[ANSWER]Nurse 3005 Assignment 3: Clinical Case Conference Report: A Case of Diabetic Foot Ulcers
TASK DESCRIPTION Instructions and Marking Guide Clinical Case Conference
Topic Code & Name: | Nurs 3005 Transition to professional practice 2 (PEP) |
Assessment Number & Title (as per SAM): | Assignment 3: Clinical Case Conference Report (2500 words +/- 10%) |
Assessment Description: | This academic paper requires students to write up the patient presented at their Clinical Case Conference (CCC) as a detailed report. There must be analysis of the patient’s medical condition(s) demonstrating the ability to apply theoretical concepts including (but not limited to) pharmacology; pathophysiology; anatomy and physiology. There must be discussion and evaluation of nursing and medical management of the patient. Sound Clinical Case Conference rationales must be provided that support the care given to the patient. Appropriate evidence based literature sources must be used and APA 6th edition referencing used throughout. You must follow Academic Standards and policy in writing, with the report to be written in third person. The CCC Report must be uploaded with the CCC Declaration cover sheet otherwise the report will not be marked until a copy is received by the tutor allocated to mark the report. Please refer to the marking guide below for the specific requirements of the assignment, you may use the marking guide headings throughout your paper however please note the section on Evaluation of nursing and medical management should not be a heading but should be integrated throughout your entire paper supporting your knowledge and understanding of the patient case. |
Performance standard | ||||||
Assessment criteria | Weighting | Excellent (13-15) | Good (10-12) | Satisfactory (7.5-9) | Unsatisfactory (0-7) | Notes |
Introduction: Introduces patient presented for clinical case conference.Presents biographical data Presents current medical history of patient.Presents relevant past medical history of patient. | 15% /15 | Excellent presentation and introduction of the patient Confidentiality maintained. | Introduction to the case clearly described. | Introduction to the case described but not clear. | Inadequate or no introduction of essay. No introduction to the case. Confidentiality not maintained | |
Assessment criteria | Weighting | Excellent (27-35) | Good (22-26) | Satisfactory (17.5-21) | Unsatisfactory (0-17) | Notes |
Discussion: Demonstrates understanding of patient’s medical condition(s), including relevant anatomy and physiology and in – depth pathophysiology discussion.Nursing management Included – clinical assessment using systems- based approach, explanation of how nursing management relates to medical management with clear clinical rationales provided, role of interdisciplinary team involvement explained, and primary health care strategies described.Medical management and Treatments described including all relevant pharmacological, non – pharmacological treatments, pain management explained, and clear clinical rationales provided. | 35% /35 | Nursing management very well explained with good evaluation. Succinct, correct clinical rationales provided. Clinical assessment findings are clearly described, using systems- based approach. Logical and orderly progression of ideas, with good use of headings. Relevant laboratory results / diagnostic tests provided and explained succinctly. Relevant psychosocial aspects of the case reported empathically, and management described. Ethical and legal aspects described clearly and objectively. | Nursing management well explained with some evaluation. Well written and mostly correct clinical rationales provided. Clinical Case Conference assessment findings are described using systems-based approach. Good progression of ideas, with appropriate headings. Relevant laboratory results / diagnostic tests provided and explained. Relevant psychosocial aspects of the case reported, and some comments made. Ethical and legal aspects described. | Nursing management explained with limited evaluation and deserves more attention. Clinical rationales provide some justification for care but are not always well written. Adequate history of the patient described. Clinical assessment findings using systems-based approach is limited and do not present clear case. Organized with some confusing sequencing or structure or poor use of headings. Laboratory results / diagnostic tests provided with limited linking to theoretical concepts. Relevant psychosocial aspects of the case reported but described at superficial level. Ethical and legal aspects described superficially Clinical Case Conference. | Nursing management poorly explained with little evaluation. Clinical rationales are poor and in the main either too brief or too lengthy. History of the patient is described too briefly. Clinical assessment findings using systems- based approach is absent, superficially or poorly described, no or inadequate discussion of the head to toe assessment of the patient. Poorly structured discussion. Writing is disjointed, clumsy and/or repetitive. Poor use of headings. Relevant laboratory results / diagnostic tests not provided or are explained poorly. Relevant psychosocial aspects of the case not reported. Ethical and legal aspects not described adequately. |
