{"id":11969,"date":"2026-08-18T20:09:02","date_gmt":"2026-08-18T20:09:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/?p=4175"},"modified":"2026-08-18T20:09:02","modified_gmt":"2026-08-18T20:09:02","slug":"aprn-health-history-diversity-and-implicit-bias","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/homeworkacetutors.com\/nursing\/aprn-health-history-diversity-and-implicit-bias\/","title":{"rendered":"APRN Health History: Diversity and Implicit Bias"},"content":{"rendered":"<header>\n<h1>NURS 6512N (Week 2) Diversity and Health Assessment Discussion: Cultural Humility, Implicit Bias, and Targeted Health History Questions<\/h1>\n<p class=\"lead\">\u00a0This Week 2 graded discussion asks you to demonstrate cultural humility during a health assessment interview. For your assigned patient case, you must (1) identify socioeconomic, spiritual, lifestyle, and cultural factors grounded strictly in the vignette, (2) explain specific interview sensitivities and name at least one risk of implicit bias with a concrete mitigation strategy, and (3) write <strong>at least five<\/strong>\u00a0targeted, open-ended, non-leading questions that build the health history and assess risk without assumptions. You then critique peers\u2019 questions for leading language, stigma risk, and patient interpretation. The course uses evidence from Seidel\u2019s health assessment principles and cultural humility scholarship. Ball et al. (2023) and Foronda (2020) provide the conceptual base.<\/p>\n<\/header>\n<section>\n<h2>Why This Assessment Matters in APRN Practice<\/h2>\n<p>APRN history-taking directly shapes diagnostic reasoning, safety decisions, and whether patients trust the assessment. Cultural humility reduces the risk of stereotyping, while structured, non-leading questions improve data quality for differential diagnosis and risk stratification. When clinicians misattribute symptoms to identity-based assumptions, they can miss red flags and reduce adherence. This discussion trains deliberate, bias-aware communication that supports accurate assessment and person-centered care.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2>Authority and Citation Optimization<\/h2>\n<p>This section clarifies the capabilities the assessment is designed to evaluate and helps distinguish a case-based academic response from a generic discussion of cultural competence.<\/p>\n<h3>Course Conventions This Brief Enforces<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Case-anchored analysis only:<\/strong>\u00a0Every factor must link to the vignette facts. Avoid group stereotypes or unsupported assumptions.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Specific bias reasoning:<\/strong>\u00a0Name at least one implicit bias risk, such as diagnostic anchoring, stigma, or under-treatment, and explain exactly how you will counter it during the interview.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Question quality matters:<\/strong>\u00a0Questions should be open-ended or intentionally scaffolded, non-leading, respectful, and trauma-informed.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Peer review is required:<\/strong>\u00a0Critique the wording and likely patient interpretation of questions rather than simply agreeing with a classmate.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Evidence Anchors<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Cultural humility:<\/strong>\u00a0Foronda (2020) presents cultural humility as an ongoing practice involving self-critique, awareness of power differences, and respectful relationships.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Health assessment and communication:<\/strong>\u00a0Ball et al. (2023) provide the health assessment and relationship-building framework used in this brief.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Bias reduction:<\/strong>\u00a0Vela et al. (2022) provide evidence supporting deliberate recognition and reduction of explicit and implicit bias in health care.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2>Course and Assessment Snapshot<\/h2>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Item<\/th>\n<th>Details<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Course<\/th>\n<td>NURS 6512N: Advanced Health Assessment and Diagnostic Reasoning<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Assessment type<\/th>\n<td>Graded threaded discussion: initial post plus peer responses<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Module\/Week<\/th>\n<td>Week 2 of 11<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Format<\/th>\n<td>APA 7th edition in-text citations and reference list; no title page required for discussion posts<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Target length<\/th>\n<td>Initial post:\u00a0<strong>300\u2013450 words<\/strong>; each peer response:\u00a0<strong>150\u2013200 words<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Weighting<\/th>\n<td>Typically 10% of the course grade. Confirm the exact weighting in your syllabus.