Description
The focus of this assignment is to apply the principles detailed in the Belmont Report to case studies involving human subjects in research or a quality improvement project.Utilize the “Ethical Conduct of Scholarly Activities” document to complete this assignment.While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
NRS-445 Topic 2: Benchmark – Ethical Conduct of
Scholarly Activities
For this assignment, students will read the two case studies that follow and then complete the
application of the Belmont Principles case study tables for each case study as well as a personal
reflection at the end.
Background: The Belmont Report is a foundational document in the field of research ethics. It
was created in response to ethical concerns raised by the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and other
research studies that exploited vulnerable populations. The Belmont Report outlines three core
ethical principles for research involving human subjects: respect for persons, beneficence, and
justice. Institutional review boards (IRBs) are responsible for ensuring that research studies
comply with these ethical principles. The Belmont Report has had a significant impact on the
formation and function of IRBs. IRBs use the principles outlined in the Belmont Report as a
framework for understanding and evaluating the ethical implications of research studies. The
principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice are used to guide decision-making
around issues such as informed consent, risk-benefit analysis, and the selection of human
subjects. Overall, the Belmont Report has played a crucial role in shaping the ethical standards
for research involving human subjects.
Assignment Focus: The focus of this assignment is to allow the student to apply the principles
detailed in the Belmont Report to case studies involving human subjects in research or a quality
improvement project. Emphasis is placed on developing and demonstrating an understanding of
the role of the nurse researcher or quality improvement project manager as an effective facilitator
of ethical principles in human-subjects research or quality improvement projects.
Resources: Review the “NRS-445 The Belmont Report Lecture” to gain a better understanding
of the Belmont Report and the role it plays in conducting research.
© 2023. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
2
Case Study 1: An Experimental Trial Worth Taking?
Life-threatening cancers can end a person’s life within a matter of weeks to months.
Experimental procedures such as a combination of immunotherapy and the novel medication
guadecitabine are currently being investigated in a clinical trial. In 8% of cases, the treatment
has been highly successful. In one documented case, a woman with breast, colon, and lung
cancers with poor odds of survival agreed to partake in receiving the experimental therapy. The
experimental therapy compellingly treated the tumors; she has been cancer-free for six years.
Regrettably, the treatment does not affect most people, and significant risk is involved: in some
trials, the patients suffered immediate cardiac failure.
Another woman diagnosed with aggressive cancer, who doctors estimate will live for five
months, has inquired about pursuing this therapy. In an extensive informed consent process over
a three-week period, she and her spouse are given all the evidence-based background, the risks
and benefits, and more. Once the informed consent process is completed, the woman wants to
seek the experimental treatment, but her spouse does not support the decision. The woman and
her spouse are from a cultural background in which the male partner of the family decides the
important choices, and the pair are devoted to their cultural beliefs.
Reflection Points: Should researchers accept this woman into the clinical trial to receive the
experimental therapy?
Case 2: Send Me a Message When You Can!
In an African nation, one in seven adults has HIV. Treatment is not accessible to everyone who
needs it, and researchers are engrossed in creating effective, economical treatment methods for
patients with HIV. The research of new drugs for HIV encounters the issue of the mobility of
many African people because many people move from one area to another due to employment,
political unrest, or the need to find housing. This issue makes regular contact with research
participants challenging. Often, researchers are concerned that their participants will instruct
their family members to obtain the experimental drugs they are supposed to have, rather than
obtaining the drugs themselves, to split the treatment. This jeopardizes the research and curative
value of the medication, which should be taken regularly.
Researchers suggest the use of technology to remedy multiple issues. They will scan the
participants’ fingerprints and include them in an electronic database for proof that each
participant is included in the research study before obtaining treatments. Researchers will also
give participants mobile phones to allow the researchers to send text message reminders to
participants about their study appointments and to allow rescheduling of visits. GPS tracking will
be on the phones to allow researchers to locate participants when necessary, so that they can see
the participants in person.
Reflection Points: Should research be conducted as described above explained? Is technology
the only way to mitigate the impact of equity issues in research?
