Assignment: Patient with Chest Pain

Assignment: Patient with Chest Pain
Assignment: Patient with Chest Pain
Episodic/Focused SOAP Note Exemplar (pls use this template)
Focused SOAP Note for a patient with chest pain
S.
CC: “Chest pain”
HPI: The patient is a 65 year old AA male who developed sudden onset of chest pain, which began early this morning. The pain is described as “crushing” and is rated nine out of 10 in terms of intensity. The pain is located in the middle of the chest and is accompanied by shortness of breath. The patient reports feeling nauseous. The patient tried an antacid with minimal relief of his symptoms.
PMH: Positive history of GERD and hypertension is controlled
FH: Mother died at 78 of breast cancer; Father at 75 of CVA. No history of premature cardiovascular disease in first degree relatives.
SH : Negative for tobacco abuse, currently or previously; consumes moderate alcohol; married for 39 years
ROS
General–Negative for fevers, chills, fatigue
Cardiovascular–Negative for orthopnea, PND, positive for intermittent lower extremity edema
Gastrointestinal–Positive for nausea without vomiting; negative for diarrhea, abdominal pain
Pulmonary–Positive for intermittent dyspnea on exertion, negative for cough or hemoptysis
O.
Assignment: Patient with Chest Pain
Assignment: Patient with Chest Pain
VS: BP 186/102; P 94; R 22; T 97.8; 02 96% Wt 235lbs; Ht 70”
General–Pt appears diaphoretic and anxious
Cardiovascular–PMI is in the 5th inter-costal space at the mid clavicular line. A grade 2/6 systolic decrescendo murmur is heard best at the
second right inter-costal space which radiates to the neck.
A third heard sound is heard at the apex. No fourth heart sound or rub are heard. No cyanosis, clubbing, noted, positive for bilateral 2+ LE edema is noted.
Gastrointestinal–The abdomen is symmetrical without distention; bowel
sounds are normal in quality and intensity in all areas; a
bruit is heard in the right para-umbilical area. No masses or
splenomegaly are noted. Positive for mid-epigastric tenderness with deep palpation.
Pulmonary– Lungs are clear to auscultation and percussion bilaterally
Diagnostic results: EKG, CXR, CK-MB (support with evidenced and guidelines)
A.
Differential Diagnosis:
1) Myocardial Infarction (provide supportive documentation with evidence based guidelines).
2) Angina (provide supportive documentation with evidence based guidelines).
3) Costochondritis (provide supportive documentation with evidence based guidelines).
Primary Diagnosis/Presumptive Diagnosis: Myocardial Infarction
P. This section is not required for the assignments in this course (NURS 6512) but will be required for future courses.
Assignment 1: Case Study Assignment: Assessing Neurological Symptoms
Case #2:
CASE STUDY 2: Numbness and Pain A 47-year-old obese female complains of pain in her right wrist, with tingling and numbness in the thumb and index and middle fingers for the past 2 weeks. She has been frustrated because the pain causes her to drop her hair-styling tools
Imagine not being able to form new memories. This is the reality patients with anterograde amnesia face. Although this form of amnesia is rare, it can result from severe brain trauma. Anterograde amnesia demonstrates just how impactful brain disorders can be to a patient’s quality of living. Accurately assessing neurological symptoms is a complex process that involves the analysis of many factors.
In this Case Study Assignment, you will consider case studies that describe abnormal findings in patients seen in a clinical setting.
To Prepare
· You will be assigned to a specific case study for this Case Study Assignment (Please see Above)
· Also, your Case Study Assignment should be in the Episodic/Focused SOAP Note format( as in exampler above) rather than the traditional narrative style format. Refer to Chapter 2 of the Sullivan text and the Episodic/Focused SOAP Template in the Week 5 Learning Resources for guidance. Remember that all Episodic/Focused SOAP notes have specific data included in every patient case.
With regard to the case study you were assigned:
· Review this week’s Learning Resources, and consider the insights they provide about the case study.
· Consider what history would be necessary to collect from the patient in the case study you were assigned.
· 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 Case Study Assignment
Use the Episodic/Focused SOAP Template and create an episodic/focused note about the patient in the case study to which you were assigned using the episodic/focused note template provided ( ABOVE). Provide evidence from the literature to support diagnostic tests that would be appropriate for each case. List five different possible conditions for the patient’s differential diagnosis, and justify why you selected each.
Resource for references
Ball, J. W., Dains, J. E., Flynn, J. A., Solomon, B. S., & Stewart, R. W. (2019). Seidel’s guide to physical examination: An interprofessional approach (9th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.
Chapter 7, “Mental Status”
This chapter revolves around the mental status evaluation of an individual’s overall cognitive state. The chapter includes a list of mental abnormalities and their symptoms.