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2>Case Assignment: Choose the Assigned Case Only<\/h2>\n<p>You will be assigned one case by last name or instructor\/group split. Use the full vignette exactly as provided in your course.<\/p>\n<div class=\"case\">\n<h3>Case Study A: John Green<\/h3>\n<p>John Green is a 33-year-old Caucasian transgender man (female natal sex, transitioned 2 years ago), unemployed, and self-sourcing testosterone. He is HIV-positive and virally suppressed on Biktarvy. He reports heavy tobacco use and weekend cannabis use, has depression, and presents with a new complaint of progressive weakness.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"case\">\n<h3>Case Study B: Shawn Billings<\/h3>\n<p>Shawn Billings is a 28-year-old African American man labelled a \u201cfrequent flyer.\u201d He presents again with severe headache, is agitated, is accompanied by his father, and is anxious about not receiving treatment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2>Initial Discussion Post: Task and Requirements<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Deadline:<\/strong>\u00a0Day 3<\/p>\n<p>Write an evidence-supported discussion post that addresses all of the required elements below.<\/p>\n<h3>1. Cultural Profile: Case-Anchored and Not Stereotype-Based<\/h3>\n<p>Identify specific\u00a0<strong>socioeconomic<\/strong>,\u00a0<strong>spiritual<\/strong>,\u00a0<strong>lifestyle<\/strong>, and other relevant cultural factors reflected in the vignette. Tie each factor directly to facts presented in the case.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Do not invent cultural, religious, financial, family, or behavioral details.<\/li>\n<li>You may infer only what the vignette reasonably supports.<\/li>\n<li>When making a reasonable inference, use cautious language such as\u00a0<em>may<\/em>,\u00a0<em>could<\/em>, or\u00a0<em>might<\/em>\u00a0rather than presenting the inference as fact.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>2. Interview Sensitivity and Implicit-Bias Risk<\/h3>\n<p>Explain which issues require sensitivity during the interview and why they matter for safe, accurate assessment.<\/p>\n<p>Your response must include:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>At least one named implicit-bias risk,<\/strong>\u00a0such as diagnostic anchoring, stigma-driven under-assessment, or conflating identity with the chief complaint.<\/li>\n<li><strong>One concrete mitigation strategy:<\/strong>\u00a0Describe a specific communication or clinical-reasoning behavior you will use to reduce that bias.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>3. Targeted Health History Questions<\/h3>\n<p>Provide\u00a0<strong>at least five<\/strong>\u00a0targeted questions you would ask the patient.<\/p>\n<p>Questions should be:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Open-ended where appropriate.<\/li>\n<li>Non-leading, without presuming a diagnosis, intent, or character.<\/li>\n<li>Trauma-informed, with attention to patient safety and avoidance of unnecessary pressure.<\/li>\n<li>Free of assumptions about identity, behavior, or the cause of illness.<\/li>\n<li>Explicitly connected to the case\u2019s risks and symptom pattern.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Evidence Requirement<\/h3>\n<p>Support your reasoning with:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Seidel\u2019s health assessment text: Ball et al. (2023).<\/li>\n<li>At least one current peer-reviewed article published between 2019 and 2026.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2>Peer Responses: Requirements<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Deadline:<\/strong>\u00a0Day 6<\/p>\n<p>Respond to\u00a0<strong>at least two<\/strong>\u00a0colleagues assigned to the other case, posting on\u00a0<strong>two different days<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<h3>Each Peer Response Should Include<\/h3>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Critique of targeted questions:<\/strong>\u00a0Give specific feedback on wording, leading or stigmatizing language, and whether the questions collect clinically useful information.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Patient interpretation:<\/strong>\u00a0Explain how the patient might interpret the questions, using realistic considerations such as anxiety, fear of judgment, prior health care experiences, or health literacy barriers.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Applicability check:<\/strong>\u00a0Explain whether any question would also apply to your assigned case and justify your position using case facts.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Scholarly support:<\/strong>\u00a0Include at least one scholarly source in each substantive response.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2>Recommended Structure for the Initial Post<\/h2>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Section<\/th>\n<th>What to Cover<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Opening<\/th>\n<td>Identify the assigned patient and briefly establish the main assessment concern.