3
Application of the Belmont Principles: Case Study 1
Belmont Report principles and the
components of each principle
Explain how the case meets
the components of each
principle.
Respect for Person
• Respect the right to choose, hold views,
and act according to personal beliefs.
• Protect those with decreased capacity
to make their own choice.
• Ensure voluntary participation.
• Provide informed consent, explaining
harms and benefits.
Beneficence
• Minimize the harm/risks to the greatest
extent possible.
• Maximize the potential benefits.
• Ensure that the rights and well-being of
the patient take precedence over the
needs of science.
Justice
• Justly distribute the benefits and
burdens of the research. Guard against
using vulnerable populations.
• Ensure a fair selection of research
participants.
• Guard against coercion and undue
influence.
4
Explain how the case does not
meet the components of each
principle.
What steps can the nurse
researcher or quality
improvement manager take to
adhere to the ethical principles
identified in the Belmont
Report?
•
Avoid potential financial or other
conflicts of interest.
Application of the Belmont Principles: Case Study 2
Belmont Report principles and the
components of each principle.
Explain how the case meets
the components of each
principle.
Respect for Person
• Respect the right to choose, hold views,
and act according to personal beliefs.
• Protect those with decreased capacity
to make their own choice.
• Ensure voluntary participation.
• Provide informed consent, explaining
harms and benefits.
Beneficence
• Minimize the harm/risks to the greatest
extent possible.
• Maximize the potential benefits.
• Ensure that the rights and well-being of
the patient take precedence over the
needs of science.
Justice
5
Explain how the case does not
meet the components of each
principle.
What steps can the nurse
researcher or quality
improvement manager take to
adhere to the ethical principles
identified in the Belmont
Report?
•
•
•
•
Justly distribute the benefits and burdens of
the research. Guard against using
vulnerable populations.
Ensure a fair selection of research
participants.
Guard against coercion and undue
influence.
Avoid potential financial or other conflicts
of interest.
Personal Reflection
In less than 250 words, discuss how the ethical principles from the Belmont Report align with the Christian worldview. Reflect on
your current nursing practice and describe how these ethical principles align with your nursing practice.
6
Collapse All
Benchmark – Ethical Conduct of Scholarly Activities – Rubric
Case 1: Respect for Person
16.8 points
Criteria Description
Explanation of how Case Study 1 meets and does not meet the components of respect
for person, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement
manager to adhere to ethical principles in respect for person.
5. Target
16.8 points
Explanation of how Case Study 1 meets and does not meet the components of
respect for person, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality
improvement manager to adhere to ethical principles in respect for person, is
thorough.
4. Acceptable
14.95 points
Explanation of how Case Study 1 meets and does not meet the components of
respect for person, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality
improvement manager to adhere to ethical principles in respect for person, is
detailed.
3. Approaching
13.27 points
Explanation of how Case Study 1 meets and does not meet the components of
respect for person, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality
improvement manager to adhere to ethical principles in respect for person, is
present.
2. Insufficient
12.6 points
Explanation of how Case Study 1 meets and does not meet the components of
respect for person, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality
improvement manager to adhere to ethical principles in respect for person, is
inaccurate or incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Explanation of how Case Study 1 meets and does not meet the components of
respect for person, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality
improvement manager to adhere to ethical principles in respect for person, is not
present.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Case 1: Beneficence
16.8 points
Criteria Description
Explanation of how Case Study 1 meets and does not meet the components of
beneficence, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement
manager to adhere to ethical principles in beneficence.
5. Target
16.8 points
Explanation of how Case Study 1 meets and does not meet the components of
beneficence, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement
manager to adhere to ethical principles in beneficence, is thorough.
4. Acceptable
14.95 points
Explanation of how Case Study 1 meets and does not meet the components of
beneficence, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement
manager to adhere to ethical principles in beneficence, is detailed.
3. Approaching
13.27 points
Explanation of how Case Study 1 meets and does not meet the components of
beneficence, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement
manager to adhere to ethical principles in beneficence, is present.
