Comprehensive Case Study on COPD, Heart Failure, Hypertension, and Diabetes Mellitus

pneybfneznf1988
timer Asked: Dec 8th, 2017

Question Description

For your signature assignment, compose a 3- to 4-page case analysis, written in APA format with a title page and at least 3 references, with one non-Internet reference. Organize your analysis with headings that thoroughly answer the following prompts. Support your opinions with evidence from your readings and research. Review the rubric for complete grading criteria.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

1. Comprehensive Case Study on COPD, Heart Failure, Hypertension, and Diabetes Mellitus M. K. is a 45-year-old female measuring 5'5" and weighing 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 increased 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: Vitals BP 158/98 mm Hg CBC Hematocrit 57% Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.3 % Arterial Blood Gas Assessment PaCO₂ 52 mm Hg PaO₂ 48 mm Hg Lipid Panel Cholesterol 242 mg/dL HDL 32 mg/dL LDL 173 mg/dL Triglycerides 184 mg/dL For your signature assignment, compose a 3- to 4-page case analysis, written in APA format with a title page and at least 3 references, with one non-Internet reference. Organize your analysis with headings that thoroughly answer the following prompts. Support your opinions with evidence from your readings and research. Review the rubric for complete grading criteria. 1. In your introduction, summarize the case. 2. What clinical findings correlate with M. K.’s chronic bronchitis? What type of treatment and recommendations would be appropriate for M. K.’s chronic bronchitis? 3. Which type of heart failure would you suspect with M. K.? Explain the pathogenesis of how this type of heart failure develops. 4. According to the BP. value, what stage of hypertension is M. K. experiencing? Explain the rationale for the current medications for her hypertension. 5. According to the lipid panel, what other condition is M. K. at risk for? According to this case study, what other medications should be given and why? What additional findings correlate for both hypertension and type II diabetes mellitus? 6. Interpret the lab value for HbA1c and explain the rationale for this value in relation to normal/abnormal body function. 7. Provide a conclusion that summarizes your findings and discusses the effects of this disease in the U.S. population. Points possible: 100 • Grid View • List View Rubric Meets or Exceeds Expectations Introduction Points Range:4.3 (4.3%) 5 (5%) Introduction summarizes the case comprehensively and prepares the reader for the remainder of the paper. Heart failure and pathogenisis Bronchitis Approaches Expectations Below Expectations Points Range:3.65 (3.65%) 4.25 (4.25%) Points Range:3 (3%) 3.6 (3.6%) Introduction summarizes the case and somewhat prepares the reader for the remainder of the paper. Points Range:11.18 (11.18%) 13 (13%) Points Range:9.49 (9.49%) 11.05 (11.05%) Identifies and thoroughly explains type of heart failure and the pathogenesis. Information is scientifically sound, thorough, supported and sufficient. Mostly Identifies and thoroughly explains type of heart failure and the pathogenesis. Information is scientifically sound, thorough, necessary and sufficient. Points Range:11.18 (11.18%) 13 (13%) Points Range:9.49 (9.49%) 11.05 (11.05%) Provides clinical findings, treatment, and recommendations of chronic bronchitis. Information is scientifically sound, thorough, supported and sufficient Provides most clinical findings, treatment, and recommendations of chronic bronchitis but may be limited. Information is mostly scientifically sound, thorough, necessary and sufficient Introduction lacks detail to prepare the reader for the case. Points Range:7.8 (7.8%) 9.36 (9.36%) Provides insufficient explanations Information is not entirely scientifically sound, necessary or supported with evidence and a sound rationale. Points Range:7.8 (7.8%) 9.36 (9.36%) Provides insufficient explanations of rationale. Information is not entirely scientifically sound, necessary and sufficient. Does not address the context sufficiently or with sound rationale. Hypertension Lipid Panel Lab Values Meets or Exceeds Expectations Approaches Expectations Below Expectations Points Range:11.18 (11.18%) 13 (13%) Points Range:9.49 (9.49%) 11.05 (11.05%) Points Range:7.8 (7.8%) 9.36 (9.36%) Provides thorough and detailed explanations for stages of hypertension, current medications and the impact of the disease in the U.S. population. Information is scientifically sound, supported and sufficient. Provides mostly sufficient explanations for stage of hypertension, current medications and the