NRNP 6568 WEEK 6 Assessing, Diagnosing, and Treating Patients With Complex Conditions

NRNP 6568 WEEK 6 Assessing, Diagnosing, and Treating Patients With Complex Conditions

Assessing, Diagnosing, and Treating Patients with Complex Conditions

Patient Information:

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
NRNP 6568 WEEK 6 Assessing, Diagnosing, and Treating Patients With Complex Conditions
Just from $7/Page
Order Essay

ED, 69 years, Male

S.

CC (chief complaint): “Fatigue, fever, and chills”

HPI: ED is a 69-year-old male who presented to the facility complaining of fever, chills, and fatigue for the past few days. ED did not take his temperature but reported feeling hot. He expressed coughing up a little phlegm, pain when taking a deep breath, and changes in his appetite. ED has been taking Tylenol with minimal relief. He has been drinking teas to break up the phlegm. ED is a non-smoker and non-drinker.

Current Medications: ED has been taking Tylenol with minimal relief. He has been drinking teas to break up the phlegm.

Allergies: ED denied food, drug, or environmental allergies.

PMHx: ED denied a history of hospitalization or surgery. His immunization is up-to-date. He received his last tetanus toxoid vaccine more than a year ago.

Soc & Substance Hx: ED is a retired teacher. He is a non-smoker and a non-drinker. He is married. He lives with his wife and a dog. His hobbies include reading and visiting new places. He uses a seat belt when driving. ED does not have a gun at home. Their home has working smoke detectors. His family is his support system.

Fam Hx: ED reports his father died of chronic hypertension. His father also had type 2 diabetes mellitus. His paternal grandfather died from lung cancer. His uncle died from substance use disorder. There is no other significant family history.

Surgical Hx: ED denied any history of surgery

Mental Hx: ED denied any history of mental health problems, including depression and anxiety.

Violence Hx: ED denied any violence concerns.

Reproductive Hx: ED denied any history of sexually transmitted infections. He also denied urgency, frequency, or dysuria.

ROS:

GENERAL: The patient reports fever, chills, and fatigue.

HEENT: Eyes: ED denies visual changes, eye drainage, or eye pain. He denies hearing loss, nasal congestion, sneezing, sore throat, or runny nose.

SKIN: ED denies skin rash or skin itchiness

CARDIOVASCULAR: ED reports chest pain on inspiration. He denies palpitations, chest pressure, or discomfort.

RESPIRATORY: ED reports a productive cough with no shortness of breath

GASTROINTESTINAL: ED reports changes in his appetite. He denies nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or constipation.

GENITOURINARY: ED denies burning on urination, urinary frequency, or urgency.

NEUROLOGICAL: ED denies headaches, dizziness, ataxia, or numbness. There is no change in his bladder or bowel control.

MUSCULOSKELETAL: ED denies joint pain or stiffness.

HEMATOLOGIC: ED denied anemia or easy bleeding.

LYMPHATICS: ED denied lymphadenopathy or a history of splenectomy.

PSYCHIATRIC: ED denies a history of anxiety or depression.

ENDOCRINOLOGIC: ED denies heat or cold intolerance, polyuria, or polydipsia

REPRODUCTIVE: ED denies penile discharge.

ALLERGIES: ED denies asthma, rhinitis, or allergic reactions

O.

Physical exam:

Vitals: BP 130/80, P 84, R 14, T103.2, SPO2 94%

Respiratory: The patient is not in visible respiratory distress. There is no nasal flaring. Auscultation reveals decreased rales and rhonchi, which are more pronounced in the left lower lung fields. There is increased dullness and fremitus to percussion. A chest x-ray reveals left lower lobe consolidation.

Cardiovascular: There is no cyanosis or lower limb edema. Auscultation reveals normal heart rhythm with no murmurs or skipped beats.

