Discussion: Legacy of the Family
Discussion: Legacy of the Family
©2010 University of Texas at Arlington Page 1 of 2
Discussion – Benefits of Nurse-Client Cultural and Religious
Congruence
Post your response by 2359 Wednesday.
Reply to at least 2 peers by 2359 Saturday.
Topic
Friedman et al. make a case for the benefits of nurse-client cultural, as well as religious
congruence (see Chapter 8, pp. 214 – 215). These benefits include opportunities for improved
communication and increased empathy. Of course, as nurses, we will provide care to patients
and families who have different cultural backgrounds, native languages, and religious beliefs
from ours. It is essential that we value diversity, are aware of cultural/religious differences, strive
to overcome communication barriers, and learn key information about the cultural/religious
beliefs and practices of the patients and families we serve.
In your work as a professional or student nurse, provide one specific example of a challenge
you faced in providing nursing care to a patient/family whose cultural background or religious
beliefs were different than yours. What was the specific challenge? How did these differences
impact you and your nursing care? What action(s) did you take to overcome the challenge?
Describe the outcome of your interventions. Were you successful or unsuccessful in improving
the nurse-patient/family working relationship? Knowing what you know now, would you have
taken an alternative course of action? Why or why not?
N3352 Legacy of the Family
©2010 University of Texas at Arlington Page 2 of 2
Rubric 5 Points will be deducted for EACH DAY late.
Permalink:
Discussion
Response
Exceptional
Superior
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Submitted on time*
(20points)
Response is posted by
due date/time for each
question
(20 points)
Response is posted by
due date/time for each
question
(20 points)
Response is posted
by due date/time for
each question
(20 points)
Response is NOT
posted by the due
date and time for
each question
(0 points)
Length of Response
(20points)
Response is 101–
200 words.
(17-20points)
Response is 51–
100 words.
(14-16 points)
Response is a
minimum of 50
words.
(1-13 points)
Response is less
than 50 words.
(0 points)
Incorporates Key
Concepts
(30points)
Response is
substantive and
incorporates N3352
key concepts and
principles.
(26-30points)
Response briefly refers
to some N3352 key
concepts and
principles.
(21-25points)
Response refers
to only one N3352
key concept or
principle.
(1-20points)
Response refers to no
N3352 key concepts
or principles.
(0 points)
Includes Specific
Examples
(30points)
Response includes
specific, personal, or
professional examples
(26-30points)
Response includes
specific, personal, or
professional
examples
(21-25points)
Response includes
a general, personal,
or professional
example
(1-20 points)
Response does not
include a personal
or professional
example
(0 points)
Replies to Peers Exceptional Superior Acceptable Unacceptable
Quantity of Replies
(10 points)
Substantive replies
are posted to 2 o r
more peer
comments
(9-10 points)
Replies are posted to
2 peer comments.
(6-8 points)
Replies are posted to
1 peer comment(s).
(1-5 points)
Reply is NOT posted to
a peer’s comments
(0 points)
Timely Posting of
Replies *
(10 points)
Reply is posted on
time
(10 points)
Reply is posted
on time
( 10 points)
Reply is posted
on time
(10 points)
Reply is NOT posted on
time to a peer’s
comments.
(0 points)
Length of Reply
(10 points)
Each reply is over 50
words.
(8-10 points)
Each reply is a
minimum of 50
words.
(6-7 points)
At least one reply is
a minimum of 50
words.
(1-5 points)
Replies are of
unacceptable
length.
(0 points)
N3352 Legacy of the Family
©2010 University of Texas at Arlington Page 3 of 2
Relates to
Content ( 20
points)
Each reply relates
substantively to
the peer’s comment
and incorporates
N3352 key concepts
and principles.
( 16-20 points)
Each reply relates
to the peer’s
comment and
refers briefly to
N3352 key
concepts and
principles.
( 11-15 points)
Reply relates to the
peer’s comments.
( 1-10 points)
Replies do not relate to
the peer’s
comments.
(0 points)
