NRNP 6540 Week 4 Head Neck and Face Case StudyA 76-year-old woman presents today with complaints of

NRNP 6540 Week 4 Head Neck and Face Case Study

A 76-year-old woman presents today with complaints of nasal drainage, clearing of throat, and occasional nasal congestion, especially on waking in the morning. She has recently moved into an independent living center after living in her home for 40 years. She states that, although she has had these symptoms before, generally, the symptoms appeared in the spring, and she associated the nasal drainage with pollination. Because it is winter, she could not identify the trigger of her symptoms.

Chief complaint: Persistent “runny nose” for the 3-week duration, associated clearing of the throat and nasal congestion on awakening in the morning.

Objective data: Blood pressure (BP) 130/84, temperature 98.6, pulse 78, respiratory rate 20.

What further ROS questions will you want to ask her? List at least three.

What physical exam (PE) will you perform on this patient? List at least three.

What are the differential diagnoses that you are considering? Describe at least four.

What laboratory tests will help you rule out some of the differential diagnoses?

You have determined, by choosing your ROS, PE, and differential diagnosis, that this patient has allergic rhinitis (AR).

Describe the treatment options for your diagnosis, and what specific information about the prescription will you give to this patient?

List at least two treatment options: medications with dose, side effects, and/or cautions in the older adult.

When will you have the patient follow-up? Be specific.

NOTE: Write a focused SOAP note for this case. Choose the ROS, PE, and medications you will use in your SOAP note. Be creative, but do not deviate from the main points of the case study.

NRNP_6540_Week4_Assignment_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCreate documentation in the Focused SOAP Note Template about the patient in the case study to which you were assigned. In the Subjective section, provide: • Chief complaint• History of present illness (HPI) • Current medications, checked against Beers Criteria• Allergies• Patient medical history (PMHx) • Review of systems 10 to >9.0 pts
Excellent
The response throughly and accurately describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, current medications, allergies, medical history, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. A thorough cross-check of medications against the Beers Criteria has been completed and appropriate alternative drugs recommended if applicable. 9 to >8.0 pts
Good
The response accurately describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, current medications, allergies, medical history, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. A cross-check of medications against the Beers Criteria has been completed and appropriate alternative drugs recommended if applicable. 8 to >7.0 pts
Fair
The response describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, current medications, allergies, medical history, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis, but is somewhat vague or contains minor innacuracies. A cross-check of medications against the Beers Criteria has been completed but alternatives may be missing. 7 to >0 pts
Poor
The response provides an incomplete or inaccurate description of the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, current medications, allergies, medical history, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. A cross-check of medications against the Beers Criteria has not been completed. Or, subjective documentation is missing.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn the Objective section, provide: • Physical exam documentation of systems pertinent to the chief complaint, HPI, and history• Diagnostic results, including any labs, imaging, or other assessments needed to develop the differential diagnoses 10 to >9.0 pts
Excellent
The response thoroughly and accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are thoroughly and accurately documented. 9 to >8.0 pts
Good
The response accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are accurately documented. 8 to >7.0 pts
Fair
Documentation of the patient’s physical exam is somewhat vague or contains minor innacuracies. Diagnostic tests and their results are documented but contain minor innacuracies. 7 to >0 pts
Poor
The response provides incomplete or inaccurate documentation of the patient’s physical exam. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed, or, objective documentation is missing.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn the Assessment section, provide: • At least three (3) differentials with supporting evidence. Explain what rules each differential in or out, and justify your primary diagnosis selection. Include pertinent positives and pertinent negatives for the specific patient case. 25 to >23.0 pts
Excellent
The response lists in order of priority at least three distinctly different and detailed possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, and provides a thorough, accurate, and detailed justification for each of the conditions selected. 23 to >20.0 pts
Good
The response lists in order of priority at least three different possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study and provides an accurate justification for each of the conditions selected. 20 to >18.0 pts
Fair
The response lists three possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, with some vagueness and/or inaccuracy in the conditions and/or justification for each. 18 to >0 pts
Poor
The response lists two or fewer, or is missing, possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, with inaccurate or missing justification for each condition selected.
25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn the Plan section, provide: • A detailed treatment plan for the patient that addresses each diagnosis, as applicable. Includes documentation of diagnostic studies that will be obtained, referrals to other health-care providers, therapeutic interventions, education, disposition of the patient, and any planned follow up visits. • A discussion related to health promotion and disease prevention taking into consideration patient factors, PMH, and other risk factors. • Reflections on the case describing insights or lessons learned. 30 to >27.0 pts
Excellent
The response thoroughly and accurately outlines a treatment plan for the patient that addresses each diagnosis and includes diagnostic studies neeed, referrals, therapeutic interventions, patient education and disposition, and planned follow-up visits. A thorough and accurate discussion of health promotion and disease prevention related to the case is provided. Reflections on the case demonstrate strong critical thinking and synthesis of ideas. 27 to >24.0 pts
Good
The response accurately outlines a treatment plan for the patient that addresses each diagnosis and includes diagnostic studies neeed, referrals, therapeutic interventions, patient education and disposition, and planned follow-up visits. An accurate discussion of health promotion and disease prevention related to the case is provided. Reflections on the case demonstrate critical thinking. 24 to >21.0 pts
Fair
The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately outlines a treatment plan for the patient. The discussion on health promotion and disease prevention related to the case is somewhat vague or contains innaccuracies. Reflections on the case demonstrate adequate understanding of course topics. 21 to >0 pts
Poor
The response does not address all diagnoses or is missing elements of the treatment plan. The discussion on health promotion and disease prevention related to the case is vague, innaccurate, or missing. Reflections on the case are vague or missing.
30 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProvide at least three evidence-based peer-reviewed journal articles or evidenced-based guidelines which relate to this case to support your diagnostics and differentials diagnoses. Be sure they are current (no more than 5 years old) and support the treatment plan in following current standards of care. 10 to >9.0 pts
Excellent
The response provides at least three current, evidence-based resources from the literature to support the treatment plan for the patient in the assigned case study. Each resource represents the latest in standards of care and provides strong justification for treatment decisions. 9 to >8.0 pts
Good
The response provides at least three current, evidence-based resources from the literature to support the treatment plan for the patient in the assigned case study. Each resource represents current standards of care and supports treatment decisions. 8 to >7.0 pts
Fair
Three evidence-based resources are provided to support treatment decisions, but may not represent the latest in standards of care or may only provide vague or weak justification for the treatment plan. 7 to >0 pts
Poor
Two or fewer resources are provided to support treatment decisions. The resources may not be current or evidence-based, or do not support the treatment plan.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten 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. 5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
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. 4 to >3.0 pts
Good
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. 3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. 2 to >0 pts
Poor
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation 5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 2 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (? five) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten 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. 5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct APA format with no errors. 4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Contains a few (one or two) APA format errors. 3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (three or four) APA format errors. 2 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (? five) APA format errors.
5 pts
Total Points: 100
PreviousNext

Solution: