Essay – Challenging Pain Management Misconceptions
Value: 40%
Due date: 06-Apr-2015
Return date: 27-Apr-2015
Length: 2500 words
Submission method options
EASTS (online)
Task
For over 40 years the research literature has reinforced that the global under-treatment of pain is due to barriers inherent to both patients/clients and clinicians. In particular, misconceptions pertaining to the use of opioids can negatively influence the input of key stakeholders in the pain management situation. This then has the potential to sabotage effective pain management outcomes and perpetuate unnecessary suffering.
You are to write an essay which:
1) Identifies and describes common opioid misconceptions and the reasons why they exist;
2) Critically discusses their specific impact on both the accuracy of pain assessment, decisions regarding the use of analgesics (including opioids) and the timely and necessary involvement of other members of the multidisciplinary team;
3) Provides factual evidence from both your Module readings and wider research to dispel each misconception, and
4) Outlines a plan, strategies and resources for education that you could use in your day to day dealings with both clients and colleagues in order to change attitudes and help minimize the impact of these misconceptions, so that pain management practices become more consistent and evidence-based.
You may elect to discuss these misconceptions in relation to a particular group (e.g. young children, elderly people, clients with known opioid addiction issues, etc.) or type of pain (e.g. malignant pain/terminal disease or chronic non-malignant pain, etc.).
Rationale
The rationale for this assessment is for you to identify and explore one of the issues/misconceptions which has traditionally been problematic for pain management (i.e. misconceptions related to age, gender, race, authority over pain,use of opioids; advocacy and other legal/ethical issues, etc.) and design strategies in order to facilitate change to effect more positive pain management outcomes.
This assessment task is aligned with the following learning outcomes:
* discuss theoretical models that help to explain individual differences in suffering and pain behaviour;
* discuss factors that frequently contribute to suffering and pain behaviour;
* discuss legal and ethical issues associated with managing pain.
Marking criteria
Criteria for Assessment of Assignment 1 – NRS235
Student Name:______________________ Value: 40% of final grade
High Distinction
85-100 Distinction
75-84
Credit
65-74 Pass
50-64 Fail
<50
/100 %
Quality of writing and presentation. Demonstrates an excellent ability to organise, integrate and articulate clearly and fluently.
Excellent clarity of written language.
Adheres to correct essay format and presentation standards – Work is legible
Keeps to word limit (+ or – 10%)
Spelling, grammar and punctuation are excellent
Introduction includes clear statement of purpose
Body of essay is written clearly, succinctly and logically – nil digression
Structure is clear with appropriate paragraphing and linking statements
Conclusion draws main points but does not introduce new ones. Demonstrates ability to organise and articulate ideas. Reasonable written language. Grammar and spelling are correct and the paper is legible and readable.
Adheres to correct essay format and presentation standards – Work is legible
Keeps to word limit (+ or – 10%)
Few spelling, grammar and/or punctuation errors.
Introduction includes a statement of purpose
Body of essay is written clearly, succinctly and logically – nil digression
Structure is clear with appropriate paragraphing -Nil single sentences used
Conclusion draws main points. Demonstrates insufficient ability to organise, integrate and express ideas. Unsatisfactory written language. Inconsistent grammar and/or spelling.
Does not adhere to correct essay format and presentation standards – Work is illegible
Insufficient length or way beyond word limit
Numerous grammatical and/or spelling errors.
Introduction absent or superficial – lacks statement of purpose
Body of essay lacks clarity or tends to digress
Ideas not logically developed
Nil or minimal attempt at structure – single sentences used and /or paragraphs under or over developed
Conclusion absent or superficial – does not draw main points. up to 10 marks can be deducted for poor
presentation
Identifies and describes key misconception
Discusses reasons why misconception exists
Provides a thorough introduction to the existence and nature of the identified misconception.
Relates the existence of the identified misconception to specific pain management outcomes.
Establishes clear links to all of the identified causative factors.