2. Insufficient
12.6 points
Explanation of how Case Study 1 meets and does not meet the components of
beneficence, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement
manager to adhere to ethical principles in beneficence, is inaccurate or incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Explanation of how Case Study 1 meets and does not meet the components of
beneficence, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement
manager to adhere to ethical principles in beneficence, is not present.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Case 1: Justice
16.8 points
Criteria Description
Explanation of how Case Study 1 meets and does not meet the components of justice,
as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement manager to adhere
to ethical principles in justice.
5. Target
16.8 points
Explanation of how Case Study 1 meets and does not meet the components of
justice, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement manager
to adhere to ethical principles in justice, is thorough.
4. Acceptable
14.95 points
Explanation of how Case Study 1 meets and does not meet the components of
justice, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement manager
to adhere to ethical principles in justice, is detailed.
3. Approaching
13.27 points
Explanation of how Case Study 1 meets and does not meet the components of
justice, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement manager
to adhere to ethical principles in justice, is present.
2. Insufficient
12.6 points
Explanation of how Case Study 1 meets and does not meet the components of
justice, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement manager
to adhere to ethical principles in justice, is inaccurate or incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Explanation of how Case Study 1 meets and does not meet the components of
justice, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement manager
to adhere to ethical principles in justice, is not present.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Case 2: Respect for Person
16.8 points
Criteria Description
Explanation of how Case Study 2 meets and does not meet the components of respect
for person, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement
manager to adhere to ethical principles in respect for person.
5. Target
16.8 points
Explanation of how Case Study 2 meets and does not meet the components of
respect for person, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality
improvement manager to adhere to ethical principles in respect for person, is
thorough.
4. Acceptable
14.95 points
Explanation of how Case Study 2 meets and does not meet the components of
respect for person, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality
improvement manager to adhere to ethical principles in respect for person, is
detailed.
3. Approaching
13.27 points
Explanation of how Case Study 2 meets and does not meet the components of
respect for person, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality
improvement manager to adhere to ethical principles in respect for person, is
present.
2. Insufficient
12.6 points
Explanation of how Case Study 2 meets and does not meet the components of
respect for person, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality
improvement manager to adhere to ethical principles in respect for person, is
inaccurate or incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Explanation of how Case Study 2 meets and does not meet the components of
respect for person, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality
improvement manager to adhere to ethical principles in respect for person, is not
present.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Case 2: Beneficence
16.8 points
Criteria Description
Explanation of how Case Study 2 meets and does not meet the components of
beneficence, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement
manager to adhere to ethical principles in beneficence.
5. Target
16.8 points
Explanation of how Case Study 2 meets and does not meet the components of
beneficence, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement
manager to adhere to ethical principles in beneficence, is thorough.
4. Acceptable
14.95 points
Explanation of how Case Study 2 meets and does not meet the components of
beneficence, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement
manager to adhere to ethical principles in beneficence, is detailed.
3. Approaching
13.27 points
Explanation of how Case Study 2 meets and does not meet the components of
beneficence, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement
manager to adhere to ethical principles in beneficence, is present.
2. Insufficient
12.6 points
Explanation of how Case Study 2 meets and does not meet the components of
beneficence, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement
manager to adhere to ethical principles in beneficence, is inaccurate or incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Explanation of how Case Study 2 meets and does not meet the components of
beneficence, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement
manager to adhere to ethical principles in beneficence, is not present.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Case 2: Justice
16.8 points
Criteria Description
Explanation of how Case Study 2 meets and does not meet the components of justice,
as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement manager to adhere
to ethical principles in justice.
5. Target
16.8 points
Explanation of how Case Study 2 meets and does not meet the components of
justice, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement manager
to adhere to ethical principles in justice, is thorough.
4. Acceptable
14.95 points
Explanation of how Case Study 2 meets and does not meet the components of
justice, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement manager
to adhere to ethical principles in justice, is detailed.
