Week 3 Discussion
Case Study Discussion: Gynecologic Health
Case studies provide the opportunity to simulate realistic scenarios involving patients presenting with various health problems or symptoms. Such case studies enable nurse learners to apply concepts, lessons, and critical thinking to interviewing, screening, diagnostic approaches, as well as the development of treatment plans.
For this Case Study Discussion, you will review a case study scenario to obtain information related to a comprehensive well-woman exam and determine differential diagnoses, diagnostics, and develop treatment and management plans.
To prepare:
- By Day 1 of this week, you will be assigned to a specific case study scenario for this Discussion. Please see the “Course Announcements†section of the classroom for your case study assignment from your Instructor.
- Review the Learning Resources for this week and pay close attention to the media program related to the basic microscope skills. Also, consider re-reviewing the media programs found in Week 1 Learning Resources.
- Carefully review the clinical guideline resources specific to your assigned case study.
- Use the Focused SOAP Note Template found in the Learning Resources to support Discussion. Complete a FOCUSED SOAP note and critically analyze this and focus your attention on the diagnostic tests. Please post your SOAP note. This will help you develop your differential diagnosis and additional questions
By Day 3
Please POST your FOCUSED SOAP NOTE with your differential diagnosis. Include the additional questions you would ask the patient. Be sure to include an explanation of the tests you might recommend, ruling out any other issues or concerns and include your rationale. Be specific and provide examples. Use your Learning Resources and/or evidence from the literature to support your explanations.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.
By Day 6
Respond to at least two of your colleagues’ posts on two different days and explain how you might think differently about the types of tests you might recommend and explain why. Use your Learning Resources and/or evidence from the literature to support your position.
Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!
Case Study 1
Charlene Baja is a 22-year-old G0 P0 L0 presents to the clinic today for burning and discharge for 1 week. She states her boyfriend recently found out he was positive for chlamydia. She denies any other partners besides him.  Her medical history is remarkable for anxiety and depression.  Her surgical history is unremarkable. Her social history includes social alcohol, but she denies tobacco and any recreational drugs. She has no known drug allergies and takes a multivitamin and Srintec daily for oral contraception. Her health history reveals that her mother is alive with breast cancer in remission and hypothyroidism. Her paternal grandfather is alive with prostate cancer. Her sister has type 1 diabetes as well. Her father has HTN, diabetes type 2, and hyperlipidemia.  Charlene has one brother with no medical history.
· Height 5’ 5â€â€¯Weight 148 (BMI 24.6), BP 132/68 P 62
· HEENT: WNL
· Neck: lymph nodes grossly normal
· Lungs/CV: Chest is clear to auscultation bilaterally, normal respiration, rhythm, and depth upon exam
· Breast: normal breast exam
· Abd: WNL
· VVBSU: WNL
· Cervix: firm, smooth, yellow watery discharge in large amount present
· Uterus: RV, mobile, non-tender
· Adnexa: WNL
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
Rubric Detail
ExcellentPoint range: 90–100 GoodPoint range: 80–89 FairPoint range: 70–79 PoorPoint range: 0–69 Main Posting:Response to the case study discussion questions includes appropriate diagnoses with explanations of appropriate diagnostic tests and treatment options as directed, is based on evidence-based research where appropriate, and is incorporates syntheses representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s). Post includes approprite diagnoses including explanations of appropriate diagnostic tests and treatment options. Incorporates syntheses representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources, with no less than 75% of post the post having exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least 3 current credible sources.
Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the discussion question(s) Post includes approprite diagnoses with explanations of appropriate diagnostic tests and treatment options. Somewhat incorporates syntheses representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources with no less than 50% of the post having exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least 3 credible references.
Points Range: 31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s). Post contains incomplete or vague diagnoses or explanations of appropriate diagnostic tests and treatment options. Is somewhat lacking in synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s). Post contains incomplete diagnoses or explanations of appropriate diagnostic tests and treatment options, or diagnoses and/or explanations are missing. Lacks synthesis gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Contains only 1 or no credible references.
Main Posting:Writing
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Further adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Posting:Timely and full participation
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main discussion by due date.
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Posts main discussion by due date. Meets requirements for full participation.
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main discussion by due date.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main discussion by due date.
First Response:Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
First Response: Writing
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in Standard, Edited English.
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in Standard, Edited English.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
First Response: Timely and full participation
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date.
Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date.
Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
Second Response: Writing
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in Standard, Edited English.
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in Standard, Edited English.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Second Response: Timely and full participation
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date.
Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date.
Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!
NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