Diagnostic results: A chest x-ray was ordered. It revealed left lower lobe consolidation. A sputum culture and sensitivity should be ordered. This will help determine the bacteria associated with ED’s respiratory problem. It would also guide treatment decisions.

A.

Differential Diagnoses:

Pneumonia: Pneumonia is ED’s primary diagnosis. Pneumonia is an infection of the lung parenchyma caused by bacteria, fungi, or viruses. Patients present to the hospital complaining of malaise, fever, chills, myalgias, cough, and loss of appetite (Jain et al., 2024). Physical examination findings seen in these patients include tachycardia, tachypnea, decreased bronchial breath sounds, egophony, tactile fremitus, crackles, and dullness on percussion. Radiological evaluation through chest X-rays would reveal lung consolidation (Aliberti et al., 2021; Niederman & Torres, 2022). Physical examination, radiological, and subjective assessment findings confirm pneumonia diagnosis. For example, there is left lower lobe consolidation, dullness on percussion, and malaise.

Tuberculosis: Tuberculosis is ED’s secondary diagnosis. Tuberculosis is a respiratory tract infection caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Patients present to the hospital complaining of fever, cough, weight loss, malaise, and night sweats. Sputum culture is the gold approach to TB diagnosis (Natarajan et al., 2020; Tobin & Tristram, 2024). However, it is the least likely diagnosis for ED because of the absence of night sweats and unintentional weight loss.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): COPD is a respiratory tract infection characterized by airflow limitation to the lungs. Recurrent exposure to noxious substances causes airway inflammation and structural lung changes. COPD is commonly seen in patients with cigarette smoking. Patients experience symptoms, including cough, dyspnea, and sputum production (Agarwal et al., 2024; Ritchie & Wedzicha, 2020; Stolz et al., 2022). COPD is the least likely diagnosis due to the absence of a smoking history and symptoms such as dyspnea.

A chest x-ray was performed. It revealed left lower lobe consolidation. Laboratory investigations, including sputum and blood culture, microscopy, lymphocyte, and blood counts should be ordered. A C-reactive protein test should also be performed to differentiate between bacterial and viral pneumonia. The patient was prescribed oral doxycycline 500 mg BD for five days and oral Tylenol 1 g thrice daily as needed for pain. The patient was educated on the importance of treatment adherence, infection prevention, and signs of worsening disease status that should be reported (Jain et al., 2024). A follow-up visit was scheduled after two weeks to assess treatment response.

Health promotion and disease prevention strategies such as emphasizing the importance of flu vaccination were considered. ED was educated on the significance of utilizing screening services, including prostate cancer, hypertension, and diabetes for timely diagnoses and treatment. ED was also educated on the importance of healthy dietary practices, engaging in active physical activity, and minimizing exposure to environmental allergens for his optimal health (Ritchie & Wedzicha, 2020).

The reflection also is included in this section. I learned from this case study the benefits of a comprehensive patient assessment. Practitioners should perform detailed subjective and objective assessments to develop accurate diagnoses and appropriate treatment plans. For example, they should not rely on subjective findings alone but obtain objective data through physical examination, laboratory investigations, and diagnostic studies. I will use the knowledge gained to develop patient-centered care plans that optimize outcomes.

References

Agarwal, A. K., Raja, A., & Brown, B. D. (2024). Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559281/

Aliberti, S., Cruz, C. S. D., Amati, F., Sotgiu, G., & Restrepo, M. I. (2021). Community-acquired pneumonia. The Lancet, 398(10303), 906–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00630-9

Jain, V., Vashisht, R., Yilmaz, G., & Bhardwaj, A. (2024). Pneumonia Pathology. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK526116/

Natarajan, A., Beena, P. M., Devnikar, A. V., & Mali, S. (2020). A systemic review on tuberculosis. Indian Journal of Tuberculosis, 67(3), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtb.2020.02.005

Niederman, M. S., & Torres, A. (2022). Severe community-acquired pneumonia. European Respiratory Review, 31(166). https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0123-2022