3. Approaching
13.27 points
Explanation of how Case Study 2 meets and does not meet the components of
justice, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement manager
to adhere to ethical principles in justice, is present.
2. Insufficient
12.6 points
Explanation of how Case Study 2 meets and does not meet the components of
justice, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement manager
to adhere to ethical principles in justice, is inaccurate or incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Explanation of how Case Study 2 meets and does not meet the components of
justice, as well as steps that can be taken by nurse or quality improvement manager
to adhere to ethical principles in justice, is not present.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Ethical Principles, Christian Worldview, and Nursing Practice
11.2 points
Criteria Description
Discussion of how the ethical principles of the Belmont Report align with the Christian
worldview and with personal nursing practice.
5. Target
11.2 points
Discussion of how the ethical principles of the Belmont Report align with the
Christian worldview and with personal nursing practice is thorough.
4. Acceptable
9.97 points
Discussion of how the ethical principles of the Belmont Report align with the
Christian worldview and with personal nursing practice is detailed.
3. Approaching
8.85 points
Discussion of how the ethical principles of the Belmont Report align with the
Christian worldview and with personal nursing practice is present.
2. Insufficient
8.4 points
Discussion of how the ethical principles of the Belmont Report align with the
Christian worldview and with personal nursing practice is inaccurate or incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Discussion of how the ethical principles of the Belmont Report align with the
Christian worldview and with personal nursing practice is not present.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Demonstration of Professional Aptitude for Ethical Conduct (B)
14 points
Criteria Description
Overall demonstration of professional aptitude for application of ethical research
guidelines, ethical behaviors, and advocacy for the protection of participants in
scholarly initiatives and scholarly practice-based projects. (C.4.3)
5. Target
14 points
The learner clearly demonstrates professional aptitude for application of ethical
research guidelines, ethical behaviors, and advocacy for the protection of
participants in scholarly initiatives and scholarly practice-based projects. Rationale
is appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content and provides strong
support for both factual and subjective responses throughout.
4. Acceptable
12.46 points
The learner demonstrates professional aptitude for application of ethical research
guidelines, ethical behaviors, and advocacy for the protection of participants in
scholarly initiatives and scholarly practice-based projects. Rationale is appropriate
for the assignment criteria and nursing content and provides support for both
factual and subjective responses throughout.
3. Approaching
11.06 points
The learner demonstrates adequate professional aptitude for application of ethical
research guidelines, ethical behaviors, and advocacy for the protection of
participants in scholarly initiatives and scholarly practice-based projects. Rationale
is mostly appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content and provides
general support for both factual and subjective responses throughout.
2. Insufficient
10.5 points
The learner inconsistently demonstrates professional aptitude in the application of
ethical research guidelines, ethical behaviors, and advocacy for the protection of
participants in scholarly initiatives and scholarly practice-based projects. Rationale
is lacking and does not reflect the assignment criteria and nursing content in many
scenarios. Overall, support for both factual and subjective responses is lacking.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The learner does not demonstrate professional aptitude in the application of ethical
research guidelines, ethical behaviors, and advocacy for the protection of
participants in scholarly initiatives and scholarly practice-based projects. Rationale
is not appropriate or does not reflect the assignment criteria and nursing content.
Support for both factual and subjective responses is not provided.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Mechanics of Writing
8.4 points
Criteria Description
Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence
structure, etc.
5. Target
8.4 points
No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence
structure are used throughout.
4. Acceptable
7.48 points
Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence
structure are used.
3. Approaching
6.64 points
Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally
appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.
2. Insufficient
6.3 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language
choice or sentence structure are recurrent.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language
choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Format/Documentation
5.6 points
Criteria Description
Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level;
documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc.,
appropriate to assignment and discipline.
5. Target
5.6 points
No errors in formatting or documentation are present.
4. Acceptable
4.98 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.
3. Approaching
4.42 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious
errors.
2. Insufficient
4.2 points
Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors
in documentation of sources are evident.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.
Total 140 points
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
