Nursing Assignment use references from last five years please look at guidelines and rubric in attachment due Tuesday Topic is respiratory Purpose The

Nursing Assignment use references from last five years

please look at guidelines and rubric in attachment

due Tuesday

Topic is respiratory 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  

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 

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

Looking for this or a Similar Assignment? Click below to Place your Order