Ritchie, A. I., & Wedzicha, J. A. (2020). Definition, Causes, Pathogenesis, and Consequences of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations. Clinics in Chest Medicine, 41(3), 421–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccm.2020.06.007

Stolz, D., Mkorombindo, T., Schumann, D. M., Agusti, A., Ash, S. Y., Bafadhel, M., Bai, C., Chalmers, J. D., Criner, G. J., Dharmage, S. C., Franssen, F. M. E., Frey, U., Han, M., Hansel, N. N., Hawkins, N. M., Kalhan, R., Konigshoff, M., Ko, F. W., Parekh, T. M., … Dransfield, M. T. (2022). Towards the elimination of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A Lancet Commission. The Lancet, 400(10356), 921–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01273-9

Tobin, E. H., & Tristram, D. (2024). Tuberculosis. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441916/

CLICK HERE TO ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER

Assessing, Diagnosing, and Treating Patients With Complex Conditions

 

For this Assignment, you will be assigned a complex patient case study with conditions related to any of the topics covered in Weeks 4–6. This includes cardiovascular, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, musculoskeletal, and neurological conditions.

Resources

 

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

Learning Resources

Required Readings

  • Leik, M. T. C. (2021). Family nurse practitioner certification intensive review (4th ed.). Springer Publishing Company.
    • Ch. 12, Nervous System Review
    • Ch. 14, Musculoskeletal System Review
  • Buppert, C. (2021). Nurse practitioner’s business practice and legal guide (7th ed.). Jones & Bartlett.
    • “Musculoskeletal Examination” (pp. 197–198)
    • “Neurological Examination” (pp. 198–199)

Note: The textbook listed below is from NRNP 6531. Review the chapters assigned in this textbook as needed to refresh your knowledge.

  • Buttaro, T. M., Polgar-Bailey, P., Sandberg-Cook, J., & Trybulski, J. (2021). Primary care: Interprofessional collaborative practice (6th ed.). Elsevier.
    • Ch. 154, Ankle and Foot Pain
    • Ch. 155, Bone Lesions: Neoplasms and Tumor Mimickers
    • Ch. 156, Bursitis
    • Ch. 157, Fibromyalgia and Myofascial Pain Syndrome
    • Ch. 158, Gout
    • Ch. 159, Septic Arthritis
    • Ch. 160, Low Back Pain
    • Ch. 161, Hip Pain
    • Ch. 162, Knee Pain
    • Ch. 163, Metabolic Bone Disease: Osteoporosis and Paget Disease of the Bone
    • Ch. 164, Neck Pain
    • Ch. 165, Osteoarthritis
    • Ch. 166, Osteomyelitis
    • Ch. 167, Shoulder Pain
    • Ch. 168, Sprains, Strains, and Fractures
    • Ch. 169, Elbow Pain
    • Ch. 170, Hand and Wrist Pain
    • Ch. 171, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
    • Ch. 172, Bell’s Palsy
    • Ch. 173, Cerebrovascular Events
    • Ch. 174, Dementia
    • Ch. 175, Dizziness and Vertigo
    • Ch. 176, Guillain-Barré Syndrome
    • Ch. 177, Headache
    • Ch. 178, Infections of the Central Nervous System
    • Ch. 179, Movement Disorders and Essential Tremor
    • Ch. 180, Multiple Sclerosis
    • Ch. 181, Parkinson Disease
    • Ch. 182, Seizure Disorder
    • Ch. 183, Trigeminal Neuralgia
    • Ch. 184, Intracranial Tumors
    • Ch. 195, Polymyalgia Rheumatica and Giant Cell Arteritis
    • Ch. 196, Raynaud’s Phenomenon
    • Ch. 197, Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Ch. 198, Seronegative Spondyloarthropathies
    • Ch. 199, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
    • Ch. 200, Vasculitis

