discussion post: please respond to this post using the... | Nursing

Clinical Requirement:

please respond to this post using the rubric and instructions. Post: Hospital admission for flu in pediatric (person, place, and time), The influenza vaccine is available for infants at 6 months of age through adults every year, and it is available before flu season starts. Children can receive the influenza vaccine at pediatric offices, healthcare community centers, school-based clinics, and other healthcare centers.  Hospital admission rates for flu have increased among pediatric patients aged 0-17 years. In the USA, approximately 140,000 to 710,000 pediatric patients are hospitalized with flu (Robles et al., 2024). Influenza vaccination rates continue to decrease despite efforts by the healthcare system and government to provide public access to influenza vaccines, highlighting the critical role of vaccination in protecting children and reducing transmission (Barbieri et al., 2023). When children and adolescents are vaccinated against influenza, not only they protect themselves, but they also protect others around them and decrease transmission rates.  Sampling Methods for Collecting Primary and Secondary Data Sources  The primary data source for hospital admissions for influenza in pediatric patients is hospital electronic medical records, using data collection tools to extract patients' admission dates, including diagnoses, lab results, and treatment plans (O'Halloran et al., 2025). Also, primary sources can be obtained from an interview with the direct patient/proxy, and the interview should ask about the patient's Influenza vaccination status and the onset date of symptoms.   Secondary data sources for hospital admission rates for influenza in pediatric patients include FluSurv-NET and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which are population-based surveillance systems for laboratory-confirmed hospital admissions with influenza (O'Halloran et al., 2025). They receive weekly reports on data captured from electronic medical records, including influenza-admission-related cases, listing pediatric patients admitted with a confirmed influenza diagnosis.  How Primary and Secondary Sources Influence the Completeness of Case Identification Primary and secondary sources are two distinct methods for collecting data. The primary data source provides precise information related to specific cases, the data collection process, and the measurement used to meet the objectives of the research or study. However, the secondary data source provides large amounts of data with greater proficiency, and it is easy to access in large databases.  Conclusion Hospital admission for flu in the pediatric population continues to increase. Pediatric patients aged 0-17 years are most affected by viral infections. In the USA, about 10% of hospital admissions each year are pediatric patients with the flu. Primary and Secondary data sources are necessary for data collection. Data on primary sources for pediatric patients hospitalized with flu can be obtained from EMRs and interviews; however, secondary sources can be collected from large databases.  Reference  Barbieri, E., Porcu, G., Donà, D., Cavagnis, S., Cantarutti, L., Scamarcia, A., McGovern, I., Haag, M., Giaquinto, C., Cantarutti, A. (2023). Epidemiology and Burden of Influenza in Children 0-14 Years Over Ten Consecutive Seasons in Italy. Pediatr Infectious Disease, 42(12):e440-e446. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000004090Links to an external site. O'Halloran, et al. (2025). Influenza-Associated Hospitalizations During a High Severity Season — Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network, United States, 2024–25 Influenza Season. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Weekly, 74(34);529–537. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/74/wr/mm7434a1.htm#:~:text=Clinical%20data%20were%20abstracted%20from,and%20patient%20or%20proxy%20interviewLinks to an external site.. Robles, A., Ahmed, J., Goldwire, M. (2024). Managing Hospitalized Pediatric Patients With Influenza. US pharmacist, 49(8):HS12-HS16.  Rubric: TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points) 20 to >19.0 ptsExcellentDiscussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day. 19 to >15.0 ptsGoodDiscussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day. 15 to >12.0 ptsFairDiscussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Posts on separate day. 12 to >0 ptsPoorDiscussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Posts on same day. 20 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points) 10 to >9.0 ptsExcellentDiscussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints. 9 to >8.0 ptsGoodDiscussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints. 8 to >6.0 ptsFairDiscussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. 6 to >0 ptsPoorDiscussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. 10 pts Instructions: Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research. Share an insight from having read your classmates’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives. Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library. Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research. Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings. Expand on your classmates’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence. Note: Your responses to classmates should be substantial (250 words minimum), supported with scholarly evidence from your research and/or the Learning Resources, and properly cited using APA Style. Personal anecdotes are acceptable as part of a meaningful response, but cannot stand alone as a response. Your responses should enrich the initial post by supporting and/or offering a fresh viewpoint, and be constructive, thereby enhancing the learning experience for all students.