Patient Learning Needs Assessment
Subjective data: Mr. Smith, not his real name, is frustrated with his diabetes, afraid of complications, has trouble following food advice, and worries about pharmaceutical side effects. These subjective data points show Mr. Smith’s emotional and cognitive condition, which affects his learning and self-care.
Measurable objective statistics offer an objective view of the client’s health. Mr. Smith’s 32 BMI, 8.5% HbA1c, and chronically high blood pressure exceeding 140/90 mmHg are important objective facts. Obesity, poor glycemic control, and uncontrolled hypertension are key problems in his diabetes and hypertension therapy.
Nursing Diagnoses
Nursing diagnoses are essential to meeting client learning requirements. Diagnoses inform therapies and learning goals. Three nursing diagnoses for Mr. Smith: Uncontrolled hypertension with an HbA1c of 8.5% indicates poor health management due to diabetes self-care ignorance. Diabetes management knowledge gap, covering food, medicines, and insulin. Mr. Smith voiced dread of diabetic consequences such as neuropathy, retinopathy, and cardiovascular difficulties. The Nursing diagnoses follow NANDA criteria (NANDA International, 2021) to drive learning goals and treatments. In particular, the first nursing diagnosis, “Ineffective Health Management,” tackles Mr. Smith’s incapacity to control his diabetes and hypertension, the teaching plan’s main focus.
Learning Goals and Client Outcomes
In three months, Mr. Smith will lower his HbA1c to below 7.0%. SMART learning goals are useful for tracking a patient’s development. For outcomes, Mr. Smith will test his blood glucose levels daily, follow a food plan, and exercise regularly. Second, Mr. Smith will take diabetic lessons. Client results closely relate to the learning aim and demonstrate positive progress and achievement. Mr. Smith’s regular blood glucose monitoring, food plan, exercise, and diabetes education sessions will improve his glycemic control.
Learning Plan Implementation
Interventions to achieve client outcomes are part of the instructional strategy. The first intervention is teaching Mr. Smith to check his blood glucose every day. Reason: Regular blood glucose testing helps measure progress and alter diabetes therapy. Teaching Mr. Smith basic monitoring skills helps him self-manage his illness. Research shows that frequent blood glucose monitoring helps maintain glycemic control (Machry et al., 2018). Patients who monitor their blood glucose levels can make better diet, exercise, and prescription decisions.
Second Intervention: Dietary counseling and a customized meal plan for Mr. Smith. Reason: Diet affects glycemic regulation. A customized meal plan will help Mr. Smith choose wisely, control his calorie consumption, and enhance his health. Research shows that nutrition is crucial to diabetes management. A customized meal plan for Mr. Smith’s tastes and dietary needs can improve his condition management. Encouraging Mr. Smith to partake in regular physical activity is the third intervention. The justification is that physical activity enhances glucose management and general health. Mr. Smith can meet his goal HbA1c level with regular exercise. Studies show that exercise is essential for managing diabetes (KANALEY et al., 2022). Regular exercise increases cardiovascular health and lowers the risk of problems, in addition to improving glucose management.
Evaluation of Client’s Learning
Mr. Smith’s learning progress evaluation is crucial to the teaching plan’s success. Mr. Smith’s glycemic control, blood pressure, and diabetes management knowledge will be assessed at periodic follow-up sessions. This data-driven method lets him assess his learning objective progress (Xu et al., 2022). Mr. Smith’s daily habits, including nutrition and exercise, reveal his lifestyle changes and how well he is following them. Encourage Mr. Smith to self-report his blood glucose readings, food, and exercise to assess his self-management commitment.
Facilitating and Impeding Factors
Various things can help or hinder Mr. Smith’s teaching. These aspects must be considered to personalize the teaching strategy to his requirements and problems. Patient motivation helps. Mr. Smith’s irritation and health worries show a strong desire to learn and improve. His desire might fuel his teaching plan devotion. Then comes the Tailored Approach. Personalized treatments like a food plan and exercise routine can empower Mr. Smith in his diabetes self-care journey (Powers et al., 2020). Client preferences are more likely to be met by tailored methods. Another element is resource access. Mr. Smith enjoys extensive diabetes knowledge and assistance, thanks to classes and resources. These materials are crucial for his learning and anxiety management.
Impeding Factors
According to Sina et al. (2018), Mr. Smith’s worry about the consequences of his diabetes may make it difficult for him to concentrate on his studies and self-care. In order to effectively educate students, fear and anxiety must be addressed with empathy and support. Because Mr. Smith has a history of having trouble controlling his blood sugar, he might not want to follow advice to adopt a new lifestyle. A patient-centered strategy is necessary to handle resistance to change, which is a typical obstacle in the management of chronic illnesses.
Conclusion
In this hypothetical scenario, a detailed and critical critique of a lesson plan for the patient, Mr. John Smith, has been given. In this case, nursing diagnoses, learning objectives, and client results follow a complete learning needs evaluation. The implementation of interventions has been justified by evidence-based Practice. Further Practice requires a complete training strategy supported by research and adapted to the client’s requirements. This is essential to promote successful self-management and improve patient outcomes in healthcare.
References
KANALEY, J. A., COLBERG, S. R., CORCORAN, M. H., MALIN, S. K., RODRIGUEZ, N. R., CRESPO, C. J., KIRWAN, J. P., & ZIERATH, J. R. (2022). Exercise/physical activity in individuals with type 2 diabetes: A consensus statement from the American College of Sports Medicine. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 54(2), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0000000000002800
Machry, R. V., Rados, D. V., Gregório, G. R., & Rodrigues, T. C. (2018). Self-monitoring blood glucose improves glycemic control in type 2 diabetes without intensive treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 142, 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2018.05.037
NANDA, N. (2022, August 17). Nursing diagnoses: Definitions and classification: Nanda International, Inc. NANDA International, Inc |. https://nanda.org/publications-resources/publications/nanda-international-nursing-diagnoses/
Powers, M. A., Bardsley, J. K., Cypress, M., Funnell, M. M., Harms, D., Hess-Fischl, A., Hooks, B., Isaacs, D., Mandel, E. D., Maryniuk, M. D., Norton, A., Rinker, J., Siminerio, L. M., & Uelmen, S. (2020). Diabetes self-management education and support in adults with type 2 diabetes: A consensus report of the American Diabetes Association, the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of PAS, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and the American Pharmacists Association. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, 60(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2020.04.018
Sina, M., Graffy, J., & Simmons, D. (2018). Associations between barriers to self-care and diabetes complications among patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, pp. 141, 126–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2018.04.031
Xu, N. Y., Nguyen, K. T., DuBord, A. Y., Pickup, J., Sherr, J. L., Teymourian, H., Cengiz, E., Ginsberg, B. H., Cobelli, C., Ahn, D., Bellazzi, R., Bequette, B. W., Gandrud Pickett, L., Parks, L., Spanakis, E. K., Masharani, U., Akturk, H. K., Melish, J. S., Kim, S., … Klonoff, D. C. (2022). Diabetes Technology Meeting 2021. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 16(4), 1016–1056. https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968221090279
write