Week 3: Case Discussion: Cardiovascular
No unread replies.No replies.
Purpose
The purpose of this assignment is for students to:
- Improve their ability to formulate diagnoses based on clinical presentation of patients
- Improve their ability to understand and apply National Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disorders
- Design relevant treatment plan
- Link pathophysiologic concepts to medication choices
- Collaborate without outside providers and resources
Activity Learning Outcomes
Through this discussion, the student will demonstrate the ability to:
- Utilize healthcare delivery system resources in a fiscally responsible manner in the diagnosis and treatment of patients and families across the lifespan. (PO 5)
- Develop management plans based on current scientific evidence and national guidelines. (PO 5)
- Educate patients on treatment decisions (WO1)
- Select an evidence-based article to support the plan of care for the case study patient. (WO2)
- Analyze national guidelines and apply them to specific case study situations. (WO3)
- Review appropriate antibiotic prescribing guidelines. (WO4)
- Description
- Application of Course Knowledge
- 50
- 50%
- Post contributes clinically accurateperspectives/insights applicable to the results from the physical exam and diagnoses. Initial post includes the most likely diagnosis/specific treatment plan given case study information supported by rationale and answers all questions presented in the case. Demonstrates course knowledge/assigned readings by: linking tests/interventionsaccurately to diagnoses, applies learned knowledge specifically to the symptoms and patient information using original dialogue i.e., little to no direct quotes.
- Evidence Based resources
- 20
- 20%
- Discussion post supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years. Focus of journal articles represents a logical link between the article content and the case study information. In-text citations and full references are provided.
- Interactive Dialogue
- 20
- 20%
- Presents case study findings and responds substantively to at least one peer including evidence from appropriate sources, and all direct faculty questions posted. Substantive posts contribute new, novel perspectives to the discussion using original dialogue (not quotes from sources)
- 90
- 90%
- Total CONTENT Points= 90 pts
- DISCUSSION FORMAT
- Category
- Points
- %
- Description
- Organization
- 5
- 5%
- Discussion post presented in a logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence. Headings reflect separation of criterion outlined in assignment guidelines.
- **Direct quote should not exceed 15 words & must add substantively to the discussion
- APA/Grammar/Spelling
- 5
- 5%
- Discussion post has minimal grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation and APA* errors. Direct quotes (if used) is limited to 1 short statement** which adds substantively to the post.
- * APA style references and in text citations are required; however, there are no deductions for errors in indentation or spacing of references. All elements of the reference otherwise must be included.
- 10
- 10%
- Total FORMAT Points= 10 pts
- DISCUSSION TOTAL= 60 points
Setting: large rural clinic; family practice clinic that employs physicians, physician assistants and nurse practitioners.
You open the chart to review for your next patient, and you see it is Lorene M. Lorene is a 60 year-old African American female with a history of hypertension and known documented metabolic syndrome following lifestyle changes per her request. You note she is not due for a follow up at this time, so you look at the chief complaint.
CC: Shoulder discomfort and SOB with exercise 3 days ago.
You enter the room and introduce yourself to Lorene who is sitting in the chair. You ask what brings her in today. She smiles, shaking her head and says “My daughter made me come, I feel fine. I am way too busy to be here today. Since my last visit, three months ago, I joined a gym and with the support of my daughter, we are going two days a week.” However, three days ago Lorene felt short of breath while in dance class. She developed what she calls as “a discomfort” that radiated back and up between her shoulder blades while at the peak of her exercise routine. She also felt a little nauseous and sweaty. Once she stopped dancing, all symptoms resolved in about 3 minutes and they have not re-occurred.
PMHx: Reports general health as good. She has been trying to lose weight through exercise and avoiding processed foods. She admits that food is a large part of her background and heritage in social activities and so it is difficult to make healthy choices. She had been feeling great since starting to work out and has lost 2 inches around the abdomen. She describes having lots of energy until this episode three days ago. Now she is a little concerned because she feels a little more tired than usual. She has not participated in anything strenuous and has not worked out since
Childhood/previous illnesses: chicken pox.
Chronic illnesses: Hypertension, Metabolic Syndrome, and Dyslipidemia.(Lifestyle management was initiated per patient preference) Gestational Diabetes with 3 pregnancies managed with Insulin
Surgeries: T and A, cholecystectomy
Hospitalizations: None aside from surgeries listed above
Immunizations: Does not receive the flu shot.
Allergies: Reports remote Hx allergy to metformin. Describes a GI disturbance.
Blood transfusions: None
Current medications: None. Stopped Lisinopril one month ago as she read that it can cause a cough as one if its side effects. Prefers to get the BP under control with diet and exercise.
