NRNP 6552 WEEK 4 Discussion: Case Study Common Gynecologic Conditions Part 1
NRNP 6552 WEEK 4 Discussion: Case Study Common Gynecologic Conditions Part 1
Case studies provide the opportunity to simulate realistic scenarios involving patients presenting with various health problems or symptoms. Such case studies enable nurse learners to apply concepts, lessons, and critical thinking to interviewing, screening, and diagnostic approaches, as well as to the development of treatment plans.
For this Case Study Discussion, you will once again review a case study scenario to obtain information related to a comprehensive well-woman exam and determine differential diagnoses, diagnostics, and develop treatment and management plans.
ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE NRNP 6552 WEEK 4 Discussion: Case Study Common Gynecologic Conditions Part 1 HERE
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
Schuiling, K. D., & Likis, F. E. (2022). Gynecologic health care (4th ed.). Jones and Bartlett Learning.
Chapter 17, “Breast Conditions” (pp. 337-349)
Chapter 18, “Alterations in Sexual Function” (pp. 353-364)
Chapter 20, “Infertility” (pp. 383-398)
Chapter 21, “Gynecologic Infections” (pp. 401-432)
Chapter 22, “Sexually Transmitted Infections” (pp. 437-466)
Reproductive Health Access Project (2020). Your birth control choicesLinks to an external site.. https://www.reproductiveaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2020-09-contra-choices.pdf
Office of Women’s Health: Womenshealth.gov. (2017). Birth control methodsLinks to an external site.. https://www.womenshealth.gov/a-z-topics/birth-control-methods
CLINICAL GUIDELINE RESOURCES
As you review the following resources, you may want to include a topic in the search area to gather detailed information (e.g., breast cancer screening guidelines; for CDC – zika in pregnancy).
American Cancer Society, Inc. (ACS). (2020). Information and Resources about for Cancer: Breast, Colon, Lung, Prostate, SkinLinks to an external site.. https://www.cancer.org/
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)Links to an external site.. (2020). https://www.acog.org/
American Nurses Association (ANA). (n.d.). Lead the profession to shape the future of nursing and health careLinks to an external site.. https://www.nursingworld.org/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (CDC)Links to an external site.. (n.d.). https://www.cdc.gov/
HealthyPeople 2030. (2020). Healthy People 2030 FrameworkLinks to an external site.. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/About-Healthy-People/Development-Healthy-People-2030/Framework
The American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP)Links to an external site.. (2020). https://www.aanp.org/
Document: Focused SOAP Note Template Download Focused SOAP Note Template(Word document)
Optional Resources
Note: In Weeks 1-10, these resources are optional for your review. In Week 11, you will be required to review each of the PowerPoint slides from the text Gynecologic Health Care (4th ed.).
Chapter 17, “Breast Conditions Download Breast Conditions”
Chapter 18, “Alterations in Sexual Function Download Alterations in Sexual Function”
Chapter 20, “Infertility Download Infertility”
Chapter 21, “Gynecologic Infections Download Gynecologic Infections”
Chapter 22, “Sexually Transmitted Infections Download Sexually Transmitted Infections”
To prepare:
By Day 1 of this week, you will be assigned to a specific case study scenario for this Discussion. Please see the “Course Announcements” section of the classroom for your assignment from your Instructor.
Review the Learning Resources for this week and specifically review the clinical guideline resources specific to your assigned case study.
Use the Focused SOAP Note Template found in the Learning Resources to support your Discussion. Complete a FOCUSED SOAP note and critically analyze this and focus your attention on the diagnostic tests. Please post your FOCUSED SOAP note. This information will help you develop your differential diagnosis and additional questions
BY DAY 3
Please post your FOCUSED SOAP NOTE and post your primary diagnosis. Include the additional questions (additional questions ONLY related to the HPI/CC) you would ask the patient and explain your reasons for asking the additional questions. Then, explain the types of symptoms you would ask. Be specific and provide examples. (Note: When asking questions, consider sociocultural factors that might influence your question decisions.)
Based on the preemptive diagnosis, explain which treatment options and diagnostic tests you might recommend. Use your Learning Resources and/or evidence from the literature to support your recommendations. Your primary diagnosis, additional questions, and types of symptoms are what this assignment and grading is focused on. Your critical thinking for this assignment
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.