Relevant Laboratory results / Diagnostic tests included and discussed.Evidence of ability to make clinical inferences based upon the data available.Psychosocial / Environmental / Economic aspects discussedEthical and legal aspects includedEducation needs of patient / family addressedDischarge Planning addressed | A depth of understanding is reflected in discussion. All relevant and contentious areas thoroughly addressed. Considerable additional reading evident and incorporated in presentation. Meaningful synthesis of the evidence presented soundly. Education needs very well covered Clinical Case Conference. Discharge planning shows comprehensive awareness of the patient’s needs as identified and clearly discussed in presentation. Care provided by the interdisciplinary team clearly and thoroughly described. Al relevant A&P, pathophysiology and pharmacology discussed to a very high standard, linking to the patient case and showing an excellent depth of knowledge of the patient condition and treatments. | Sound understanding of the condition/ situation reflected with appropriate evidence sources used. More than adequate additional reading evident. Effective synthesis of themes evident. Education needs covered quite well with only small areas for improvement. Discharge planning shows awareness of all the patient’s needs as identified and discussed during the presentation. Care provided by the interdisciplinary team described, but not very well evaluated. Al relevant A&P, pathophysiology and pharmacology discussed, some small gaps in the knowledge however overall the student demonstrated a good level of knowledge of the presented patient case Clinical Case Conference. | Adequate understanding of the condition/ situation reflected, and appropriate evidence sources used. Adequate additional reading evident. Synthesis of themes of the evidence attempted. Most education needs of patient covered. Discharge planning shows some awareness of the patient’s needs and discussed. Care provided by the interdisciplinary team described, but not evaluated. Al relevant A&P, pathophysiology and pharmacology discussed however limited knowledge and integration into patient case noted. | Inadequate understanding of the condition/ situation reflected, and appropriate evidence sources used Limited additional reading evident. Synthesis of themes of the evidence not attempted. Education needs not addressed at all or superficially at best. Discharge planning discussion poor. Care provided by the interdisciplinary team inadequately or very poorly described, with little emphasis on the role of the nurse. Apparent lack of ability to apply knowledge as evidenced by poor comprehension of A&P, pharmacology, pathophysiology etc. | ||
Assessment criteria | Weighting | Excellent (16-20) | Good (13-15) | Satisfactory (10-12) | Unsatisfactory (0-9) | Notes |
Evaluation of nursing and medical management (to be integrated throughout the report- not as a heading): Rationales for practice and knowledge supported by the current evidenced based literature.Description of how your nursing- research/findings/recent evidence is related to the patient or venue. | 20% /20 | The link between the literature findings and the presented case is consistently and persuasively made. The management and nursing care of the patient is compared and critiqued in detail with the best and most recent available evidence. | The link between the literature findings and the case is well made. The management and nursing care of the case is largely compared and critiqued in detail with the best and most recent available evidence. Some evidence is missing. | The link between the literature findings and the case is made evident. An attempt is made to compare and critique the management and nursing care of the case is compared and critiqued with the available evidence, but the result is superficial at times. | The link between the literature findings and the case is not made or is weak. The management and nursing care of the case is superficially compared and critiqued with the available evidence, and the result is inconsequential. |
Comparison and critique of the management / nursing care of the case against best practice literature included.Suggestions of alternative management / nursing care.Ability to demonstrate sound links between theory and practice. | Feasible / thoughtful suggestions of alternative management and nursing care are made, based on the best available evidence. | Suggestions of alternative management and nursing care are made, based on the best available evidence. Education needs are addressed to a reasonable standard. | Suggestions of alternative management and nursing care are sketchy or based on anecdotal or weak evidence. Education needs covered superficially. | Suggestions of alternative management and nursing care are not made or are trivial and not based on any evidence Clinical Case Conference. | ||
