Assignment one: The purpose of the case study is to have you expand upon the pathophysiological disease process by searching for evidence-based practice treatment and advanced practice nursing role implications related to the disease.
Case Study Topic:
Select acute bacterial meningitis and discuss the pathophysiologic process involved.
Identify current evidence-based treatment modalities for the selected topic and discuss how the treatment impacts the disease process.
Conduct an evidence-based literature search to identify the most recent standards of care/treatment modalities from peer reviewed articles and professional association guidelines (www.guideline.gov). These articles and guidelines can be referenced, but not directly copied into the clinical case presentation. Cite a minimum of three resources.
Include the following in your clinical case presentation:
- A discussion the pathophysiology of the disease, including signs and symptoms
- An explanation of diagnostic testing and rationales for each
- A review of different evidence-based treatment modalities for the disorder obtained from guideline.gov or a professional organization
Next, address the following questions:
- How does the information in this case inform the practice of a master’s prepared nurse?
- How would the master’s prepared nurse use this information to design a patient education session for someone with this condition?
- What was the most important information presented in this case?
- What was the most confusing or challenging information presented in this case?
- Discuss a patient safety issue that can be addressed for a patient with the condition presented in this case.
The use of medical terminology and appropriate graduate level writing is expected.
Your paper should be 3–4 pages, excluding cover page and reference page.
Your resources must include research articles as well as reference to non-research evidence-based guidelines.
Use APA format to style your paper and to cite your sources. Your source(s) should be integrated into the paragraphs. Use internal citations pointing to evidence in the literature and supporting your ideas. You will need to include a reference page listing those sources. Cite a minimum of three resources.
Review the rubric for more information on how your assignment will be graded.
| Accomplished | Satisfactory | Needs Improvement | Unsatisfactory | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Critical Analysis |
Points Range:37.2 (37.20%) – 40 (40.00%) Presents an exemplary articulation and insightful analysis of significant concepts and/or theories presented in the case. Offers detailed and specific examples for all questions. Makes keen observations, making note of essential information provided in the case. Ideas are professionally sound and creative; they are supported by scientific evidence that is credible and timely. Draws insightful and comprehensive conclusions and solutions. |
Points Range:33.2 (33.20%) – 36.8 (36.80%) Presents an accurate analysis of significant concepts and/or theories presented in the case. Offers some detail and some examples for most questions. Makes occasional note of essential information provided in the case. Ideas are mostly supported by scientific evidence that is credible and timely. Makes some attempt to draw conclusions and solutions. |
Points Range:28 (28.00%) – 32.8 (32.80%) Provides insufficient explanations of significant concepts. Offers little or insignificant detail and no examples for most questions. Fails to address essential information provided in the case. Ideas are generally unsupported by scientific evidence, but some attempt has been made. Fails to draw conclusion. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 27.6 (27.60%) Does not, or incorrectly, answers with insufficient explanations. Information is not scientifically sound. |
| Content |
Points Range:37.2 (37.20%) – 40 (40.00%) Makes insightful, clear and accurate connections to key concepts and relevant theories. Response indicates a comprehensive, high-level understanding of the concepts presented in the case. |
Points Range:33.2 (33.20%) – 36.8 (36.80%) Makes mostly accurate connections to key concepts and relevant theories. Response indicates a general understanding of the concepts presented in the case. |
Points Range:28 (28.00%) – 32.8 (32.80%) Provides several insufficient or inaccurate explanations, although attempts are made to address some key concepts. Response indicates an introductory understanding of the concepts presented in the case. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 27.6 (27.60%) Information is inaccurate or inadequate. Response indicates little or no understanding of the concepts presented in the case. |
| Mechanics |
Points Range:13.95 (13.95%) – 15 (15.00%) Answers are well written throughout. Information is well organized and clearly communicated. Assignment is free of spelling and grammatical errors. |
Points Range:12.45 (12.45%) – 13.8 (13.80%) Answers are well written throughout and the information is reasonably organized and communicated. Assignment is mostly free of spelling and grammatical errors. |
Points Range:10.5 (10.50%) – 12.3 (12.30%) Answers are somewhat organized and lacks some clarity. Contains some spelling and grammatical errors. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 10.35 (10.35%) Answers are not well written and lack clarity. Information is poorly organized. Assignment contains many spelling and grammatical errors. |
| APA Format |
Points Range:4.65 (4.65%) – 5 (5.00%) Follows all the requirements related to format, length, source citations, and layout. |
Points Range:4.15 (4.15%) – 4.6 (4.60%) Follows length requirement and most of the requirements related to format, source citations, and layout. |
Points Range:3.5 (3.50%) – 4.1 (4.10%) Follows most of the requirements related to format, length, source citations, and layout. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 3.45 (3.45%) Does not follow format, length, source citations, and layout requirements. |
Name:Case Study Rubric
Some articles:
https://cmr.asm.org/content/23/3/467
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC30026…
https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/a…
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/66/3/321/4110… Please feel free to use other EBP peer reviewed articles.
Assignment 2:
According to the CDC, 32.5% of people in the United States have hypertension, and 3.7 million patients have a diagnosis of essential hypertension (CDC/National Center for Health Statistics: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hypertension.htm [accessed March 26, 2016]). Hypertension is frequently managed in primary care, and its sequelae can be life altering for patients. Patients with hypertension may have other comorbid conditions, including diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and obesity.
For this assignment, you must choose from one of the following patients and develop a treatment plan that addresses your chosen individual’s issue in total, which will help to optimize her or his health.
