The purpose of this debriefing is to re-examine the experience completing the Week 3 iHuman Cardiovascular Assessment assignment while engaging in dialogue with faculty and peers. In the debriefings, students:
- Reflect on the simulation activity
- Share what went well and consider alternative actions
- Engage in meaningful dialogue with classmates
- Express opinions clearly and logically, in a professional manner
This debriefing enables the student to meet the following course outcomes:
CO 2: Differentiate between normal and abnormal health assessment findings. (PO 4)
CO 3: Describe physical, psychosocial, cultural, and spiritual influences on an individual’s health status. (PO 1)
CO 4: Demonstrate effective communication skills during health assessment and documentation. (PO 3)
- Answer post due by Wednesday 11:59 p.m. MT in Week 4
- Two replies to classmates and/or instructor due by Sunday 11:59 p.m. MT at the end of Week 3
- Debriefing is an activity that involves thinking critically about your own experiences related to the virtual simulation you completed. Use the rubric on this page as you compose your answers.
- Scholarly sources are NOT required for this reflection
Use the following format to reflect on the Week 3 iHuman Cardiovascular assignment. This was the Michael Granger case.
- Paragraph One: What went well for you in the simulation? Provide examples of when you felt knowledgeable and confident in your skills. Do you feel the scenario was realistic? Why or why not?
- Paragraph Two: What would you do differently next time? Describe at least one area you identified where improvements could be made. Were you surprised by any of the feedback you were provided by iHuman? If yes, please explain.
- Paragraph Three: What did you learn from this simulation? Or, what did this simulation reinforce that you found valuable? Do you have any questions related to the scenario?
The last week iHuman simulation was a lot better for me. I felt that I have a better handle on things including heart and lungs auscultations. I felt, especially as heart failure is a scenario I see often enough and am familiar with, that I could anticipate the patient’s complaints. Therefore, I was able to ask relevant question. I am happy i got the auscultations done correctly, and felt much more confident with this simulation. Nevertheless, I feel that it would be more engaging and realistic if the iHuman was capable of responding to questions with more than a “yes” or “no” or referring to his discharge. This week…Please click the icon below to purchase the full solution at only $5