Assessment criteria | Weighting | Excellent (13-15) | Good (10-12) | Satisfactory (7.5-9) | Unsatisfactory (0-7) | Notes |
Conclusion: Summary of the case.Short- and long-term outcomes outlined.Other relevant comments. | 15% /15 | A succinct yet complete summary of the crucial aspects of the case is presented. The short- and long-term outcomes are described in depth. Insightful comments are made about whether the case and its management were representative. Learnings from the exercise are described clearly, and other relevant insightful comments are made. | A good summary of the crucial aspects of the case is presented. The short- and long-term outcomes are well described. Worthy comments are made about whether the case and its management were representative. Learnings from the exercise are well described, and some other relevant astute comments are made Clinical Case Conference. | A summary of the important aspects of the case is presented briefly. The short- and long-term outcomes are superficially described. Learnings from the exercise are limited but described, and some other relevant comments are made. | A summary of the important aspects of the case is not presented, or is too brief, omits crucial points. The short- and long-term outcomes are not described or are superficial. No comments, or trivial comments, are made about whether the case and its management was representative. Learnings from the exercise are not described or are insignificant, and no other relevant comments are made. | |
Assessment criteria | Weighting | Excellent (8-10) | Good (6.5-7.5) | Satisfactory (5-6) | Unsatisfactory (0-4) | Notes |
References: Recent (i.e. in the last 5-10 years) Relevant Wide scrutiny APA 6th edition | 10% /10 | References are recent, relevant and gathered from a wide yet relevant range of multiple sources. Multiple sources utilised and all correctly referenced. Reference list is correctly presented and is complete. | Information is gathered from multiple sources. References chosen to reflect the status of the area under study. All sources correctly referenced. Reference list is correctly presented and is complete Clinical Case Conference. | Information is gathered from a limited number of sources Most sources correctly referenced. Reference list may have a few minor errors; or a source may be omitted from the reference list. | Lack of relevant and accurate supporting evidence Many inaccuracies with in-text referencing and in the reference list; and/or numerous direct quotes; and/or no reference list included. |
Assessment criteria | Weighting | Excellent (5) | Good (4) | Satisfactory (2.5-3) | Unsatisfactory (0-2) | Notes |
Adheres to academic writing & presentation standards and policy: | 5% /5 | Adheres to all guidelines. Excellent: Correct spelling, punctuation, sentence structure and paragraph. Use of inclusive language. No errors. Adheres to word count +/-10% | Adheres to all guidelines. Good: Only minor errors in spelling, grammar or punctuation. Structure of assignment appropriate. Adheres to word count +/-10% | Adheres to most guidelines. Satisfactory: Sentence & paragraph structure, grammar, spelling & punctuation. Use of 3rd person. Use of inclusive language. Word limit adhered to. Mostly sequenced. Mostly an adequate logical flow to discuss the patient case. Adheres to word count +/-10% | Adheres to very few guidelines. Unsatisfactory: Writing poorly structured with many grammatical and spelling errors. Well below or well above word limit. Not sequenced. No logical flow. Does not adhere to word count +/- 10% | |
Deductions (if applicable) | ||||||
Total mark | /100 | |||||
Grade (if applicable) | ||||||
Overall comment | ||||||
Name of marker | ||||||
Date |
[ANSWER PREVIEW]
Pathophysiology
Evidence shows that the pathophysiology of diabetic foot ulcers exhibit elements of peripheral arterial disease, neuropathy and immune system issues (Aumiller & Dollahite, 2015; Grennan, 2019). The disease develops in three main stages, beginning with a neuropathy-caused callus (Oliver & Mutluoglu, 2020). Hyperglycaemia (associated with diabetes) results in oxidative stress and causes neuropathy.
Other cellular alterations causing ischemia can be seen in damaged motor neurons, which further produces anatomic deformities and imbalance of flexors, thereby, eventually leading to skin ulcerations. (Aumiller & Dollahite, 2015). It is the occasional trauma of these ulcerations that develop into diabetic foot ulcers (Armstrong, Boulton, & Bus, 2017).
Vascular changes especially with regards to the peripheral arteries have also been associated with diabetic foot ulcers. Individuals suffering from diabetes mellitus experience severe cases of arteriosclerosis, which compromises their vascular function. Oliver and Mutluoglu (2020) explain that, since the wound experiences low supply of blood, healing may take time, which could cause necrosis and gangrene on the area. Elsewhere, immune changes like more T-lymphocyte apoptosis have been shown to obscure the healing process among people with diabetic foot ulcers.[Buy Full Answer for Just USD 9: 3156 WORDS]
[SOLUTION DESCRIPTION]
Type: Essay
Word Count: 3156
Grade/Mark: 91 (Distinction)