A comprehensive case study report describes clinical case in

(No Subject)

From: Stephanie Betancourt ([email protected])

To: [email protected]

Date: Monday, December 5, 2022, 08:48 AM EST

Total Points: 150

Week 6 Assignment: Comprehensive Case Study on COPD, Heart Failure, Hypertension, and Diabetes Mellitus

Start

Assi

gnm

ent

Due  Sunday by 11:59pm   Points  150   Submitting  a text entry box or a file upload

A comprehensive case study report describes clinical case in order to provide new insights on a process, phenomenon, or observation within the biomedical setting. As such, case study reports are not merely descriptions of a patient’s clinical features, diagnoses, needed treatments and prognosis. Instead, a case report should have a well-defined thesis statement, in which the case itself serves as strong evidence supporting for the thesis statement.

Review the following case study describing a patient with a number of frequently observed comorbidities. For this assignment, you will evaluate the various clinical characteristics of this patient. In addition, you will review the literature – as you have done for previous assignments – and explain how these clinical characteristics relate to the pathophysiology of the observed comorbidities. In order to do this, you have been provided with a series of prompts to discuss in your evaluation. Make sure that you are integrating these into a single narrative, and are not separating your responses by question number. As part of this, you should include an introduction with a well- defined thesis statement, transition sentences that connect the different ideas, and a conclusion. Submit your answers using APA format, well-written sentences, and detailed explanations. Your analysis must be scientifically sound, necessary, and sufficient. Paper must be a minimum of 6 pages, plus references and title page.

You must also include a bibliography of at least 3 sources (with at least one non-Internet source). Your textbook may not be included as a source for this assignment. Refer to the rubric for more information on how your assignment will be graded.

Case Study

M.K. is a 45-year-old female, measuring 5’5” and weighs 225 lbs. M.K. has a history of smoking about 22 years along with a poor diet. She has a history of Type II diabetes mellitus along with primary hypertension. M.K. has recently been diagnosed with chronic bronchitis. Her current symptoms include chronic cough, more severe in the mornings with sputum, light-headedness, distended neck veins, excessive peripheral edema, and increase urination at night. Her current medications include Lotensin and Lasix for the hypertension along with Glucophage for the Type II diabetes mellitus.

The following are lab findings that are pertinent to this case:

PathDE.JPG

As you develop your case study, be certain to address the following issues as they relate to common comorbidities observed in patients.

1. Describe the clinical findings that correlate with M.K.’s chronic bronchitis. Based on current literature, review the types of treatment and recommendations that would be appropriate for M.K.’s chronic bronchitis?  

2. Describe the type of heart failure would you suspect with M.K. Based on current literature, review the pathogenesis of how this type of heart failure develops. 

3. According to the American Heart Association 2017 new guidelines, and M.K.'s B.P. value, describe the stage of hypertension is she experiencing. Based on current literature, review the rationale for her current medications for her hypertension. Also, discuss the impact of this disease in the U.S. population. 

4. According to the lipid panel, what other condition is M.K. at risk for? Based on current literature, review what other medications should be given and explain why. What additional findings in the patient correlate with both hypertension and Type II diabetes mellitus.

5. Based on current literature, review the significant of the lab value for HbA1c. Explain how this value relates to normal/abnormal body function in the patient.

Refer to the rubric for more information on how your assignment will be graded.

Due: Sunday, 11:59 p.m. (Pacific time)

Points: 150

Rubric General Education Standardized Rubric: PATH 370 Signature Assignment

General Education Standardized Rubric: PATH 370 Signature Assignment

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent / Information Discussion Question 1 CLO 2, 3

25 to >22.26 pts Exceeds Expectations Provides 4 or more clinical findings, treatment, and recommendations of chronic bronchitis. Information is scientifically sound, thorough, necessary and sufficient.

22.26 to >18.0 pts Meets Expectations Provides 3-4 clinical findings, treatment, and recommendations of chronic bronchitis from the first column. Information is mostly scientifically sound, thorough, necessary and sufficient.

18 to >14.76 pts Approaches Expectations Provides 1-2 clinical findings, treatment, and recommendations of chronic bronchitis from the first column. Information is not entirely scientifically sound, necessary and explanations are insufficient.

14.76 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Does not or incorrectly answers with insufficient explanations for those answers. Information is not scientifically sound, necessary or sufficient.