Provides thorough discussion, with all causative factors supported by recent and relevant research.
12.75 – 15 Provides a clear introduction to the existence and nature of the identified misconception.
Relates the existence of the identified misconception to specific pain management outcomes.
Establishes links to most of the identified causative factors.
Provides thorough discussion, with most causative factors supported by recent and relevant research.
11.25 – 12.6 Provides a sound introduction to the existence and nature of the identified misconception.
Relates the existence of the identified misconception to pain management outcomes in general.
Establishes links to most of the identified causative factors.
Provides more than sufficient discussion, with most causative factors supported by recent and relevant research.
9.75 – 11.1 Provides a satisfactory introduction to the existence and nature of the identified misconception.
Provides a basic attempt to relate the existence of the identified misconception to pain management outcomes.
Establishes links to some of the identified causative factors.
Provides sufficient discussion, but not all causative factors are supported by recent and relevant research.
7.5 – 9.6 Provides nil or limited introduction to the existence and nature of the identified misconception.
Provides nil or limited attempt to relate the existence of the identified misconception to pain management outcomes.
Provides nil or limited discussion of causative factors.
0 – 7.35
/15
Critically analyses impacts of misconception on pain assessment
Provides a clear and consistent critical analysis of the impacts of the misconception on pain assessment behaviours.
Discussion specifically outlines impacts on all key stakeholders.
Content is highly supported with recent and relevant research.
17.0 – 20.0 Provides a consistent critical analysis of the impacts of the misconception on pain assessment behaviours.
Discussion specifically outlines impacts on most key stakeholders.
Content is strongly supported with recent and relevant research.
15.0 – 16.8 Provides as sound critical analysis of the impacts of the misconception on pain assessment behaviours.
Discussion outlines impacts on most key stakeholders.
Content is supported by more than sufficient evidence from recent and relevant research.
13.0 – 14.8 Limited attempt to outline how or why the misconception’s impact on pain assessment behaviours can then influence choices for interventions.
Discusses some of the impacts of the misconception on pain assessment behaviours, but does not necessarily make strong links to the various impacts for the key stakeholders.
Content is supported with recent and relevant research.
10.0 – 12.8 Provides nil or limited discussion of the impacts of the misconception on pain assessment behaviours.
Provides nil or limited discussion of the impacts on any key stakeholders
Provides nil or limited support from recent and relevant research.
0 – 9.8
/20
Critically analyses impacts of misconception on intervention choices Clearly identifies how and why the misconception’s impacts on pain assessment behaviours can then influence choices for interventions.
Provides a thorough analysis
of the misconception’s influences on intervention choices (including type of analgesics and referral to other members of the multidisciplinary team).
Discussion specifically outlines the impacts on all key stakeholders.
Content is highly supported with recent and relevant research.
17.0 – 20.0 Clearly identifies how and why the misconception’s impacts on pain assessment behaviours can then influence choices for interventions.
Provides a strong analysis of the misconception’s influences on intervention choices (including type of analgesics and referral to other members of the multidisciplinary team).
Discussion specifically outlines the impacts on most key stakeholders.
Content is strongly supported with recent and relevant research.
15.0 – 16.8 Outlines in general terms how or why the misconception’s impacts on pain assessment behaviours can then influence choices for interventions
Provides a sound analysis of the misconception’s influences on intervention choices (including type of analgesics and/or referral to other members of the multidisciplinary team).
Discussion outlines the impacts on most key stakeholders.
Content is supported by more than sufficient evidence from recent and relevant research.
13.0 – 14.8 Limited attempt to outline how or why the misconception’s impact on pain assessment behaviours can then influence choices for interventions.
Discusses some of the impacts of the misconception on intervention choices, but does not necessarily make strong links to the various impacts for the key stakeholders.
Content is supported with recent and relevant research.
10.0 – 12.8 Nil or superficial discussion of impacts of misconception on intervention choices.