Required Media

  • Assessment and Management of Patients with Neurologic Problems
    Dr. Nancy Lenaghan discusses the assessment and management of patients with neurological issues. (45m)

Recommended Media

To Prepare:

  • Review this and previous weeks’ Learning Resources as needed.
  • Review the case study provided by your Instructor. Based on the provided patient information, think about the health history you would need to collect from the patient.
  • Consider what physical exams and diagnostic tests would be appropriate in order to gather more information about the patient’s condition. Reflect on how the results would be used to make a diagnosis.
  • Identify three to five possible conditions that may be considered in a differential diagnosis for the patient.
  • Consider each patient’s diagnosis. Think about clinical guidelines that might support this diagnosis.
  • Develop a treatment plan for the patient that includes health promotion and patient education strategies for patients with their condition(s).

The Assignment:

Use the Focused SOAP Note Template to address the following:

  • Subjective: What details are provided regarding the patient’s personal and medical history?
  • Objective: What observations did you make during the physical assessment? Include pertinent positive and negative physical exam findings. Describe whether the patient presented with any morbidities or psychosocial issues.
  • Assessment: Explain your differential diagnoses, providing a minimum of three. List them from highest priority to lowest priority and include their CPT and ICD-10 codes for the diagnosis. What would your primary diagnosis be and why?
  • Plan: Explain your plan for diagnostics and primary diagnosis. What would your plan be for treatment and management? Include pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters as well as a rationale for this treatment and management plan.
  • Reflection notes: Describe your “aha!” moments from analyzing this case.

By Day 7

Submit your focused SOAP note.

submission information

Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.

  1. To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK6Assgn_LastName_Firstinitial
  2. Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
  3. Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.

Rubric

NRNP_6568_Week6_Assignment_Rubric

NRNP_6568_Week6_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCreate documentation in the Focused SOAP Note Template about the patient in the case study to which you were assigned. In the Subjective section, provide: • Chief complaint• History of present illness (HPI) • Current medications• Allergies• Patient medical history (PMHx) • Review of systems
10 to >8.0 ptsExcellent 90%–100%

The response throughly and accurately describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, current medications, allergies, medical history, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis.

8 to >7.0 ptsGood 80%–89%

The response accurately describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, current medications, allergies, medical history, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis.

7 to >6.0 ptsFair 70%–79%

The response describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, current medications, allergies, medical history, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis, but it is somewhat vague or contains minor innacuracies.

6 to >0 ptsPoor 0%–69%

The response provides an incomplete or inaccurate description of the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, current medications, allergies, medical history, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Or, subjective documentation is missing.

10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn the Objective section, provide: • Physical exam documentation of systems pertinent to the chief complaint, HPI, and history• Diagnostic results, including any labs, imaging, or other assessments needed to develop the differential diagnoses
10 to >8.0 ptsExcellent 90%–100%

The response thoroughly and accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are thoroughly and accurately documented.

8 to >7.0 ptsGood 80%–89%

The response accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are accurately documented.

7 to >6.0 ptsFair 70%–79%

Documentation of the patient’s physical exam is somewhat vague or contains minor innacuracies. Diagnostic tests and their results are documented but contain minor innacuracies.

6 to >0 ptsPoor 0%–69%

The response provides incomplete or inaccurate documentation of the patient’s physical exam. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed, or objective documentation is missing.

10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn the Assessment section, provide: • At least three differentials with supporting evidence. Explain what rules each differential in or out and justify your primary diagnosis selection. Include pertinent positives and pertinent negatives for the specific patient case.
25 to >22.0 ptsExcellent 90%–100%

The response lists in order of priority at least three distinctly different and detailed possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, and it provides a thorough, accurate, and detailed justification for each of the conditions selected.

22 to >19.0 ptsGood 80%–89%

The response lists in order of priority at least three different possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, and it provides an accurate justification for each of the conditions selected.

19 to >17.0 ptsFair 70%–79%

The response lists three possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, with some vagueness and/or inaccuracy in the conditions and/or justification for each.