25 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent / Information Discussion Question 2 CLO 1, 2

25 to >22.26 pts Exceeds Expectations Identifies type of heart failure and explains the pathogenesis. Information is scientifically sound, thorough, necessary and sufficient.

22.26 to >18.0 pts Meets Expectations Identifies type of heart failure and explains the pathogenesis. Information is mostly scientifically sound, thorough, necessary and sufficient.

18 to >14.76 pts Approaches Expectations Identifies type of heart failure and explains the pathogenesis. Information is insufficient.

14.76 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Does not or incorrectly answers with insufficient explanations for those answers. Information is not scientifically sound, necessary or sufficient.

25 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent / Information Discussion Question 3 CLO 1, 2, 5

25 to >22.26 pts Exceeds Expectations Provides thorough explanations for stage of hypertension, current medications and the impact of the disease in the U.S. population. Information is scientifically sound, necessary and sufficient.

22.26 to >18.0 pts Meets Expectations Provides sufficient explanations for stage of hypertension, current medications and the impact of the disease in the U.S. population. Information is scientifically sound, necessary and sufficient.

18 to >14.76 pts Approaches Expectations Provides insufficient explanations. Information is not entirely scientifically sound, necessary and sufficient. Does not address one of the questions.

14.76 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Does not or incorrectly answer with insufficient explanations. Information is not scientifically sound, necessary or sufficient.

25 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent / Information Discussion Question 4 CLO 4

25 to >22.26 pts Exceeds Expectations Provides thorough explanations of lipid panel, the correlation of hypertension and Type II diabetes mellitus and other medications that should be given. Information is scientifically sound, necessary and sufficient.

22.26 to >18.0 pts Meets Expectations Provides sufficient explanations of lipid panel, the correlation of hypertension and Type II diabetes mellitus and other medications that should be given. Information is scientifically sound, necessary and sufficient.

18 to >14.76 pts Approaches Expectations Provides insufficient explanations of rationale. Information is not entirely scientifically sound, necessary and sufficient. Does not address one of the questions.

14.76 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Does not or incorrect answers with insufficient explanations. Information is not scientifically sound, necessary or sufficient.

25 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent / Information Discussion Question 5 CLO 6

25 to >22.26 pts Exceeds Expectations Provides thorough explanations for lab value along with the rationale in relation to normal/abnormal body function. Information is scientifically sound, necessary and sufficient.

22.26 to >18.0 pts Meets Expectations Provides sufficient explanations for lab value along with the rationale in relation to normal/abnormal body function. Information is scientifically sound, necessary and sufficient.

18 to >14.76 pts Approaches Expectations Provides insufficient explanations of HbA1c. Information is not entirely scientifically sound, necessary and sufficient.

14.76 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Does not or incorrect answers with insufficient explanations. Information is not scientifically sound, necessary or sufficient.

25 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting/ Organization/ Mechanics

10 to >8.9 pts Exceeds Expectations Answers are well written throughout. Information is well organized and clearly communicated. Assignment is free of spelling and grammatical errors.

8.9 to >7.2 pts Meets Expectations Answers are well written throughout and the information is reasonably organized and communicated. Assignment is mostly free of spelling and grammatical errors.

7.2 to >5.9 pts Approaches Expectations Answers are somewhat organized and lacks some clarity. Assignment contains some spelling and grammatical errors.

5.9 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Answers are not well written and the information is poorly organized and lacks clarity. Assignment contains many spelling and grammatical errors.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFormat/Layout

5 to >4.45 pts Exceeds Expectations Follows all requirements related to format, length and layout.

4.45 to >3.6 pts Meets Expectations Follows length requirement and most of the requirements related to format and layout.

3.6 to >2.95 pts Approaches Expectations Follows most of the requirements related to format, length and layout.

2.95 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Does not follow format, length and layout requirements.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReferences

10 to >8.9 pts Exceeds Expectations All references are appropriate. There is a minimum of 3 scholarly resources with at least 1 non-internet source. All references are correctly cited and listed.

8.9 to >7.2 pts Meets Expectations References used are mostly appropriate. There is a minimum of 3 scholarly resources with at least 1 non- internet source. All references are correctly cited and listed.

7.2 to >5.9 pts Approaches Expectations References used are mostly appropriate. There is a minimum of 3 scholarly resources but is missing a non- internet source. All references are mostly correctly cited and listed.

5.9 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations 2 or fewer scholarly resources. References are incorrectly cited or listed.

10 pts