Social History: Married for 20 years. Children are grown and have moved out of the house but all live locally and are close to their parents. Lorene works full time as a CEO of a successful marketing company and travels often for work. She eats out a lot while entertaining business clients. She enjoys beer and wine and the occasional “social” cigarette when she gets together once weekly with her girlfriends.
Family History: Parents are deceased. Father had lung cancer and mother died from complications of a stroke due to complications of diabetes type 2. Brother died at 44 from malignant melanoma. Other sister and brother are healthy but they also have diagnoses of metabolic syndrome.
PE:
Height: 5’8″ weight: 220 pounds; BMI 33.5 vital signs: BP 146/90 P 70 Sao2 97% Random glucose finger stick in office: 130mgs/dl
General: African American female in NAD. Alert, oriented, and cooperative. Pain: 0/10 at present
Skin: Skin warm, dry, and intact. Skin color is light skinned brown, no cyanosis or pallor.
HEENT: Head normo-cephalic. Hair thick and distribution even throughout scalp.
Eyes: Sclera clear. Conjunctiva: white, PERRLA, EOMs intact. No AV nicking noted.
Ears: Tympanic membranes gray and intact with light reflex noted. Pinna and tragus non-tender
Nose: Nares patent without exudate. Sinuses non-tender to palpation, Right-sided Deviation
Throat: Oropharynx moist, no lesions or exudate. Teeth in poor repair, gums reddened and receding, filled cavities noted. Tongue smooth, pink, no lesions, protrudes in midline.
Neck supple. No cervical lymphadenopathy or tenderness noted. Thyroid midline, small and firm without palpable masses. Mild JVD in recumbent position
Lungs: Lungs clear to auscultation bilaterally. Respirations unlabored. No rashes or vesicles noted on chest.
CV: Heart S1 and S2 noted, RRR, no murmurs, noted. No parasternal lifts, heaves, and thrills. Peripheral pulses equally bilaterally. PMI 5th ICS displaced 4cm laterally. Trace edema in lower extremities.
Abdomen: Abdomen round, soft, with bowel sounds noted in all four quadrants. No organomegaly noted.
Labs from 3 months ago:
AIC 6.4%
Fasting glucose 135mgs/dl
Total Cholesterol: 230
Triglycerides 180mgs/dl
Ldl 180
Hdl 38
- EKG today in office
Week 3 Discussion Questions:
- What Leads Demonstrate the ST Depression?
- Is Lorene Hypertensive per ACA 2017 Guidelines? Compare the ACA guidelines to JNC 8 guidelines and discuss what treatment you recommend for her BP and why.
- What is the Primary diagnosis causing Lorene’s chest pain? Include ICD 10 codes (no differentials)
- What other secondary diagnoses does Lorene have that should be addressed? (Include the rationale and a reference for your diagnoses)
- Design a
treatment plan and discuss how each intervention is applicable to Lorene’s
case. Consider the following interventions:
- Labs
- Durable Medical Equipment Diagnostic tests- discuss the goal/purpose
- Any consultation with outside providers/services
- Medications- discuss why you chose each specific medication
- Referrals- who and why
- Follow up- why and when
- Education- specific and measureable
- Lifestyle Changes- specific to her cultural preferences, values and beliefs
**To see view the grading criteria/rubric, please click on the 3 dots in the box at the end of the solid gray bar above the discussion board title and then Show Rubric.
