Learning ObjectivesStudents will:Evaluate abnormal findings on the genitalia and rectumApply concepts, theories, and principles relating to health assessment techniques and diagnoses for the breasts, genitalia, prostate, and rectumTo PreparePlease make sure to write this assignment up in narrative formBased on the Episodic note case study:Review this week’s Learning Resources, and consider the insights they provide about the case study. Refer to Chapter 3 of the Sullivan resource to guide you as you complete your Lab Assignment.Search the Walden library or the Internet for evidence-based resources to support your answers to the questions provided.Consider what history would be necessary to collect from the patient in the case study.Consider what physical exams and diagnostic tests would be appropriate to gather more information about the patient’s condition. How would the results be used to make a diagnosis?Identify at least five possible conditions that may be considered in a differential diagnosis for the patient.The Lab AssignmentUsing evidence-based resources from your search, answer the following questions and support your answers using current evidence from the literature.Address all of the following questions in great detail. Analyze all the information that you have been provided with. Analyze the subjective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation.Analyze the objective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation.Is the assessment supported by the subjective and objective information? Why or why not?Would diagnostics be appropriate for this case, and how would the results be used to make a diagnosis?Would you reject/accept the current diagnosis? Why or why not? Identify three possible conditions that may be considered as a differential diagnosis for this patient. Explain your reasoning using at least three different references from current evidence-based literature.By Day 7 of Week 10GENITALIA ASSESSMENTGenitourinary Assessment case studyCC: Increased frequency and pain with urinationHPI:T.S. is a 32-year-old woman who reports that for the past two days, she has dysuria, frequency, and urgency. Has not tried anything to help with the discomfort. Has had this symptom years ago. She is sexually active and has a new partner for the past 3 months.Medical History:NoneSurgical History:Tonsillectomy in 2001Appendectomy in 2020Review of Systems:General: Denies weight change, positive for sleeping difficulty because e the flank pain. Feels warm.Abdominal: Denies nausea and vomiting. No appetiteObjective VSS T = 37.3°C, P = 102/min, RR = 16/min, and BP = 116/74 mm Hg.Pelvic Exam:mild tenderness to palpation in the suprapubic areabimanual pelvic examination reveals a normal-sized uterus and adnexaeno adnexal tenderness.No vaginal discharge is noted.The cervix appears normal.Diagnostics: Urinalysis, STI testing, PapsmearAssessment:UTISTIAssignment 1: Lab Assignment: Assessing the Genitalia and RectumPhoto Credit: Getty ImagesPatients are frequently uncomfortable discussing with healthcare professional’s issues that involve the genitalia and rectum; however, gathering an adequate history and properly conducting a physical exam are vital. Examining case studies of genital and rectal abnormalities can help prepare advanced practice nurses to accurately assess patients with problems in these areas.In this Lab Assignment, you will analyze an Episodic note case study that describes abnormal findings in patients seen in a clinical setting. You will consider what history should be collected from the patients, as well as which physical exams and diagnostic tests should be conducted. You will also formulate a differential diagnosis with several possible conditions. To PrepareReview the Episodic note case study your instructor provides you for this week’s Assignment. Please see the “Course Announcements” section of the classroom for your Episodic note case study.Based on the Episodic note case study:Review this week’s Learning Resources, and consider the insights they provide about the case study. Refer to Chapter 3 of the Sullivan resource to guide you as you complete your Lab Assignment.Search the Walden library or the Internet for evidence-based resources to support your answers to the questions provided.Consider what history would be necessary to collect from the patient in the case study.Consider what physical exams and diagnostic tests would be appropriate to gather more information about the patient’s condition. How would the results be used to make a diagnosis?Identify at least five possible conditions that may be considered in a differential diagnosis for the patient.The Lab AssignmentUsing evidence-based resources from your search, answer the following questions and support your answers using current evidence from the literature.Analyze the subjective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation.Analyze the objective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation.Is the assessment supported by the subjective and objective information? Why or why not?Would diagnostics be appropriate for this case, and how would the results be used to make a diagnosis?Would you reject/accept the current diagnosis? Why or why not? Identify three possible conditions that may be considered as a differential diagnosis for this patient. Explain your reasoning using at least three different references from current evidence-based literature.

Please follow directions keenly. The assignment is broken into 2 different sections. One section is a PowerPoint slide and the other is a paper APA style. The papers must be in APA 7th edition format. The Word count doesn't include the reference page or title page. References must be in alphabetical order. All papers must be done in Microsoft Word and the PowerPoint should be in Micrsoft Powerpoint. Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Discussion: How do you think two crucial research events—the creation of the Nuremberg Code and the U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis study at Tuskegee—influenced the role of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the study design process? Respond to at least two of your classmates' or instructor's posts. Comment on their initial posts and describe how you think the Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research also influences IRBs. Peer# 1 The creation of the Nuremberg code was the first investigation into the world of investigative research on studies that involved human test subjects. Derived from the Nazi crimes against concentration camp prisoners, the Nuremberg code set out the establish that when it comes to doing research on humans, there needs to be ethical, judicial, and beneficent standards involved in the treatment of the individuals (Shuster, 1997). Likewise, in the study of African American men in the Tuskegee study, there was no informed consent by the individuals in the study (Heintzelman, 2003). There were also blatant lies that were told to the participants that put their lives in danger when they thought they were getting proper medical treatments (Heintzelman, 2003). To combat the atrocities that have been committed in the past, the US has established ethical review committees to make sure that all potential research is being conducted ethically, but also to assure that the research continues to be ethically ran as the study goes on (Jacobsen, 2017). In my opinion, it is great to have a checks and balances system to try and make sure that the research being done is being done as respectfully as possible for all participants. Much like the checks and balances in the federal government’s three main branches, the ethics committees are there to make sure that there are many individuals looking at the study from a non-biased perspective to assure that everything is being conducted ethically. So often, individuals who are in the thick of developing research plans can get stuck into what is needed for their study and can become blinded to other potential options or decisions that could be more ethical ways of managing the study. These committees look at the study from every angle and have many different individuals giving their perspective on the matter. As we cannot change the past and take back the atrocities that occurred in the concentration camps, or in Tuskegee, we can learn from the mistakes and try to rectify it for the future. These studies coming to light to the mass public leads the medical research community to want to do better for the future. Peer# 2 The Nuremberg Code was one of the first ethical standards created. Starting in 1947, this Code “mandated voluntary consent for experimental studies of humans” (Jacobsen, 2017, p. 181). It was created in response to “the horrors of human experimentation by Nazi physicians and investigators” (Ghooi, 2011, p. 72). The U.S. Public Health Service at Tuskegee is just as tragic. A little over 600 Black men were chosen in 1932 in the Tuskegee area (Morris, 2016). They were told they had “Bad Blood” and were promised free medical treatment and food if they participated in a study (Morris, 2016). What the doctors were reluctant to share was that 2/3 of the group had syphilis, with the remaining third without (and served as the control). This is in addition to many other ailments all of the Black men were diagnosed with (Morris, 2016). After four years of this study, the doctors decided the men would be subjects until their death to review the long-term effects of syphilis (Morris, 2016).\ Based on these two events, it is clear that Institutional Review Boards were made a critical checkpoint before any voluntary research study was conducted. Not only that but IRBs are required to “review and revise protocols” as they see ethically fit (Jacobsen, 2017, p. 195). IRBs generally contain at least five members, all with their own diverse backgrounds (Jacobsen, 2017). The number of people reviewing the prospective study may take at least a month to approve the study (Jacobsen, 2017). I can see why—my research topic focuses on mental health and requires sensitive questions and possibly even a consent form to protect the participants’ well-being. According to the textbook, exemptions are extremely hard to come by. So long as no biological specimen can be linked to the individuals, the study may be exempted (Jacobsen, 2017). In some cases, reviews must be taken by multiple committees! My point is that IRBs have been created to be extremely rigorous, which can only protect both the researcher and their participants.