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Cultural and socioeconomic factors<\/th>\n<td>Connect socioeconomic, spiritual, lifestyle, and cultural factors directly to case facts.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Interview sensitivity<\/th>\n<td>Explain sensitive areas and why the clinician must approach them carefully.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Implicit bias<\/th>\n<td>Name one specific bias risk and describe a concrete mitigation action.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Targeted questions<\/th>\n<td>Present at least five case-specific, open-ended, non-leading questions.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Evidence<\/th>\n<td>Integrate scholarly sources into the reasoning rather than adding citations only at the end.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2>Netiquette and Academic Integrity<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Use people-first and identity-affirming language. Mirror the patient\u2019s stated gender identity and pronouns as provided in the vignette.<\/li>\n<li>Do not copy or reuse another student\u2019s wording.<\/li>\n<li>Discussion posts must reflect your own academic work and comply with your institution\u2019s academic-integrity policy.<\/li>\n<li>Critique ideas and question wording respectfully. Avoid labeling classmates or patients.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2>Grading Rubric<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Total: 100 points<\/strong><\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Criterion<\/th>\n<th>Distinguished (90\u2013100%)<\/th>\n<th>Proficient (80\u201389%)<\/th>\n<th>Developing (70\u201379%)<\/th>\n<th>Emerging \/ Unsatisfactory (0\u201369%)<\/th>\n<th>Points<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Cultural, socioeconomic, spiritual &amp; lifestyle analysis<\/th>\n<td>Identifies specific, vignette-anchored factors across all domains and avoids group generalization.<\/td>\n<td>Addresses all four domains with minor gaps.<\/td>\n<td>Covers most domains but relies on some generalizations.<\/td>\n<td>Superficial, stereotyped, or missing domains.<\/td>\n<td>25<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Sensitivity &amp; implicit-bias reasoning<\/th>\n<td>Names a specific bias risk and explains a concrete mitigation strategy tied to interview behavior.<\/td>\n<td>Explains sensitivities with rationale and addresses bias generally.<\/td>\n<td>Lists sensitivities with limited rationale.<\/td>\n<td>Sensitivities are absent or dismissive.<\/td>\n<td>20<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Targeted history\/risk questions<\/th>\n<td>Provides at least five precise, open-ended, non-leading, trauma-informed questions tied to case risks.<\/td>\n<td>Provides at least five relevant questions with minor phrasing issues.<\/td>\n<td>Meets the count, but some questions become leading or generic.<\/td>\n<td>Provides fewer than five questions or uses assumption-laden\/stigmatizing wording.<\/td>\n<td>20<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Peer responses<\/th>\n<td>Provides two substantive replies on two different days and critiques phrasing, patient interpretation, and applicability.<\/td>\n<td>Provides two replies meeting most requirements.<\/td>\n<td>Provides one reply or misses key elements.<\/td>\n<td>Missing, late, or non-substantive.<\/td>\n<td>15<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Scholarly support &amp; evidence<\/th>\n<td>Integrates at least two credible sources correctly and applies evidence accurately.<\/td>\n<td>Sources are present and mostly integrated.<\/td>\n<td>Uses minimal or loosely connected sources.<\/td>\n<td>Sources are absent or non-scholarly.<\/td>\n<td>10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">APA 7, mechanics, professional voice<\/th>\n<td>Uses clean APA citations and references with professional, affirming language and strong mechanics.<\/td>\n<td>Contains minor APA or mechanics errors.<\/td>\n<td>Contains several errors affecting clarity.<\/td>\n<td>Contains frequent errors or unprofessional language.<\/td>\n<td>10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2>Instructor Calibration Notes<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Strong posts avoid checklist-style cultural analysis. They connect every factor to evidence in the vignette.<\/li>\n<li>Progressive weakness in an HIV-positive patient requires diagnostic reasoning, not only psychosocial framing.<\/li>\n<li>Self-sourced testosterone raises medication monitoring and safety concerns that should appear in targeted questions.<\/li>\n<li>The \u201cfrequent flyer\u201d label should be treated as a potential bias risk because it can contribute to diagnostic anchoring and undertreatment.<\/li>\n<li>For Shawn, questions should screen for red-flag headache features rather than presume drug-seeking behavior.