Running Head: SELF-ASSESSMENT of REASONING 7

Running Head: SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING 1

Self-Assessment of Reasoning

Nichole Kraai

Ferris State University Running Head: SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING 2

Self-Assessment of Reasoning

Self-assessment of reasoning is the process where an individual examines their critical thinking abilities. This process involves following the entire thought process from the initial beliefs, assumptions, and feelings to evaluation of the new content. Keeping an open mind to other viewpoints and research is vital to utilizing the most relevant, pertinent information through the reasoning process. Understanding how the thought process works for an individual can help advance the process to serve its purpose more effectively. This paper was written to evaluate the reasoning process of the author on one particular assignment this semester in NURS

Significant Content

The content that was really significant to the author this past semester was health promotion in vulnerable populations. According to Pender, Murdaugh, and Parsons in the book,

Health Promotion in Nursing Practice, “Characteristics of vulnerable populations that may affect successful health promotion efforts need to be identified in order to achieve goals established by the nurse and the client” (2011, 293). The characteristics involved are demographic, cultural, and healthcare system factors.

Thoughts and Feelings

Initial Pre-Assignment

Prior to the assignment the author struggled to understand her views on vulnerable populations. She evaluated her current thoughts on what makes a patient vulnerable. She held unrealized stereotypical views. With deep thought and consideration the author indulged herself Running Head: SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING 3 into the information vulnerable populations with the goal to generate a more open and diverse view.

Mid-Assignment

Halfway through the assignment, the author struggled to put into words her assumptions.

She really felt distraught over some of the stereotypical ideas she brought into her thought process while determining needs for her vulnerable patients. The author knew the importance of evaluating situations with an open, pure mind free of judgments in order to accurately evaluate the patient’s needs and promote the most effective results. She battled to specifically identify her negative learned beliefs and purge them.

Completed Assignment

Upon conclusion of this assignment, the author was pleased with the overall results in her thought process. The more the author examined her current thought process and modified her reasoning; she knew she was supporting a more enriched experience for her patients.

Points of View or Assumptions

In consideration the author realistically examined her assumptions regarding the vulnerable population in healthcare in order to get the most out of this assignment. Her assumptions were:

 Everyone has a basic knowledge base regarding how to live healthy lifestyles.

 Some people just don’t care if they are healthy or not.

 If people cared enough to be healthy they would eat healthier, exercise, or quit smoking.

 Over indulging in food and laziness is a selfish decision.

 Disease is usually a result of poor life decisions. Running Head: SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING 4

These assumptions resulted in labeling of patients. According to Luna in the article. Not the

Usual Suspects, “A serious shortcoming of most current conceptions of vulnerability is a tendency to treat vulnerability as a ‘label’ affixed to a particular subpopulation” (2013).

Analysis of Thinking

In examining the origin of the author’s thought process; many assumptions are believed to have arisen out of the sheltered west Michigan culture she grew up in. The population is made up of mainly Caucasians with a Christian belief system. A majority of the population is well- educated and employed in a successful field. The author grew up in a judgmental Reformed environment where excuses are always made for one self but rarely ever accepted by others. This translation is not literal and all-encompassing of the church, but the personal taste of Christianity experienced as a child from a couple different people soured the opinion for the rest. The naivety of the author due to lack of experiences with outside cultures shines through in the author’s assumptions. The shallowness of the author’s prior experiences and thoughts were past due for a thorough evaluation completed through this paper.

