Please follow the following instructions Below:
Zero (0) plagiarism
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Assignment: Case Study Analysis
Just from $13/Page
5 References no more than 5 years
Please see attached rubric details
Follow the APA style/format
An understanding of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems is a critically important component of disease diagnosis and treatment. This importance is magnified by the fact that these two systems work so closely together. A variety of factors and circumstances that impact the emergence and severity of issues in one system can have a role in the performance of the other.
Effective disease analysis often requires an understanding that goes beyond these systems and their capacity to work together. The impact of patient characteristics, as well as racial and ethnic variables, can also have an important impact.
An understanding of the symptoms of alterations in cardiovascular and respiratory systems is a critical step in diagnosis and treatment of many diseases. For APRNs this understanding can also help educate patients and guide them through their treatment plans.
In this Assignment, you examine a case study and analyze the symptoms presented. You identify the elements that may be factors in the diagnosis, and you explain the implications to patient health.
To prepare:
This week:
In your Case Study Analysis related to the scenario provided, explain the following
· The cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes that result in the patient presenting these symptoms.
o Be sure you discuss each symptom presented by explaining the patho process in detail at the cell level. McCance is a very helpful resource here. The focus here should be on asthma.
·
Any racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning.
o Childhood asthma has racial/ethical variables that increase the risk for asthma and poor health outcomes. Be sure to cover genetics and epigenetics, including any social determinants of health here. Explain how these are risk factors for asthma and/or poor control of asthma. Some of this may be found in McCance, but you need outside references here.
·
How these processes interact to affect the patient.
o Here is where you put it all together and discuss a holistic view of how all of this affects the patient. You should discuss potential complications of poorly control asthma and how it could impact this 11-year-old patient in daily life. Think about any long-term consequences as well. Again outside references apart from McCance will be needed.
Assignment (1- to 2-page case study analysis)
In your Case Study Analysis related to the scenario provided, explain the following
The cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes that result in the patient presenting these symptoms.
Any racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning.
How these processes interact to affect the patient.
SCENARIO BELOW:
Scenario 3: 11-year-old boy complains of wheezing and difficulty “getting enough air.” Notices it more when he is playing baseball and symptoms improve when exercise activity stops. He says that the symptoms are getting worse and the symptoms are even occurring at rest. Mother says the child is allergic to cat dander and his next-door neighbor in their apartment building recently began sheltering cats for the local humane society. Auscultation demonstrates wheezes on forced expiration throughout all lung fields.
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name:
| |
NURS_6501_Module2_Case Study_Assignment_Rubric
|
Excellent
|
Good
|
Fair
|
Poor
|
Develop a 1- to 2-page case study analysis, examing the patient symptoms presented in the case study. Be sure to address the following:
Explain both the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes of why the patient presents these symptoms.
Points:
Points Range:
28 (28%) – 30 (30%)
The response accurately and thoroughly describes the patient symptoms.
The response includes accurate, clear, and detailed reasons, with explanation for both the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation.
Feedback:
|
Points:
Points Range:
25 (25%) – 27 (27%)
The response describes the patient symptoms.
The response includes accurate reasons, with explanation for both the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation.
Feedback:
|
Points:
Points Range:
23 (23%) – 24 (24%)
The response describes the patient symptoms in a manner that is vague or inaccurate.
The response includes reasons for the cardiovascular and/or cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes, with explanations that are vague or based on inappropriate evidence/research.
Feedback:
|
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 22 (22%)
The response describes the patient symptoms in a manner that is vague and inaccurate, or the description is missing.
The response does not include reasons for either the cardiovascular or cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes, or the explanations are vague or based on inappropriate or no evidence/research.
Feedback:
|
Explain how the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes interact to affect the patient.
|
Points:
Points Range:
28 (28%) – 30 (30%)
The response includes an accurate, complete, detailed, and specific explanation of how the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes interact to affect the patient.