Search entries or author
Week 3 Cardiovascular Case Study_Sept19
| Week 3 Cardiovascular Case Study_Sept19 | ||
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts |
| This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscussion
Content Possible Points = 90 Points
Application
of Course Knowledge Post contributes clinically accurate perspectives/insights applicable to the case study by: linking tests/interventions accurately to diagnoses, applies learned knowledge specifically to the symptoms and patient information using original dialogue i.e., little to no direct quotes. Initial post includes the most likely diagnosis/specific treatment plan that reflects National Guidelines given case study information. Clinical insights are supported by rationale and student answers all questions presented in the case. | 50.0 pts Excellent Post contributes clinically accurate perspectives/insights applicable to the case study by: linking tests/interventions accurately to diagnoses, applies learned knowledge specifically to the symptoms and patient information using original dialogue i.e., little to no direct quotes. Initial post includes the most likely diagnosis/specific treatment plan that reflects National Guidelines given case study information. Clinical insights are supported by rationale and student answers all questions presented in the case. 46.0 pts V. Good Post contributes clinically accurate perspectives or insights and original dialogue with little or no direct quotes, but lacks some applicability/specificity to the assigned case study in one content area OR does not fully incorporate National guidelines into treatment plan. 42.0 pts Satisfactory Partially demonstrates course knowledge/assigned readings by: linking tests/interventions accurately to diagnoses, applies learned knowledge specifically to the symptoms and patient information using original dialogue i.e., little to no direct quotes in one content area. 25.0 pts Needs Improvement Post has limited clinical perspective, insights and/or applicability to assigned case study in more than one content area 0.0 pts Unsatisfactory Post contributes unique perspectives or insights and original dialogue with little or no direct quotes, but lacks some applicability/specificity to the assigned diseases in one assigned area. | 50.0 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvidence Based Resources Discussion post fully supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years including National Guidelines. Content of journal articles represents a logical link between the article content and the assigned topics/case study information. In-text citations and complete references are provided. | 20.0 pts Excellent Discussion post fully supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years including National Guidelines. Content of journal articles represents a logical link between the article content and the assigned topics/case study information. In-text citations and complete references are provided. 18.0 pts V. Good Discussion post is partially supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years. In-text citations and complete references are provided. Evidence-based reference(s) used but may not fully demonstrate National guidelines or fully support treatment recommendations. 17.0 pts Satisfactory Discussion post is supported by evidence from appropriate resources, however National Guidelines are not referenced in regard to diagnostic testing and treatment planning OR Journal articles do not represent logical link between the article content and assigned topics/ case study. 10.0 pts Needs Improvement Discussion post not fully supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years OR does not include National Guidelines AND Content of journal articles does not represents a logical link between the article content and the assigned topics/case study information. In-text citations and complete references are provided. 0.0 pts Unsatisfactory Discussion post is not supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years. National Guidelines are not used to support post. References and in-text citations may be incomplete. | 20.0 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInteractive Dialogue | 20.0 pts Excellent Presents case study findings and responds substantively to at least one peer including evidence from appropriate sources, and all direct faculty questions posted. **Substantive posts contribute new, novel perspectives to the discussion using original dialogue (not quotes from sources). 18.0 pts V. Good Presents diseases together and responds substantively to at least one peer. Does include evidence from appropriate sources. Responds to some direct faculty questions. 17.0 pts Satisfactory Responds to a student peer and/or faculty, but the nature of the response is not original dialogue or lacks fundamental understanding of concepts discussed. Includes some evidence from appropriate sources. 10.0 pts Needs Improvement Responds to a student peer and/or faculty questions but the post doesn’t include original dialogue, perspectives or conversation. Does not include evidence from appropriate sources. 0.0 pts Unsatisfactory Does not respond to at least one peer and/or does not respond to faculty questions posted by Sunday. *A zero may be assessed here for not responding to questions posed by faculty. | 20.0 pts |
| This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscussion
Format Possible Points = 10 Points
Organization Discussion post presented in a logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence. Headings reflect separation of criterion outlined in assignment guidelines. | 5.0 pts Excellent Discussion post presented in a logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence. Organization of topics and transitions among ideas lends clarity to the discussion. Headings and paragraph spacing are used logically and contribute to evidence of the assigned diseases being compared and contrasted. 4.0 pts V. Good Discussion post presented in a logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence, however minimal transitions, headings and spacing used to organize thoughts. 3.0 pts Satisfactory May be unclear or difficult to follow in places. Headings, paragraphs and spacing. 2.0 pts Needs Improvement May be unclear or difficult to follow in places. Weak linkages between assigned diseases. 0.0 pts Unsatisfactory Discussion topics not linked through organization of thoughts, paragraph, spacing or headings. Lack of organization contributes to lack of understanding of thought process. | 5.0 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA/Grammar/Spelling (*) APA style references and in text citations are required; however, there are no deductions for errors in indentation or spacing of references. All elements of the reference otherwise must be included. | 5.0 pts Excellent Zero errors in grammar/spelling. Strong ability to communicate thoughts and ideas concisely. 4.0 pts V. Good Zero to 2 errors in grammar/spelling but no effect on ability to communicate thoughts and ideas. 3.0 pts Satisfactory 3-6 errors in grammar/spelling with no effect on ability to communicate thoughts and ideas. 2.0 pts Needs Improvement >6 errors in grammar/spelling which contributes somewhat to effectiveness of ability to communicate thoughts and ideas. 0.0 pts Unsatisfactory Errors in grammar contribute to a fundamental lack of understanding of information presented. | 5.0 pts |
| This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeParticipation
Discussion
late penalty deductions A 10% late penalty will be imposed for discussions posted after the deadline for Week 2, regardless of the number of days late. | 0.0 pts Minus Points 0.0 pts Minus Points | 0.0 pts |
| |