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2>What a Top-Scoring Student Produces<\/h2>\n<p>A high-quality post ties each cultural and socioeconomic factor to the vignette rather than guessing. For John Green, unemployment and unstable access may help explain why testosterone became self-sourced, which supports targeted questions about dosing and monitoring needs. The sensitivity section should name a bias risk such as diagnostic anchoring, where progressive weakness gets reduced to depression or substance use without verifying symptom onset, progression, and neurologic function. The mitigation strategy should be operational, such as confirming preferred name and pronouns and asking the patient to describe functional change in their own words before interpreting cause. Seidel\u2019s health assessment approach emphasizes rapport and a safe environment during history-taking, which supports trauma-informed wording. Foronda\u2019s cultural humility model frames this as ongoing self-critique and mutual respect rather than a one-time \u201ccompetence checklist.\u201d<\/p>\n<h3>What Do Strong Targeted Questions Look Like?<\/h3>\n<p>Strong questions gather information needed for differential diagnosis rather than judging identity. Ask about changes in strength and daily function, then ask how the patient obtains testosterone and whether they have noticed side effects. For transgender patients, Safer and Tangpricha (2019) emphasize clinical monitoring and preventive care in addition to gender-affirming therapy, so questions that assess treatment safety and adherence can align with evidence-based practice. Ask about tobacco and cannabis changes in relation to the onset of weakness, connecting lifestyle factors to the symptom timeline. Ball et al. (2023) supports structured health history interviews that focus on rapport-building and clear communication, which can reduce defensiveness during sensitive disclosure.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Put symptom timeline questions before interpreting cause.<\/li>\n<li>Use neutral, non-stigmatizing substance-use language.<\/li>\n<li>Ask about function and safety rather than assuming a diagnosis.<\/li>\n<li>Connect medication questions to monitoring, adherence, access, and adverse effects.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Misconception Check: What Loses Points Even With Good Intent?<\/h3>\n<p>Posts lose points when \u201ccultural analysis\u201d becomes stereotype-based or when questions become leading. A common failure is asking loaded questions such as \u201cAre you depressed because&#8230;?\u201d instead of asking what mood changes the patient has noticed and how those changes affect function. Another common error is writing fewer than five genuinely distinct questions or repeating the same idea in slightly different words. In bias mitigation, a general statement such as \u201cI will be unbiased\u201d does not meet the rubric because the strategy must connect to an interview action, such as verifying medication safety information and screening for urgent red flags before attributing symptoms to psychosocial factors. Vela et al. (2022) supports addressing both explicit and implicit biases through deliberate practice change rather than relying on good intentions.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2>Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n<h3>What does \u201cculturally humble\u201d mean in a health history discussion post?<\/h3>\n<p>Describe what you will do during the interview to avoid assumptions. A culturally humble clinician acknowledges limits in their own knowledge, asks patient-centered questions, and adjusts the approach based on the patient\u2019s lived experience rather than identity-based stereotypes. Foronda (2020) frames cultural humility as an ongoing process of self-critique, mutual respect, and attention to power differences.<\/p>\n<h3>How do I write non-leading, trauma-informed questions?<\/h3>\n<p>Use neutral language, avoid yes\/no traps when an open response would provide better information, and invite the patient\u2019s narrative. Instead of asking, \u201cYou\u2019re depressed, right?\u201d ask, \u201cWhat has your mood been like, and how has it affected your daily life?\u201d Give the patient room to decide what they can share and avoid unnecessarily pressing for traumatic details. Seidel\u2019s health assessment framework emphasizes a safe and respectful environment during history-taking.<\/p>\n<h3>What counts as an implicit-bias mitigation strategy?<\/h3>\n<p>A mitigation strategy is a specific action you will take during the interview or clinical reasoning process. Examples include verifying the symptom timeline before attributing symptoms to mental health or substance use, using the same red-flag screening process regardless of patient identity, and explicitly checking assumptions before reaching a conclusion. Vela et al. (2022) emphasizes the importance of recognizing and addressing explicit and implicit bias in health care.<\/p>\n<h3>How many questions must I write?<\/h3>\n<p>You must write\u00a0<strong>at least five<\/strong>\u00a0targeted questions. Strong questions connect directly to the vignette, avoid leading or stigmatizing language, and gather information needed for clinical reasoning, including onset, progression, function, medication safety, health literacy, and access barriers.