·Chapter 23, “Neurologic System”
The authors of this chapter explore the anatomy and physiology of the neurologic system. The authors also describe neurological examinations and potential findings.
Dains, J. E., Baumann, L. C., & Scheibel, P. (2019). Advanced health assessment and clinical diagnosis in primary care (6th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.
Credit Line: Advanced Health Assessment and Clinical Diagnosis in Primary Care, 6th Edition by Dains, J.E., Baumann, L. C., & Scheibel, P. Copyright 2019 by Mosby. Reprinted by permission of Mosby via the Copyright Clearance Center.
Chapter 4, “Affective Changes”
This chapter outlines how to identify the potential cause of affective changes in a patient. The authors provide a suggested approach to the evaluation of this type of change, and they include specific tools that can be used as part of the diagnosis.
Chapter 9, “Confusion in Older Adults”
This chapter focuses on causes of confusion in older adults, with an emphasis on dementia. The authors include suggested questions for taking a focused history as well as what to look for in a physical examination.
Chapter 13, “Dizziness”
Dizziness can be a symptom of many underlying conditions. This chapter outlines the questions to ask a patient in taking a focused history and different tests to use in a physical examination.
Chapter 19, “Headache”
The focus of this chapter is the identification of the causes of headaches. The first step is to ensure that the headache is not a life-threatening condition. The authors give suggestions for taking a thorough history and performing a physical exam.
Chapter 31, “Sleep Problems”
In this chapter, the authors highlight the main causes of sleep problems. They also provide possible questions to use in taking the patient’s history, things to look for when performing a physical exam, and possible laboratory and diagnostic studies that might be useful in making the diagnosis.
Sullivan, D. D. (2019). Guide to clinical documentation (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis.
Chapter 2, “The Comprehensive History and Physical Exam” (“Cranial Nerves and Their Function” and “Grading Reflexes”) (Previously read in Weeks 1, 2, 3, and 5)
Seidel, H. M., Ball, J. W., Dains, J. E., Flynn, J. A., Solomon, B. S., & Stewart, R. W. (2011). Physical examination objective data checklist. In Mosby’s guide to physical examination (7th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.
Credit Line: Mosby’s Guide to Physical Examination, 7th Edition by Seidel, H. M., Ball, J. W., Dains, J. E., Flynn, J. A., Solomon, B. S., & Stewart, R. W. Copyright 2011 by Elsevier. Reprinted by permission of Elsevier via the Copyright Clearance Center.
Ball, J. W., Dains, J. E., Flynn, J. A., Solomon, B. S., & Stewart, R. W. (2019). Neurologic system: Student checklist. In Seidel’s guide to physical examination: An interprofessional approach (9th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.
Credit Line: Seidel’s Guide to Physical Examination, 9th Edition by Ball, J. W., Dains, J. E., Flynn, J. A., Solomon, B. S., & Stewart, R. W. Copyright 2019 by Elsevier Health Sciences. Reprinted by permission of Elsevier Health Sciences via the Copyright Clearance Center.
Ball, J. W., Dains, J. E., Flynn, J. A., Solomon, B. S., & Stewart, R. W. (2019). Neurologic system: Key points. In Seidel’s guide to physical examination: An interprofessional approach (9th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.
Credit Line: Seidel’s Guide to Physical Examination, 9th Edition by Ball, J. W., Dains, J. E., Flynn, J. A., Solomon, B. S., & Stewart, R. W. Copyright 2019 by Elsevier Health Sciences. Reprinted by permission of Elsevier Health Sciences via the Copyright Clearance Center.
Ball, J. W., Dains, J. E., Flynn, J. A., Solomon, B. S., & Stewart, R. W. (2019). Mental status: Student checklist. In Seidel’s guide to physical examination: An interprofessional approach (9th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.
Credit Line: Seidel’s Guide to Physical Examination, 9th Edition by Ball, J. W., Dains, J. E., Flynn, J. A., Solomon, B. S., & Stewart, R. W. Copyright 2019 by Elsevier Health Sciences. Reprinted by permission of Elsevier Health Sciences via the Copyright Clearance Center.
Bearden , S. T., & Nay, L. B. (2011). Utility of EEG in differential diagnosis of adults with unexplained acute alteration of mental status. American Journal of Electroneurodiagnostic Technology, 51(2), 92–104.
This article reviews the use of electrocenographs (EEG) to assist in differential diagnoses. The authors provide differential diagnostic scenarios in which the EEG was useful.
