Nursing Assignment

Purpose
The purpose of this assignment is for learners to:
1. Identify opportunities for improvement in their knowledge base.
2. Improve their knowledge base and understanding of a disease process identified as an opportunity area on the APEA predictor exam.
3. Have the opportunity to integrate knowledge and skills learned throughout all core courses in the FNP track and previous clinical courses.
4. Demonstrate the ability to analyze the literature be able to perform an evidenced-based review of their case, diagnosis, and plan, while guiding and taking feedback from peers regarding the case.
5. Demonstrate professional communication and leadership, while advancing the education of peers.
Activity Learning Outcomes
Through this discussion, the student will demonstrate the ability to:
1. Interpret subjective and objective data to develop appropriate diagnoses and evidence based management plans for patients and families with complex or multiple diagnoses across the lifespan (CO 1).
2. Develop management plans based on current scientific evidence and national guidelines (CO 4).
Requirements
For this week, the faculty will not be providing a case study. Instead, you will choose from an area that you have an opportunity for improvement that was identified on your APEA predictor exam (TOPIC: Respiratory) . You will research that area of content in relation to complaints and disorders that commonly occur in family practice. Please work up a case study that begins with a chief complaint commonly seen in primary care based on that body system. The case should be clear and include all elements of a normal case that might be presented in class (subjective, objective, assessment, diagnostic testing and 5 point plan in part 2. The case should be clear, organized, and meet the following guidelines:
Step 1. Review your Week 4 APEA Predictor Exam Results and focus on the “Percent Correct by Knowledge Area” Choose a knowledge area on which you scored the lowest to work on this week. (Respiratory)
Step 2. Once you’ve chosen the subject, research and work up a common chief complaint from that system that you haven’t learned already in the program and present your findings in the discussion threads. Push yourself to explore diagnoses in this area that are still common to primary care, but not a repeat of content learned in this or other courses.
Work up includes: 
Chief complaint, PMHx, Demographics, PSHx, allergies, lifestyle, HPI
Associated risk factors/demographics that contribute to the chief complaint and differential diagnoses
Three common differential diagnoses represented by the CC including pathophysiology and rationale in the identified body system i.e., if pulmonary was your body system than a chief complaint could be persistent cough and three pulmonary differentials;
Discuss how the three differential diagnoses differ from each other in: occurrence, pathophysiology and presentation (NOTE: Simply listing the diagnoses and their occurrence, pathophysiology and presentations separately does not confer an understanding of how they differ. Your discussion should compare and contrast these items against each other among the three differentials chosen);
Relevant testing required to diagnose/evaluate severity of the three differential diagnoses; and
Review of relevant National Guidelines related to the Diagnosis and Diagnostic testing for these diagnoses
 

DISCUSSION CONTENT
Category Points % Description
Application of Course Knowledge  65 50% Post contributes clinically accurateperspectives/insights applicable to the results from the physical exam and diagnoses. Initial post includes the most likely diagnosis/specific treatment plan given case study information supported by rationale and answers all questions presented in the case. Demonstrates course knowledge/assigned readings by: linking tests/interventionsaccurately to diagnoses, applies learned knowledge specifically to the symptoms and patient information using original dialogue i.e., little to no direct quotes. 
Evidence Based resources 25 19% Discussion post supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years. Focus of journal articles represents a logical link between the article content and the case study information.  In-text citations and full references are provided.
Interactive Dialogue 30 23% Presents case study findings and responds substantively to at least one peer including evidence from appropriate sources, and all direct faculty questions posted. Substantive posts contribute new, novel perspectives to the discussion using original dialogue (not quotes from sources)
120 92% Total CONTENT Points= 120 pts
DISCUSSION FORMAT
Category Points % Description
Organization  5 4% Discussion post presented in a logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence. Headings reflect separation of criterion outlined in assignment guidelines. 
**Direct quote should not exceed 15 words & must add substantively to the discussion
APA/Grammar/Spelling 5 4% Discussion post has minimal grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation and APA* errors. Direct quotes (if used) is limited to 1 short statement** which adds substantively to the post. 
* APA style references and in text citations are required; however, there are no deductions for errors in indentation or spacing of references. All elements of the reference otherwise must be included.
10 8% Total FORMAT Points= 10 pts
DISCUSSION TOTAL= 130 points

 

Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscussion Content Possible Points = 120 Points
Application of Course Knowledge  Post contributes clinically accurate perspectives/insights applicable to clinical content area/identified chief complaint presentation in original dialogue (no direct quotes): Case study demonstrates understanding of the demographics, HPI and presentation associated with CC and differential diagnoses. Differential diagnoses all in content area category with logical link between each diagnosis and the case study information. Differential diagnoses compared/contrasted with each other in every category (assessment, Risk factors, HPI, testing) diagnosis/specific treatment plan that reflects National Guidelines given case study information. Clinical insights are supported by rationale and student answers all questions presented in the case.
65 pts
Excellent
Post contributes clinically accurate perspectives/insights applicable to clinical content area/identified chief complaint presentation in original dialogue (no direct quotes): Case study demonstrates understanding of the demographics, HPI and presentation associated with CC and differential diagnoses. Differential diagnoses all in content area category with logical link between each diagnosis and the case study information. Differential diagnoses compared/contrasted with each other in every category (assessment, Risk factors, HPI, testing). Clinical insights are supported by rationale and student answers all questions presented in the case.
59 pts
V. Good
Post contributes some clinically accurate perspectives/insights applicable to clinical content area/identified chief complaint presentation in original dialogue (no direct quotes): Case study demonstrates general understanding of the demographics, HPI and presentation associated with CC and differential diagnoses. Differential diagnoses all in content area category with weak logical link between each diagnosis and the case study information. Differential diagnoses compared/contrasted with each other in every category (assessment, Risk factors, HPI, testing). Clinical insights are supported by rationale and student answers all questions presented in the case.
54 pts
Satisfactory
Post contributes some clinically accurate perspectives/insights applicable to clinical content area/identified chief complaint presentation in original dialogue (no direct quotes): Case study demonstrates general understanding of the demographics, HPI and presentation associated with CC and differential diagnoses. Differential diagnoses not all in all in content area category with weak logical link between each diagnosis and the case study information. Differential diagnoses superficially compared/contrasted with each other some or all every category (assessment, Risk factors, HPI, testing). Clinical insights are supported by rationale and student answers all questions presented in the case.
33 pts
Needs Improvement
Post contributes some clinically accurate perspectives/insights applicable to clinical content area/identified chief complaint presentation in original dialogue (no direct quotes): Case study demonstrates minimal understanding of the demographics, HPI and presentation associated with CC and differential diagnoses. Differential diagnoses not all in all in content area category with weak OR NO logical link between each diagnosis and the case study information. Differential diagnoses not compared/contrasted with each other in some or all category (assessment, Risk factors, HPI, testing). Clinical insights are supported by rationale HOWEVER student does not answer all questions presented in the case.
0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Post contributes little or no clinically accurate perspectives/insights applicable to clinical content area/identified chief complaint presentation in original dialogue (no direct quotes): OR **Student Leads case study with ONE diagnosis as opposed to a chief complaint.

 

65 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvidence Based Resources
Discussion post fully supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years including National Guidelines. Content of journal articles represents a logical link between the article content and the assigned topics/case study information. In-text citations and complete references are provided.
25 pts
Excellent
Discussion post fully supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years including National Guidelines. Content of journal articles represents a logical link between the article content and the assigned topics/case study information. In-text citations and complete references are provided.
23 pts
V. Good
Discussion post is partially supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years. In-text citations and complete references are provided. Evidence-based reference(s) used but may not fully demonstrate National guidelines or fully support treatment recommendations.
21 pts
Satisfactory
Discussion post is supported by evidence from appropriate resources however National Guidelines are not referenced in regard to diagnostic testing and treatment planning OR Journal articles do not represent logical link between the article content and assigned topics/ case study.
13 pts
Needs Improvement
Discussion post not fully supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years OR does not include National Guidelines AND Content of journal articles does not represents a logical link between the article content and the assigned topics/case study information. In-text citations and complete references are provided.
0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Discussion post is not supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years. National Guidelines are not used to support post. References and in-text citations may be incomplete.

 

25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInteractive Dialogue
30 pts
Excellent
Presents case study findings and responds substantively to at least one peer including evidence from appropriate sources, and all direct faculty questions posted. **Substantive posts contribute new, novel perspectives to the discussion using original dialogue (not quotes from sources). Leads peers in thoughtful, specific discussion addressing the peers response content.
27 pts
V. Good
Presents case study and findings and responds substantively to at least one peer. Does include evidence from appropriate sources. Responds to some direct faculty questions. Leads peers in thoughtful, specific discussion without fully addressing peer’s response content.
25 pts
Satisfactory
Responds to a student peer and/or faculty, but the nature of the response is not original dialogue or lacks fundamental understanding of concepts discussed. Includes some evidence from appropriate sources. OR Leads discussion vaguely and without depth of knowledge.
15 pts
Needs Improvement
Responds to a student peer and/or faculty questions but the post doesn’t include original dialogue, perspectives or conversation. Does not include evidence from appropriate sources. Does not Lead discussion.
0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Does not respond to at least one peer and/or does not respond to faculty questions posted by Sunday and does not lead discussion. *A zero may be assessed here for not responding to questions posed by faculty.

 

30 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscussion Format Possible Points = 10 Points
Organization  Discussion post presented in a logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence. Headings reflect separation of criterion outlined in assignment guidelines.
5 pts
Excellent
Discussion post presented in a logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence. Organization of topics and transitions among ideas lends clarity to the discussion. Headings and paragraph spacing are used logically and contribute to evidence of the assigned diseases being compared and contrasted.
4 pts
V. Good
Discussion post presented in a logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence, However minimal transitions, headings and spacing used to organize thoughts.
3 pts
Satisfactory
May be unclear or difficult to follow in places. Headings, paragraphs and spacing.
2 pts
Needs Improvement
May be unclear or difficult to follow in places. Weak linkages between assigned diseases.
0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Discussion topics not linked through organization of thoughts, paragraph, spacing or headings. Lack of organization contributes to lack of understanding of thought process.

 

5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA/Grammar/Spelling
(*) APA style references and in text citations are required; however, there are no deductions for errors in indentation or spacing of references. All elements of the reference otherwise must be included.
5 pts
Excellent
Zero errors in grammar/spelling. Strong ability to communicate thoughts and ideas concisely.
4 pts
V. Good
Zero to 2 errors in grammar/spelling but no effect on ability to communicate thoughts and ideas.
3 pts
Satisfactory
3-6 errors in grammar/spelling with no effect on ability to communicate thoughts and ideas.
2 pts
Needs Improvement
>6 errors in grammar/spelling which contributes somewhat to effectiveness of ability to communicate thoughts and ideas.
0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Errors in grammar contribute to a fundamental lack of understanding of information presented.

 

5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeParticipation
Discussion late penalty deductions  A 10% late penalty will be imposed for discussions posted after the deadlines for Week 5, regardless of the number of days late. NOTHING will be accepted after 11:59pm MT on Sunday (i.e. student will receive an automatic 0)
0 pts
Minus Points
0 pts
Minus Points

 

0 pts
Total Points: 130