NURS-6512 Week 9 Assignment 1 Case Study: Case Study Assignment: Assessing Neurological Symptoms

Week 9 Announcement

Posted on: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 6:25:20 AM EDT

Can you believe that we are this far along in the semester??? Just a few updates today……mostly a repeat of last week….

1. Week 9 Case Study Assignment This week there are 3 case studies. You are writing and submitting an episodic SOAP note. Be sure to follow the SOAP template and rubric to assure that you are completing the assignment correctly. The assignments for this week are as follows:

Case Study #1- Last name A-K

20-year-old male complains of experiencing intermittent headaches. The headaches diffuse all over the head, but the greatest intensity and pressure occurs above the eyes and spreads through the nose, cheekbones, and jaw.

Case Study #2- Last name L-R

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

Case Study #3- Last name S-Z

33-year-old female comes to your clinic alarmed about sudden “drooping” on the right side of the face that began this morning. She complains of excessive tearing and drooling on her right side as well.

2. Discussion Boards– overall great job with your discussion posts. You are providing additional insight to your peers and incorporating good additional references. When writing your initial post, be sure to follow the SOAP template format. Insert or discuss the information that you would want to have to arrive at your list of differentials. Be specific…ie: when discussing ROM. You need to indicate….FROM of left shoulder, etc… be specific in how you document.

Your differentials are all looking good. Be sure to list in reverse chronological order…..most suspected to least suspected. I have been challenging you to also think out of the box with those differentials. Just because we are working on a musculoskeletal unit…..doesn’t mean it is necessarily a musculoskeletal issue. It could me other medical issues, such as in this past week….back pain could be contributed to an abdominal aneurysm or even a kidney infection. The answer may not always be as black and white as you thing. Think outside the box 🙂

3. APA Errors For the most part, everyone is doing a very good job with your references being in APA. Some of you…..I am repeatedly reminding you to correct the same problems I am seeing on a weekly basis. It is not ok just to “freelance” and create your own method of citing articles. You must follow the APA 7th edition manual. Please do so…..you are graduate students expected to work at a graduate level.

Also, before hitting submit for your weekly post, make sure you have intext citations for everything on your reference list. Your reference list must match what is in your intext citations.

4. DCE Assignments This week you will be completing a head to toe assessment. Please follow the rubric…..you must receive a minimum of 80% of this assignment to pass the class. You can repeat this assignment as many times as needed to achieve the maximum score. Be sure to follow the SH feedback to improve your assessment. This assignment must be completed and uploaded by the due date. You are submitting 3 things for this assignment: Your lab pass, the documentation notes for the head to toe encounter, and the acknowledgement form.

Additionally, for the acknowledgement forms, please do not type your name. I need an actual signature on that acknowledgment form.

Have a great week 9!!

Stay well!!!!!

Dr. O

Case Study Assignment: Assessing Neurological Symptoms

Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

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

By Day 1 of this week, you will be assigned to a specific case study for this Case Study Assignment. Please see the “Course Announcements” section of the classroom for your assignment from your Instructor.
Also, your Case Study Assignment should be in the Episodic/Focused SOAP Note format 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 in the Week 5 resources. 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.

By Day 6 of Week 9

Submit your Assignment.

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK9Assgn1+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
Click the Week 9 Assignment 1 Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
Click the Week 9 Assignment 1 link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK9Assgn1+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 9 Assignment 1 Rubric

Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity

To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:

Submit your Week 9 Assignment 1 draft and review the originality report.

Submit Your Assignment by Day 6 of Week 9

To participate in this Assignment:

Week 9 Assignment 1

Group 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. Assessing Neurological Symptoms Pain and Numbness

Also, your Case Study Assignment should be in the Episodic/Focused SOAP Note format rather than the traditional narrative style format. *template attached*

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 . 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.

Required Readings (click to expand/reduce)

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)

Note: Download the Physical Examination Objective Data Checklist to use as you complete the Comprehensive (Head-to-Toe) Physical Assessment assignment.

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.

Note: Download and review the Student Checklists and Key Points to use during your practice neurological examination.

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 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4036230/

Shadow Health Support and Orientation Resources

Use the following resources to guide you through your Shadow Health orientation as well as other support resources:

Frey, C. [Chris Frey]. (2015, September 4). Student orientation [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfd_8pTJBkY

Shadow Health. (n.d.). Shadow Health help desk. Retrieved from https://support.shadowhealth.com/hc/en-us

Document: Shadow Health. (2014). Useful tips and tricks (Version 2) (PDF)

Document: Student Acknowledgement Form (Word document)

Note: You will sign and date this form each time you complete your DCE Assignment in Shadow Health to acknowledge your commitment to Walden University’s Code of Conduct.

Document: DCE (Shadow Health) Documentation Template for Comprehensive (Head-to-Toe) Physical Assessment (Word document)

Use this template to complete your Assignment 3 for this week.

Rubric Detail

	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.	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.	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.	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.	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.	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.	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.	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.	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.	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.	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.	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.	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	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.	3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.	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.	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.	3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.	0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.

Total Points: 100