Athilingam, P ., Visovsky, C., & Elliott, A. F. (2015). Cognitive screening in persons with chronic diseases in primary care: Challenges and recommendations for practice. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease & Other Dementias, 30(6), 547–558. doi:10.1177/1533317515577127
Sinclair , A. J., Gadsby, R., Hillson, R., Forbes, A., & Bayer, A. J. (2013). Brief report: Use of the Mini-Cog as a screening tool for cognitive impairment in diabetes in primary care. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 100(1), e23–e25. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2013.01.001
Roalf, D. R., Moberg, P. J., Xei, S. X., Wolk, D. A., Moelter, S. T., & Arnold, S. E. (2013). Comparative accuracies of two common screening instruments for classification of Alzheimer’s disease, mild cognitive impairment, and healthy aging. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 9(5), 529–537. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2012.10.001. Retrieved from http://www.alzheimersanddementia.com/article/S1552-5260(12)02463-6/abstract
Assignment: Patient with Chest Pain
Assignment: Patient with Chest Pain
You must proofread your paper. But do not strictly rely on your computer’s spell-checker and grammar-checker; failure to do so indicates a lack of effort on your part and you can expect your grade to suffer accordingly. Papers with numerous misspelled words and grammatical mistakes will be penalized. Read over your paper – in silence and then aloud – before handing it in and make corrections as necessary. Often it is advantageous to have a friend proofread your paper for obvious errors. Handwritten corrections are preferable to uncorrected mistakes.
Use a standard 10 to 12 point (10 to 12 characters per inch) typeface. Smaller or compressed type and papers with small margins or single-spacing are hard to read. It is better to let your essay run over the recommended number of pages than to try to compress it into fewer pages.
Likewise, large type, large margins, large indentations, triple-spacing, increased leading (space between lines), increased kerning (space between letters), and any other such attempts at “padding” to increase the length of a paper are unacceptable, wasteful of trees, and will not fool your professor.
The paper must be neatly formatted, double-spaced with a one-inch margin on the top, bottom, and sides of each page. When submitting hard copy, be sure to use white paper and print out using dark ink. If it is hard to read your essay, it will also be hard to follow your argument.
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS
Discussion Questions (DQ)
Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words.
Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source.
One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words.
I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses.
Weekly Participation
Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately.
In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies.
Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work).
Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week.
APA Format and Writing Quality
Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required).
Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation.
I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition.
Use of Direct Quotes
I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’ level and deduct points accordingly.
As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content.
It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source.
LopesWrite Policy
For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me.
Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes.
Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own?
Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score.
Late Policy
The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies.
Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances.
If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect.
I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension.
As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading.
Communication
Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me:
Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class.
Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours.
Name: NURS_6512_Week_9_Assignment1_Rubric
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Using the Episodic/Focused SOAP Template:
· Create documentation or an episodic/focused note in SOAP format about the patient in the case study to which you were assigned.
· Provide evidence from the literature to support diagnostic tests that would be appropriate for your case.
Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly follows the SOAP format to document the patient in the assigned case study. The response thoroughly and accurately provides detailed evidence from the literature to support diagnostic tests that would be appropriate for the patient in the assigned case study.
Points Range: 39 (39%) – 44 (44%)
The response accurately follows the SOAP format to document the patient in the assigned case study. The response accurately provides detailed evidence from the literature to support diagnostic tests that would be appropriate for the patient in the assigned case study.
Points Range: 33 (33%) – 38 (38%)
The response follows the SOAP format to document the patient in the assigned case study, with some vagueness and inaccuracy. The response provides evidence from the literature to support diagnostic tests that would be appropriate for the patient in the assigned case study, with some vagueness or inaccuracy in the evidence selected.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 32 (32%)
The response incompletely and inaccurately follows the SOAP format to document the patient in the assigned case study. The response provides incomplete, inaccurate, and/or missing evidence from the literature to support diagnostic tests that would be appropriate for the patient in the assigned case study.
· List five different possible conditions for the patient’s differential diagnosis, and justify why you selected each.
Points Range: 30 (30%) – 35 (35%)
The response lists five distinctly different and detailed possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study and provides a thorough, accurate, and detailed justification for each of the five conditions selected.
Points Range: 24 (24%) – 29 (29%)
The response lists four to five different possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study and provides an accurate justification for each of the five conditions selected.
Points Range: 18 (18%) – 23 (23%)
The response lists three to four possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, with some vagueness and/or some inaccuracy in the conditions and/or justification for each.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 17 (17%)
The response lists three or fewer, or is missing, possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, with inaccurate or missing justification for each condition selected.
Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused–neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria.
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet are brief and not descriptive.
Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are vague or off topic.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided. Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many (? 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running heads, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors. Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many (? 5) APA format errors. Total Points: 100 Name: NURS_6512_Week_9_Assignment1_Rubric