17 to >0 ptsPoor 0%–69%

The response lists two 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.

25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn the Plan section, provide: • A detailed treatment plan for the patient that addresses each diagnosis, as applicable. Includes documentation of diagnostic studies that will be obtained, referrals to other healthcare providers, therapeutic interventions, education, disposition of the patient, and any planned follow up visits. • A discussion related to health promotion and disease prevention taking into consideration patient factors, PMH, and other risk factors. • Reflections on the case describing insights or lessons learned.
30 to >26.0 ptsExcellent 90%–100%

The response thoroughly and accurately outlines a treatment plan for the patient that addresses each diagnosis and includes diagnostic studies neeed, referrals, therapeutic interventions, patient education and disposition, and planned follow-up visits. A thorough and accurate discussion of health promotion and disease prevention related to the case is provided. Reflections on the case demonstrate strong critical thinking and synthesis of ideas.

26 to >23.0 ptsGood 80%–89%

The response accurately outlines a treatment plan for the patient that addresses each diagnosis and includes diagnostic studies neeed, referrals, therapeutic interventions, patient education and disposition, and planned follow-up visits. An accurate discussion of health promotion and disease prevention related to the case is provided. Reflections on the case demonstrate critical thinking.

23 to >20.0 ptsFair 70%–79%

The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately outlines a treatment plan for the patient. The discussion on health promotion and disease prevention related to the case is somewhat vague or contains innaccuracies. Reflections on the case demonstrate adequate understanding of course topics.

20 to >0 ptsPoor 0%–69%

The response does not address all diagnoses or is missing elements of the treatment plan. The discussion on health promotion and disease prevention related to the case is vague, innaccurate, or missing. Reflections on the case are vague or missing.

30 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProvide at least three evidence-based, peer-reviewed journal articles or evidenced-based guidelines that relate to this case to support your diagnostics and differentials diagnoses. Be sure they are current (no more than 5 years old) and support the treatment plan in following current standards of care.
10 to >8.0 ptsExcellent 90%–100%

The response provides at least three current, evidence-based resources from the literature to support the treatment plan for the patient in the assigned case study. Each resource represents the latest in standards of care and provides strong justification for treatment decisions.

8 to >7.0 ptsGood 80%–89%

The response provides at least three current, evidence-based resources from the literature to support the treatment plan for the patient in the assigned case study. Each resource represents current standards of care and supports treatment decisions.

7 to >6.0 ptsFair 70%–79%

Three evidence-based resources are provided to support treatment decisions, but may not represent the latest in standards of care or may only provide vague or weak justification for the treatment plan.

6 to >0 ptsPoor 0%–69%

Two or fewer resources are provided to support treatment decisions. The resources may not be current or evidence based or do not support the treatment plan.

10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten 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.
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent 90%–100%

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.

4 to >3.0 ptsGood 80%–89%

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.

3 to >2.0 ptsFair 70%–79%

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.

2 to >0 ptsPoor 0%–69%

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided.

5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent 90%–100%

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

4 to >3.0 ptsGood 80%–89%

Contains 1 or 2 grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

3 to >2.0 ptsFair 70%–79%

Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

2 to >0 ptsPoor 0%–69%

Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.

5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running heads, parenthetical/narrative in-text citations, and reference list.
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent 90%–100%

Uses correct APA format with no errors.

4 to >3.0 ptsGood 80%–89%

Contains 1 or 2 APA format errors.

3 to >2.0 ptsFair 70%–79%

Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.

2 to >0 ptsPoor 0%–69%

Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.

5 pts
Total Points: 100

 

24/7 Nursing Help Online – Fast, Reliable, and Expert-Approved.
From NCLEX prep to clinical advice, get instant nursing help from licensed professionals. Trusted by students and nurses worldwide.

Good News ! We now help with PROCTORED EXAMS. Chat with a support agent for more information

X