The spiritual needs assessment tool is vital in the acquisition of knowledge on the spirituality of the patient, and on how the element of spirituality affects the provision of healthcare to the patient (The Joint Standards, 2012). The concepts of the spiritual assessment tool for ascertaining the spirituality of the patients is stipulated by the joint commissions to every healthcare organization, where the specifics of the assessment criteria vary with the stipulations of each organization. The major acronym tool for assessing patient’s spiritual needs is the FICA model that works in contravention to the Likert model of assessment, where the possible questions asked include (Joint Commission on accreditation of Healthcare organizations, 2005):
- F-faith of the patient: to what spiritual affiliation do your beliefs lie? Do you believe in any spiritual intervention in nature?
- I-importance: how do you regard the importance of your spirituality in the intervention of the health problems you are facing? How does the importance of spirituality define your believes in the healing process?
- C-community: how does the community affiliate regard spirituality in terms of the intervention in the healing process? What are the community beliefs that affect the spiritual intervention for the healing process?
- A-Address: what interventions can the medical practice carry out for the process of quick recovery?
The questionnaire system in the spiritual assessment tool is open-ended with no restrictions that constrain the patient to a particular religion or belief that could be seen as the most preferred. This is vital in the building up of the practitioner-patient confidence as a first step that marks the healing process. This is also vital in elucidating openness in the provision of answers.
Findings from the assessment questionnaire system show that the patient is spiritually affiliated to the belief in supernatural intervention of the healing process, which is vital in the self-care process. This implies that the patient harbors some resolute amount of faith that the process of healing is most certain. On the other hand, the patient validates the importance of spirituality in the healing process, while the community beliefs put spirituality in high echelon levels pertaining to the healing process. This forms the central points that harbor the essence of spiritual beliefs as basic interventions in the healing process, thus creating a platform that can aid in the judgmental aspect on the viability of the healing process (Sharma, Astrow, & Texeira, 2011). Consequently, it was found out that the patient beliefs in the prescription of a medical practice that forms preference for the intervention as a curative measure, thus defining the form of address.
Possible discoveries from the assessment tool give a good correlation between the spiritual beliefs and the consequent healing process, where the patient solidly advocates for the curative address system. The address system is the final step in the healing process, where actions aid the judgmental aspect of the human healing process. This implies that the spiritual intervention is only born out of the conviction of the mind, although it is a vital tool marking the starting point of the healing process. This also means that the spiritual element of the healing process does not fully integrate into the healing process, but forms the foundation for the build up of confidence between the medical practitioner and the patient (Clark, Drain, & Malone, 2003).
The possible area that could be defined as being in contention with the norm is the lack of constraints from the community, which mostly affects the spiritual needs assessment tool. The community interventions form the setback for the address system, since some community beliefs do not concur with the final prescription for the curative forms of intervention. For instance, some communities do not articulate well with the notion of medical intervention, which jeopardizes the whole process of healing. This also affects viability of the spiritual assessment tool (Clark, Drain, Malone, 2003).
For the viability of the spiritual assessment tool, there is a need for openness on the mode of address system, where the patient could be constrained to the best form of address system depending on the technical knowhow of the medical practitioner. This is because the process of healing is mostly articulated in the mind of the patient. The most preferred mode of intervention should be sourced from the medical practitioner prescription as a form of sound correlation between the patient and the intervention process. This would also bring about the essence of the formation of new beliefs that could practically aid in future assessments (Boutell KA, 1990).
The possible barriers to the tool of assessment emanated from the mode of prescription defined by the address system, where the patient has a different belief that contravenes the technical knowhow of the medical practitioner. This barrier could be eliminated through prescription of an address system depending on the proficiency of the medical practice as opposed to the patient’s belief. Consequently, the community beliefs could elucidate the barrier of contravention with the medical practice, which is solvable through creation of the awareness (Boutell KA, 1990).
The experiences of the assessment tool with the patient’s community defined by friends and family was consequently a success, since the formations within an individual emanate from the community at large. This is to imply that the assessment tool that colludes well with an individual also works out well with the community, since the individual is a representation of the spiritual needs and beliefs of a community (Sharma, Astrow, & Texeira, 2011).
Minimum requirements of the spiritual assessment tool include the religious affiliation of the patient, the beliefs of the patient under the context of what is regarded as the religious norms and practices that encompass the spirituality of the patient.