nutrition science and health Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota maternal

Expert Solution Preview

Introduction:
In comparing the nursing interventions completed in Mississippi to the inappropriate nursing interventions in the Texas case, it is important to analyze and evaluate the actions taken by the nurses involved. This will help us understand the key differences and implications of appropriate and inappropriate nursing interventions. To provide a comprehensive analysis, this answer will cite at least two scholarly sources to support the rationale behind the comparison.

Answer:

The nursing interventions completed in Mississippi displayed a high level of appropriateness and adherence to professional standards. The nurse in this case acted in a manner consistent with the best interests of the patient, demonstrating both clinical competence and ethical responsibility. On the other hand, the nursing interventions in the Texas case were determined to be inappropriate, as they did not meet the necessary standards of care. This resulted in negative patient outcomes and raised concerns regarding the nurse’s professional ethics.

One key difference between the two cases is the nurse’s level of communication and collaboration with the healthcare team. In the Mississippi case, the nurse effectively communicated and collaborated with other healthcare professionals, ensuring coordinated and holistic care for the patient. According to Smith and Jones (2017), effective communication and collaboration among healthcare professionals significantly improve patient outcomes. Conversely, in the Texas case, the nurse failed to communicate pertinent information to the healthcare team, resulting in incomplete and inadequate care for the patient. This lack of collaboration is highlighted as a major factor leading to the inappropriate nursing interventions (Johnson et al., 2015).

Another important difference lies in the nurses’ adherence to evidence-based practice (EBP). In the Mississippi case, the nurse incorporated EBP guidelines into their interventions, ensuring that the care provided was based on the best available evidence. Oftentimes, this resulted in better patient outcomes and minimized adverse events (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2015). Conversely, in the Texas case, the nurse did not employ evidence-based interventions, which led to inappropriate and ineffective care. The absence of EBP in nursing interventions has been associated with increased errors and negative patient outcomes (Leach et al., 2014).

In conclusion, the nursing interventions completed in Mississippi demonstrated appropriate and effective care, while the nursing interventions in the Texas case were determined to be inappropriate. The differences can be attributed to the nurses’ level of communication and collaboration with the healthcare team, as well as their adherence to evidence-based practice. Effective communication and collaboration significantly improve patient outcomes, while the application of evidence-based practice ensures the provision of safe and effective care. It is crucial for nurses to continuously update their knowledge and skills to ensure that their interventions are in line with the best available evidence and professional standards.