Case #1: A 46-year-old African American female with long-standing blood pressure of 180/110, treated intermittently because of insurance issues. The patient also has type 2 diabetes and a BMI of 27. She currently is employed and has a PPO. Her last blood pressure medication was HCTZ and she tolerated it well, but her blood pressure has never been lower than 170/80.
Case #2: A 69-year-old Caucasian female with history of MI 20 years ago, currently on metoprolol and Norvasc. Her blood pressure readings on her last several visits have been 155–170/70–90 with a heart rate of 70–90. She has no chest pain. Her other medications are ASA 325mg, Prilosec 20mg, Lipitor 20mg, and Tylenol prn. She has a history of high cholesterol, and her lipid profile has been normal for the past 2 years.
Case #3: A 59-year-old Hispanic male with type 2 diabetes on metformin 1000mg, Amaryl 4mg, Lipitor 40mg, lisinopril/Hctz 40/25, and Tricor. His last A1C was 12, and his current blood pressure is 170/88. Office urine microalbumin 100ug/mg.
Case #4: A 39-year-old Hispanic female with headaches for the past two weeks. She is new to you, but she has been to the office 3 times in the past 4 weeks. Your partner put her on HCTZ for a blood pressure of 188/90. Today, her blood pressure is 180/74, and her heart rate is 90. She continues to have headaches. Her lab work had the following abnormalities: Her lipid profile shows total cholesterol of 325, HDL of 30, LDL of 78, and triglycerides 322, A1C 8, and BMI of 33.
To prepare:
- Review the chapter that discusses rational drug selection, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension in the text (Woo & Robinson).
- Consider the medications that are used for patients with diseases outlined in the patient problems listed above, taking into consideration age, gender, and culture.
- Think about the pathophysiology of comorbid diseases.
To complete:
Write a minimum 4-page paper in APA format (excluding cover page and references) that addresses the following:
- Briefly describe the disease processes of your chosen patient.
- Describe the approach to the pharmacological treatment plan for the patient that should optimize this patient’s health.
- Describe your optimal goal for your chosen patient and discuss the national guidelines that support your goals.
- Describe the potential pharmacological interactions of your chosen plan and the education necessary for the patient in regards to these potential interactions.
- Describe the interdisciplinary team that might be involved in the care of the patient and how working collaboratively as a team affects patient outcomes.
- Discuss the nonpharmacological educational needs for this patient.
- Discuss the health maintenance needs for this patient to maintain optimized health.
- Include four or more appropriate scholarly sources from the last five years throughout the paper.
| Accomplished | Emerging | Unsatisfactory | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disease Process |
Points Range:8.3 (8.30%) – 10 (10.00%) Disease process is clearly described. |
Points Range:7.6 (7.60%) – 8.2 (8.20%) Disease process is somewhat described. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 7.5 (7.50%) Disease process is poorly described or absent. |
| Pharmacological Treatment Plan |
Points Range:16.6 (16.60%) – 20 (20.00%) An appropriate treatment plan, potential pharmacological interactions, and appropriate patient education needs are addressed. |
Points Range:15.2 (15.20%) – 16.4 (16.40%) A somewhat appropriate treatment plan, potential pharmacological interactions, and patient education needs are addressed. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 15 (15.00%) A mostly inappropriate treatment plan, potential pharmacological interactions, and patient education needs are included or are absent. |
| Goal and National Guidelines |
Points Range:12.45 (12.45%) – 15 (15.00%) Optimal goal is clearly discussed. National guidelines supporting this goal are accurately identified. |
Points Range:11.4 (11.40%) – 12.3 (12.30%) Optimal goal is somewhat discussed. National guidelines supporting this goal are somewhat identified. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 11.25 (11.25%) Optimal goal and national guidelines supporting this goal are absent or inappropriate. |
| Interdisciplinary Team |
Points Range:16.6 (16.60%) – 20 (20.00%) An appropriate interdisciplinary team is identified. A clear explanation is given as to why this team is appropriate. |
Points Range:15.2 (15.20%) – 16.4 (16.40%) A somewhat appropriate interdisciplinary team is identified. An explanation is given as to why this team is appropriate. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 15 (15.00%) An interdisciplinary team is inappropriate or absent. |
| Health Maintenance and Non-Pharmacological Education |
Points Range:12.45 (12.45%) – 15 (15.00%) Health maintenance needs to optimize patient health are accurate and clearly described. Nonpharmacological patient education needs are addressed. |
Points Range:11.4 (11.40%) – 12.3 (12.30%) Health maintenance needs to optimize patient health are somewhat accurate and described. Nonpharmacological patient education needs are somewhat addressed. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 11.25 (11.25%) Health maintenance needs to optimize patient health and nonpharmacological patient education needs are inappropriate or absent. |
| Scholarly Sources |
Points Range:8.3 (8.30%) – 10 (10.00%) Four or more appropriate scholarly sources published in the last five years are included throughout the paper. |
Points Range:7.6 (7.60%) – 8.2 (8.20%) Two to three appropriate scholarly sources published in the last five years are included throughout the paper. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 7.5 (7.50%) Less than two appropriate scholarly sources published in the last five years are included throughout the paper. |
| Mechanics and APA |
Points Range:8.3 (8.30%) – 10 (10.00%) Written in a clear, concise, formal, and organized manner. Responses are mostly error free. Information from sources is paraphrased appropriately and accurately cited. |
Points Range:7.6 (7.60%) – 8.2 (8.20%) Writing is generally clear and organized but is not concise or formal in language. Multiple errors exist in spelling and grammar with minor interference with readability or comprehension. Most information from sources is paraphrased and cited correctly. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 7.5 (7.50%) Writing is generally unclear and unorganized. Errors in spelling and grammar detract from readability and comprehension. Sources are missing or improperly cited. |
0 comments