impact of the disease in the U.S. population. Information is mostly scientifically sound, support and sufficient. Points Range:11.18 (11.18%) 13 (13%) Points Range:9.49 (9.49%) 11.05 (11.05%) Thoroughly details other conditions from the lipid panel with expert rationale and supported reasoning. Correlates lipid panel to hypertension and Type II diabetes mellitus. Correctly suggests other medication that should be given. Rationale is thorough, supported and sufficient. Provides some details regarding other conditions from the lipid panel with rationale and reasoning, although may be limited in certain areas. Mostly correlates lipid panel to hypertension and Type II diabetes mellitus. Suggests other medication that should be given but may be erroneous in some areas. Rationale is supported and mostly sufficient. Points Range:11.18 (11.18%) 13 (13%) Points Range:9.49 (9.49%) 11.05 (11.05%) Provides insufficient explanations. Information is not entirely scientifically sound, necessary and sufficient. Does not address the context sufficiently or with sound rationale. Points Range:7.8 (7.8%) 9.36 (9.36%) Provides insufficient explanations of lipid panel rationale and correlation to disease and medication. Information is not entirely scientifically sound, necessary or sufficient. Points Range:7.8 (7.8%) 9.36 (9.36%) Provides insufficient explanations for lab Meets or Exceeds Expectations Overall Clinical findings and case analysis/Summary Mechanics Approaches Expectations Below Expectations Provides thorough and insightful explanations for lab values, specifically HbA1c, along with the rationale in relation to normal/abnormal body function. Information is scientifically sound, supported and sufficient in detail. Provides mostly thorough explanations for lab values, specifically HbA1c, along with the rationale in relation to normal/abnormal body function. Information is mostly scientifically sound, supported but may lack detail in some areas. values/HbA1c and insufficient rationale in relation to normal/abnormal body function. Does not address the context sufficiently or with sound rationale. Points Range:10.32 (10.32%) 12 (12%) Points Range:8.76 (8.76%) 10.2 (10.2%) Points Range:7.2 (7.2%) 8.64 (8.64%) Provides an overall thorough case analysis with clinical findings on case. Clinical findings are supported with evidence, compared and rationalized thoroughly. The type of heart failure is explained and supported. Provides an overall case analysis with clinical findings on case. Clinical findings are mostly supported with evidence, compared and rationalized with some evidence of critical thinking. The type of heart failure is explained and supported. Points Range:6.88 (6.88%) 8 (8%) Points Range:5.84 (5.84%) 6.8 (6.8%) Answers are well written throughout. Information is well organized and clearly communicated.The writing is free of spelling and grammatical errors. Answers are well written throughout and the information is reasonably organized and communicated. It is mostly free of spelling and grammatical errors. Provides a limited overall case analysis with limited clinical findings on case, there is little to no support of clinical findings with evidence. The type of heart failure is not explained and/or not supported. Points Range:4.8 (4.8%) 5.76 (5.76%) Answers are somewhat organized and lacks some clarity. Contains some spelling and grammatical errors APA format and References Meets or Exceeds Expectations Approaches Expectations Below Expectations Points Range:8.6 (8.6%) 10 (10%) Points Range:7.3 (7.3%) 8.5 (8.5%) Points Range:6 (6%) 7.2 (7.2%) Meets all the requirements related to length. There is a minimum of 3 scholarly resources with at least 1 non-internet source. All references are correctly cited in APA format. The student shows a solid grasp of APA formatting, paraphrasing and citations. Meets most of the requirements related to length. There is a minimum of 3 resources with at least 1 noninternet source; the references may be questionable or not scholarly in nature. Most references are correctly cited in APA format. The student shows a good grasp of APA formatting, paraphrasing and citations but needs refinement in some areas. Meets some of the requirements related to length but is lacking enough to impede the meaning of the paper. The references do not meet required count and/or may be questionable or not scholarly in nature. References are not correctly cited in APA format. The student does not show a good grasp of APA formatting, paraphrasing and citations. Name:PATH 370 Signature Assignment Rubric NEW
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Similar Content

Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors