Chapter 1, “Policy Overview” (pp.1–20)
    • Chapter 6, “Healthcare Systems” (pp. 81–92)

Media

To Prepare:

  • View and read the Learning Resources regarding The Allegory of the Orchard.
  • Consider the role of political determinants of health on disparities in health for some groups.
  • Consider if advocates should be more concerned with policies that promote equality or equity.
  • Explore your role, as a nurse, in addressing these determinants in our policy advocacy efforts.

By Day 3 of Week 1

Post a response detailing the following:

Use The Allegory of the Orchard to discuss how the political determinants of health negatively impact the health outcomes of a group of patients for whom you care. Why are you, as a nurse, the right person to become politically involved in addressing these determinants?

By Day 6 of Week 1

Read a selection of your colleagues’ posts. Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days by supporting or expanding on the ideas identified by your colleague or sharing additional perspectives on the issue described by your colleague.

NURS_8100_Week1_Discussion_Rubric

NURS_8100_Week1_Discussion_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points) Discussion post minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 10:59 pm CT. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 10:59 pm CT. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.)
20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent

• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Exceeds the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

 19 to >15.0 ptsGood

• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Meets the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

 15 to >12.0 ptsFair

• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date at least in part.

 12 to >0 ptsPoor

• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date and did not discuss late post timing with faculty.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points)
30 to >29.0 ptsExcellent

Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.

 29 to >23.0 ptsGood

Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.

 23 to >18.0 ptsFair

Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.

 18 to >0 ptsPoor

Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided.
30 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)
20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent

Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

 19 to >15.0 ptsGood

Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

 15 to >12.0 ptsFair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.

 12 to >0 ptsPoor

Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)
20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent

Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

 19 to >15.0 ptsGood

Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

 15 to >12.0 ptsFair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

 12 to >0 ptsPoor

Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)
10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

 9 to >8.0 ptsGood

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

 8 to >6.0 ptsFair

Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

 6 to >0 ptsPoor

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
10 pts
Total Points: 100

 



		


		
		
		
		
	


	
		
			


	


	


	

		

			
			
				
Good News ! We now help with PROCTORED EXAMS. Chat with a support agent for more information

			


			
			

				
				CHAT US NOW				
			
 
		

	


						X		
		

	

	







	

		

											
Open chat

						
				
				
			
										

			

			

									Dr.Nursingpapers
								

			

			

				

					
Hello
Can we help you?