BY DAY 6
Respond to at least two of your colleagues’ posts on two different days and explain how you might think differently about the types of diagnostic tests you would recommend and explain your reasoning. Use your Learning Resources and/or evidence from the literature to support your position.
Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the Reply button to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Post Reply, you cannot delete or edit your own posts and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Post Reply!
Search entries or author
Filter replies by unreadUnread Collapse replies
NRNP_6552_Week4_Case_Study_Discussion_Rubric
NRNP_6552_Week4_Case_Study_Discussion_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting:
Response to the case study discussion questions includes appropriate diagnoses with explanations of appropriate diagnostic tests and treatment options as directed, is based on evidence-based research where appropriate, and is incorporates syntheses representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
44 to >39.16 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s)… Post includes appropriate diagnoses including explanations of appropriate diagnostic tests and treatment options… Incorporates syntheses representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources, with no less than 75% of post the post having exceptional depth and breadth… Supported by at least 3 current credible sources.
39.16 to >34.76 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
Responds to most of the discussion question(s)… Post includes appropriate diagnoses with explanations of appropriate diagnostic tests and treatment options… Somewhat incorporates syntheses representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources with no less than 50% of the post having exceptional depth and breadth… Supported by at least 3 credible references.
34.76 to >30.36 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
Responds to some of the discussion question(s)… Post contains incomplete or vague diagnoses or explanations of appropriate diagnostic tests and treatment options… Is somewhat lacking in synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources… Post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references.
30.36 to >0 pts
PoorPoint range: 0–69
Does not respond to the discussion question(s)… Post contains incomplete diagnoses or explanations of appropriate diagnostic tests and treatment options, or diagnoses and/or explanations are missing… Lacks synthesis gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources… Contains only 1 or no credible references.
44 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting:
Writing
6 to >5.34 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
Written clearly and concisely… Contains no grammatical or spelling errors… Further adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
5.34 to >4.74 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
Written concisely… May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors… Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
4.74 to >4.14 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
Written somewhat concisely… May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors… Contains some APA formatting errors.
4.14 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
Not written clearly or concisely… Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors… Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting:
Timely and full participation
10 to >8.9 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation… Posts main discussion by due date.
8.9 to >7.9 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
Posts main discussion by due date… Meets requirements for full participation.
7.9 to >6.9 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
Posts main discussion by due date.
6.9 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
Does not meet requirements for full participation… Does not post main discussion by due date.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
9 to >8.01 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings… Responds to questions posed by faculty… The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
8.01 to >7.11 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
7.11 to >6.21 pts
FairPoint range: 70–79
Response is on topic, may have some depth.
6.21 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
9 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response: Writing
6 to >5.34 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues… Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed… Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources… Response is effectively written in Standard, Edited English.
5.34 to >4.74 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues… Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed… Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources… Response is written in Standard, Edited English.
4.74 to >4.14 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
Response posed in the discussion may lack effective professional communication… Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed… Few or no credible sources are cited.
4.14 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication… Response to faculty questions are missing… No credible sources are cited.
6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response:
Timely and full participation
5 to >4.45 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation… Posts by due date.
4.45 to >3.95 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
Meets requirements for full participation… Posts by due date.
3.95 to >3.45 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
Posts by due date.
3.45 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
Does not meet requirements for full participation… Does not post by due date.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
9 to >8.01 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings… Responds to questions posed by faculty… The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
8.01 to >7.11 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
7.11 to >6.21 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
Response is on topic, may have some depth.
6.21 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
9 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response:
Writing
6 to >5.34 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues… Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed… Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources… Response is effectively written in Standard, Edited English.
5.34 to >4.74 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues… Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed… Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources… Response is written in Standard, Edited English.
4.74 to >4.14 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
Response posed in the discussion may lack effective professional communication… Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed… Few or no credible sources are cited.
4.14 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication… Response to faculty questions are missing… No credible sources are cited.
6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response:
Timely and full participation
5 to >4.45 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation… Posts by due date.
4.45 to >3.95 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
Meets requirements for full participation… Posts by due date.
3.95 to >3.45 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
Posts by due date.
3.45 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
Does not meet requirements for full participation… Does not post by due date.
5 pts
Total Points: 100