The readings and discussions in NURS 310 opened up the topic of vulnerable populations that offered up various characteristics to take into consideration when promoting health. Despite the good nature of the author to try to see the best in everyone, her assumptions held her back from promoting healthy lifestyles with the most effective practice she is capable of. According to

Pender, Murdaugh, and Parsons, “Prior to working with diverse populations, nurses must first examine their own attitudes and values and how these may either facilitate or impede culturally appropriate health-promotion client encounters” (2011, 299). The author realized that she may have allowed her learned attitudes to impede on her ability to provide culturally suitable care. Running Head: SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING 5

Thoughts regarding patients in poverty, and various family and social situations can result in the risk of allowing beliefs to interfere with the success of the care. Lack of knowledge regarding various cultures and ethnicities can as well. The consequences of such limited thinking can obstruct the ability to provide barrier free health education and services. When these beliefs are strong, the patient can often detect some form of resistance from the healthcare giver and may not be as receptive to the care and education that they provide. This is such a shame as now the one opportunity to get into the life of these individuals and truly make a difference is hindered by this faulty thinking.

Another issue can be categorizing patients as vulnerable who are not vulnerable.

According to Luna regarding in the article, Vulnerability in Research Ethics, classifying vulnerable patients by the existing approach is faulty. “First, it fails to account for the complexity of human vulnerability as a phenomenon. An individual may be vulnerable for more than one reason, and stating that they are vulnerable because they belong to a subpopulation does not capture that fact. Second, the labeling conception of vulnerability risks stereotyping – identifying people who are not vulnerable, as vulnerable, simply because they belong to a given subpopulation” (2013). The author has reinvented her thought process in order to evaluate each patient by separately capturing their unique characteristics and needs in order to effectually develop their plan of care.

The author is thankful for the opportunity to explore this reasoning process that may not have ever been sorted out without this opportunity in NURS 310. It was vital for the author to understand on a deeper level that her beliefs are not the only beliefs. There is not a healthcare giver that cares for a patient hoping to ruin their opportunity to be effective based on their assumptions. In examining her assumptions in comparison with Chapter 12 in the text the author Running Head: SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING 6 realized that she was lacking a full assessment of the patient. The author was not taking into consideration the fact that people may not have a base knowledge of healthcare, that eating various popular ethnic food allows people to feel they are carrying their culture with them, and that lack of support or emotional struggles can make a strong contribution to lack of motivation.

The author was not continuously taking the opportunity to see the patient where they were at with the struggles life brings. This insensitivity had to be addressed in order for the author to develop herself and meet the needs of the patients the best she possibly can.

This realization will result in the author opening her mind to more realistic causes and influences on the patient. This change in her thought process will allow her to be much more efficient in planning and providing care for her patients. This will promote improved outcomes with her patients.

Critical Thinking Self Grade

The author feels that her critical thinking skills have continually improved through the

Ferris State University’s nursing program. She finds herself proactively taking the time to evaluate her thought process in order to discover any malfunctions and improve her decision making abilities. Initially in the nursing program, the author struggled to understand the concepts of metacognition. Despite the challenges, the author has pressed on and made it a part of her nursing process. She routinely analyzes situations in order to pull out the necessary and pertinent information taking other viewpoints into consideration. The author has chosen to use a questioning attitude to sort through possible scenarios in order to reach out toward the best option for her patient. The author recognizes that she may not always choose appropriately and is not hesitant to revise the plan in order to make ongoing attempts to find common ground with her patients and build those relationships. The author has grasped the concept that in order for Running Head: SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING 7 her to see on-going personal growth and be most effective for her patients that she must consistently evaluate her assumptions in order to carefully assure she is being neutral and sensitive to each situation on an individualized basis. The author believes that she has achieved significant progress in her ability to evaluate her reasoning process and therefore believes she has earned an A.

References

Lange, M., Rogers, W., & Dodds, S. (2013). Vulnerability in Research Ethics: a Way Forward.

Bioethics, 27(6), 333-340. doi:10.1111/bioe.12032

Luna, F., & Vanderpoel, S. (2013). Not the Usual Suspects: Addressing Layers of Vulnerability.

Bioethics, 27(6), 325-332. doi:10.1111/bioe.12035

Pender, N., Murdaugh, C., & Parsons, M. A. (2011). Health promotion in nursing practice. New

Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.