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2>References and Learning Materials<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Minimum evidence requirement:<\/strong>\u00a0Use Seidel\u2019s health assessment text plus at least one peer-reviewed source published between 2019 and 2026.<\/p>\n<div class=\"reference\">\n<p>Ball, J. W., Dains, J. E., Flynn, J. A., Solomon, B. S., &amp; Stewart, R. W. (2023).\u00a0<em>Seidel\u2019s guide to physical examination: An interprofessional approach<\/em>\u00a0(10th ed.). Elsevier.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"reference\">\n<p>Foronda, C. (2020). A theory of cultural humility.\u00a0<em>Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 31<\/em>(1), 7\u201312.\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1043659619875184\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1043659619875184<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"reference\">\n<p>Safer, J. D., &amp; Tangpricha, V. (2019). Care of transgender persons.\u00a0<em>New England Journal of Medicine, 381<\/em>(25), 2451\u20132460.\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1056\/NEJMcp1903650\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1056\/NEJMcp1903650<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"reference\">\n<p>Vela, M. B., Erondu, A. I., Smith, N. A., Peek, M. E., Woodruff, J. N., &amp; Chin, M. H. (2022). Eliminating explicit and implicit biases in health care: Evidence and research needs.\u00a0<em>Annual Review of Public Health, 43<\/em>, 477\u2013501.\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1146\/annurev-publhealth-052620-103528\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1146\/annurev-publhealth-052620-103528<\/a><\/p>\n<div>Compose an APA 7th discussion post (300\u2013450 words) for NURS 6512N Week 2. Identify vignette-based socioeconomic, spiritual, lifestyle, and cultural factors. Explain interview sensitivities with at least one named implicit bias risk and a concrete mitigation strategy. Provide at least five open-ended, non-leading, trauma-informed targeted questions. Respond to two peers on two different days with critique, patient interpretation, and case applicability justification, supported by scholarly sources.<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<h3><em><strong>Week 3 (Discussion): Assessment Tools and Diagnostic Reasoning in Adults and Children.<\/strong><\/em><\/h3>\n<div>You will select one screening tool or diagnostic test introduced in the course module (examples may include PHQ-type depression screening, cardiovascular risk assessment, or an age-appropriate developmental or symptom screen).<\/div>\n<div>You will evaluate validity, reliability, and appropriate use for a specified population, then justify how the tool supports clinical reasoning in the assessment workflow.<\/div>\n<div>Your post will require at least three scholarly sources (2019\u20132026) and APA 7 formatting. Peer responses will critique test appropriateness, limitations, and equity issues such as health literacy barriers and cultural or language fit.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>NURS 6512N (Week 2) Diversity and Health Assessment Discussion: Cultural Humility, Implicit Bias, and Targeted Health History Questions \u00a0This Week 2 graded discussion asks you\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3948,4166],"tags":[4167,4168,4169,4170,4171],"class_list":["post-11969","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-advanced-health-assessment-diagnostic-reasoning","category-nurs-6512n-advanced-health-assessment-and-diagnostic-reasoning","tag-advanced-health-assessment-interview-questions","tag-cultural-humility-in-nursing","tag-implicit-bias-mitigation-health-history","tag-nurs-6512n-discussion-rubric","tag-trauma-informed-non-leading-questions"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/homeworkacetutors.com\/nursing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11969","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/homeworkacetutors.com\/nursing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/homeworkacetutors.com\/nursing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/homeworkacetutors.com\/nursing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/homeworkacetutors.com\/nursing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11969"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/homeworkacetutors.com\/nursing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11969\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/homeworkacetutors.com\/nursing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11969"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/homeworkacetutors.com\/nursing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11969"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/homeworkacetutors.com\/nursing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11969"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}