Nil or limited discussion of impacts of misconception on any of the main stakeholders
Provides nil or limited support from recent and relevant research.
0 – 9.8
/20
Effectively uses factual evidence to dispel misconception and reduce negative impact or change practice Outlines reliable evidence to minimise impacts of the identified misconception.
Clearly and consistently shows how the evidence will negate the identified misconception and reduce negative impacts by improving knowledge and changing attitudes.
Provides clear links to show how the evidence negates specific causative factors.
17.0 – 20.0 Outlines reliable evidence to minimise impacts of the identified misconception.
Clearly shows how the evidence will negate the identified misconception and reduce negative impacts by improving knowledge and/or changing attitudes.
15.0 – 16.8 Outlines reliable evidence to minimise impacts of the identified misconception.
Provides sound attempts to show how the evidence will improve knowledge or change attitudes.
13.0 – 14.8 Outlines relevant evidence to minimise impacts of the identified misconception.
Does not necessarily show how the evidence will improve knowledge or change attitudes.
10.0 – 12.8 Outlines nil or superficial discussion of evidence to minimise impacts of the identified misconception.
Does not show how the evidence will improve knowledge or change attitudes.
0.0 – 9.8
/20
Outlines a specific plan, strategies and resources for clinician/client education in order to change practice.
Excellent, critical, relevant and consistent connections made between theory and practice in discussion of recommended strategies.
Outlines a specific plan of action to dispel misconception and educate both clients and colleagues.
Clearly and consistently incorporates the factual evidence previously discussed into strategies and resources to negate the misconception.
Strategies and resources clearly address all of the identified causes and are strongly supported by recent and relevant research.
21.25 – 25.0
Critical, relevant and consistent connections made between theory and practice in discussion of recommended strategies.
Strategies and resources clearly address most of the identified causes and are supported by recent and relevant research.
Outlines a specific plan of action to dispel misconception and educate both clients and colleagues.
Incorporates most of the factual evidence previously discussed into strategies and resources to negate the misconception.
18.75 – 21.0 Relevant and consistent connections made between theory and practice in discussion of recommended strategies.
Outlines a specific plan of action to dispel misconception and educate clients/colleagues.
Some attempts to Incorporate the factual evidence previously discussed into strategies and resources to negate the misconception.
Strategies and resources address most of the identified causes and are supported by recent and relevant research.
16.25 – 18.5 Discussion of recommended strategies provides some connections between theory and practice.
Outlines a general plan of action to dispel misconception and educate clients/colleagues.
Limited attempts to incorporate the factual evidence previously discussed into strategies and resources to negate the misconception.
Strategies and resources address most the identified causes but are not necessarily well justified by recent and relevant research.
12.5 – 16.0
Limited or inappropriate discussion of recommended strategies or resources.
Nil or limited connection between causative factors and use of evidence to reduce their impact.
Limited use of recent and relevant research to support strategies/ resources.
0 – 12.25
/25
Referencing Evidence of extensive reading (exceeds minimum of 12 peer-reviewed literature sources/credible websites)
An excellent variety of current, quality resources cited.
Consistent, correct and complete APA referencing format rigorously followed both in-text and in Reference List.
All articles cited in-text are included in Reference List (and vice versa). Evidence of satisfactory reading
(meets the minimum 12 peer-reviewed literature sources/
credible websites).
Mostly current, quality sources used or older sources justified.
Mostly correct APA referencing format used with all sources shown.
Most
articles cited in-text are included in Reference List (and vice versa). (does not meet the minimum 12 peer-reviewed literature sources/ credible websites). Inappropriate or outdated sources used.
Some articles cited in-text are not included in Reference List (and vice versa).
Minimal or no evidence of satisfactory reading
Numerous errors in APA referencing format in-text and/or Reference List. Some sources or details missing. up to 10 marks can be deducted for poorly or inadequately referenced material
Total /100
Final Mark /50
Comments:
Final Grade:______________ Lecturer’s signature
