EVALUATION REPORT — ATTEMPT 1 — REVISION NEEDED Overall Evaluator Comments EVALUATOR

EVALUATION REPORT — ATTEMPT 1 — REVISION NEEDED
Overall Evaluator Comments
EVALUATOR COMMENTS
You have created a succinct and informative (I)SBAR. Your (I)SBAR includes an inspiring policy proposal to “make healthy foods easily accessible and affordable”, with one aspect of this proposal being the implementation of a program providing healthy food choices in vending machines throughout the state of Illinois. You are off to a great start with this (I)SBAR as you continue to develop your important policy proposal paper. The comments in the individual rubric aspects below provide information about revisions that are necessary.
A. Advanced Professional Nurse as Advocate
Competent
B. Interprofessional Collaboration
Competent
C. Data Driven Health Issue
Competent
D. Characteristics of At-Risk Population
Competent
E. Social Determinant of Health (SDOH)
Competent
F. Current Policy
Competent
G. Policy Proposal
Approaching Competence
Approaching CompetenceThe submission presents a policy proposal that does not logically address the SDOH from part E. Or, the policy proposal is not supported by scholarly source(s).
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 1
A brief discussion focuses on a program to include pre-packaged fresh food in vending machines. What is missing from this aspect is a fully developed policy proposal addressing the SDOH for Illinois. Please provide a fully developed policy proposal – supported by a scholarly source(s) – that addresses the lack of access to healthy foods for the at-risk population in the state of Illinois.
G1. Health Issue Impact
Approaching Competence
Approaching CompetenceThe submission describes the policy proposal, but does not logically explain how the policy proposal could impact the health issue described in part C.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 1
A thoughtful discussion describes the importance of healthy food choices being available and affordable. However, a policy proposal is not yet fully developed. Once a policy proposal is fully developed, please provide a discussion describing how the policy proposal will impact the problem of obesity in Illinois.
G2. Equitable Distribution of Resources
Approaching Competence
Approaching CompetenceThe submission does not logically discuss how the policy will address diversity to ensure equitable distribution of resources.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 1
A persuasive discussion reveals that vending machines with healthy options will be available to people with limited income living in Illinois. However, a policy proposal is not yet fully developed. Once a policy proposal is fully developed, please provide a discussion describing how the policy proposal will address diversity in Illinois and how the policy proposal will ensure equitable distribution of resources.
G3. Ethical Provisions
Approaching Competence
Approaching CompetenceThe submission discusses 2 provisions from the ANA Code of Ethics but fails to reveal how the policy proposal will uphold each ANA Code of Ethics provision. Or only 1 provision is discussed. Or the discussion does not include relevant source(s).
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 1
Beneficence and autonomy are two ethical implications that are discussed as they relate to healthy food choices in vending machines in Illinois. However, a policy proposal is not yet fully developed. Once a policy proposal is fully developed, please provide a discussion describing how the policy proposal upholds two provisions from the ANA Code of Ethics. Please support your discussion with scholarly sources.
G4. Barriers
Approaching Competence
Approaching CompetenceThe submission does not logically describe 2 actual or potential barriers in the county or state that will impede the policy proposal’s implementation. Or only 1 actual or potential barrier is described.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 1
A vague discussion identifies barriers associated with stocking the vending machine with healthy food choices. A policy proposal is not yet fully developed. Once a policy proposal is fully developed, please provide a discussion describing two actual or potential barriers in the state of Illinois that could impede the implementation of the policy proposal.
H. Policy Maker
Competent
H1. Rationale
Competent
I. Strategic Next Steps
Competent
J. Policy Summary
Competent
K. APA Sources
Approaching Competence
Approaching CompetenceThe submission includes in-text citations and references for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized but does not demonstrate a consistent application of APA style.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 1
Sources were provided on the reference list to support the policy proposal.
Attribution and retrieval must be satisfied at 100%, and formatting and style cannot exceed the recommended number of TYPES of errors. These errors must be revised in order to successfully complete this aspect.
This submission met/did not meet the following areas:
Attribution: NOT MET.
Many discussions and statements in the narrative are not supported by scholarly sources. Here is one of many such examples: “Studies found that the at-risk population is multi-racial females”.
Multiple areas of the submission will be revised. Once the revision is complete, attribution will be assessed again.
Retrieval: MET
Formatting: MET.
Style: MET
Please remember that this may not be a complete list of APA deviations for sources. For specific instruction on citations and reference entries, please click on the link (the square with an upward pointing arrow) to the right of the “APA Sources” rubric item. Please contact the WGU Writing Center if further assistance is needed.

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more