Feedback:
|
Points:
Points Range:
25 (25%) – 27 (27%)
The response includes an accurate explanation of how the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes interact to affect the patient.
Feedback:
|
Points:
Points Range:
23 (23%) – 24 (24%)
The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of how the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes interact to affect the patient.
Feedback:
|
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 22 (22%)
The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of how the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes interact to affect the patient.
Feedback:
|
Explain any racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning.
|
Points:
Points Range:
23 (23%) – 25 (25%)
The response includes an accurate, complete, detailed, and specific explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation.
Feedback:
|
Points:
Points Range:
20 (20%) – 22 (22%)
The response includes an accurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation.
Feedback:
|
Points:
Points Range:
18 (18%) – 19 (19%)
The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning, and/or explanations based on inappropriate evidence/research.
Feedback:
|
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 17 (17%)
The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning, or the explanations are based on inappropriate or no evidence/research.
Feedback:
|
Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria.
Points:
Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.
A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria.
Feedback:
|
Points:
Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.
Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet are brief and not descriptive.
Feedback:
|
Points:
Points Range:
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time.
Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are vague or off topic.
Feedback:
|
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.
No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided.
Feedback:
|
Written Expression and Formatting – English Writing Standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation
Points:
Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
Feedback:
|
Points:
Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
Feedback:
|
Points:
Points Range:
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
Feedback:
|
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
Feedback:
|
Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running heads, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.
|
Points:
Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
Feedback:
|
Points:
Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.
Feedback:
|
Points:
Points Range:
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.
Feedback:
|
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
Feedback:
|
Show Descriptions
Show Feedback
Develop a 1- to 2-page case study analysis, examing the patient symptoms presented in the case study. Be sure to address the following:
Explain both the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes of why the patient presents these symptoms.–
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
28 (28%) – 30 (30%)
The response accurately and thoroughly describes the patient symptoms.
The response includes accurate, clear, and detailed reasons, with explanation for both the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation.
Good
25 (25%) – 27 (27%)
The response describes the patient symptoms.
The response includes accurate reasons, with explanation for both the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation.
Fair
23 (23%) – 24 (24%)
The response describes the patient symptoms in a manner that is vague or inaccurate.
The response includes reasons for the cardiovascular and/or cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes, with explanations that are vague or based on inappropriate evidence/research.
Poor
0 (0%) – 22 (22%)
The response describes the patient symptoms in a manner that is vague and inaccurate, or the description is missing.
The response does not include reasons for either the cardiovascular or cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes, or the explanations are vague or based on inappropriate or no evidence/research.
Feedback:
Explain how the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes interact to affect the patient.–
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
28 (28%) – 30 (30%)
The response includes an accurate, complete, detailed, and specific explanation of how the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes interact to affect the patient.
Good
25 (25%) – 27 (27%)
The response includes an accurate explanation of how the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes interact to affect the patient.
Fair
23 (23%) – 24 (24%)
The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of how the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes interact to affect the patient.
Poor
0 (0%) – 22 (22%)
The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of how the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes interact to affect the patient.
Feedback:
Explain any racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning.–
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
23 (23%) – 25 (25%)
The response includes an accurate, complete, detailed, and specific explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation.
Good
20 (20%) – 22 (22%)
The response includes an accurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation.
Fair
18 (18%) – 19 (19%)
The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning, and/or explanations based on inappropriate evidence/research.
Poor
0 (0%) – 17 (17%)
The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning, or the explanations are based on inappropriate or no evidence/research.
Feedback:
Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria.–
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.
A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria.
Good
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.
Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet are brief and not descriptive.
Fair
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time.
Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are vague or off topic.
Poor
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.
No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided.
Feedback:
Written Expression and Formatting – English Writing Standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation–
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
Good
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
Fair
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
Poor
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
Feedback:
Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running heads, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.–
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
Good
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.
Fair
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.
Poor
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
Feedback:
Name: NURS_6501_Module2_Case Study_Assignment_Rubric
