NRNP 6552 Week 5 Discussion: Case Study Common Gynecologic Conditions Part 2
NRNP 6552 Week 5 Discussion: Case Study Common Gynecologic Conditions Part 2
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, diagnostic approaches, as well as to the development of treatment plans.
ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE NRNP 6552 Week 5 Discussion: Case Study Common Gynecologic Conditions Part 2
HERE
For this Case Study Discussion, you will develop a case study that demonstrates a gynecological disease process from your practicum experience or your professional practice that would be quite challenging for you as a clinician. You will then explore this case study to determine the diagnosis, diagnostic tests, and treatment options for the patient
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 23, “Urinary Tract Infections” (pp. 469–478)
Chapter 24, “Urinary Incontinence” (pp. 479–492)
Chapter 23, “Menstrual-Cycle Pain and Premenstrual Syndrome” (pp. 495–510)
Chapter 26, “Normal and Abnormal Uterine Bleeding” (pp. 511–526)
RESOURCES FOR LGBTQ+
Aisner, A. J., Zappas, M., & Marks, A. (2020). Primary Care for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer/Questioning (LGBTQ) PatientsLinks to an external site.. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 16(4), 281–285. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nurpra.2019.12.011
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP). (2020, April 18). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender healthLinks to an external site.. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-health
Sadlak, C. A., Boyd, C. J., & Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (LGBTQ)
Health Expert Panel (2016). American Academy of Nursing on Policy: Health care services for transgender individuals: Position statementLinks to an external site.. https://www.nursingoutlook.org/action/showPdf?pii=S0029-6554%2816%2930120-8
Wingo, E., Ingraham, N., & Roberts, S. C. M. (2018). Reproductive Health Care Priorities and Barriers to Effective Care for LGBTQ People Assigned Female at Birth: A Qualitative StudyLinks to an external site.. Women’s Health Issues, 28(4), 350–357. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2018.03.002
FNP RESOURCES
American Academy of Nurse Practitioners Certification Board (AANPCB). (2018). Welcome to the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners Certification BoardLinks to an external site.. https://www.aanpcert.org/
American Academy of Nurse Practitioners National Certification Board, Inc. (AANPCB). (2018). FNP & AGNP Certification Candidate HandbookLinks to an external site.. https://www.aanpcert.org/resource/documents/AGNP%20FNP%20Candidate%20Handbook.pdf
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; CDC for zika in pregnancy, etc.).
American Cancer Society, Inc. (ACS). (2020). Information and Resources about 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 share the future of nursing and health careLinks to an external site.. https://www.nursingworld.org/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (CDC). (n.d.). CDC in actionLinks to an external site.. 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). (2020). What’s Happening at your associationLinks to an external site.. https://www.aanp.org/
Document: Focused SOAP Note Template Download Focused SOAP Note Template(Word document)
Optional Resources
Kelsey, B. M. & Nagtalon-Ramos, J. (2021). Midwifery & Women’s Health Nurse Practitioner Certification Review Guide (5th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
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 23, “Urinary Tract Infections Download Urinary Tract Infections”
Chapter 24, “Urinary Incontinence Download Urinary Incontinence
Chapter 25, “Menstrual-Cycle Pain and Premenstrual Syndrome Download Menstrual-Cycle Pain and Premenstrual Syndrome”
Chapter 26, “Normal and Abnormal Uterine Bleeding Download Normal and Abnormal Uterine Bleeding”
To prepare:
Consider a case study related to a patient that demonstrates a gynecological disease process in your practicum experience or professional practice that would be your biggest challenge as a clinician. Note: Possibly use your “FNP or AGPCNP Skills and Procedures Self-Assessment” in your practicum experience to guide your case study selection.
Review the Learning Resources for this week and specifically review the clinical guideline resources specific to your proposed 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.
BY DAY 3
Based on your case study, post the following:
POST A Focused SOAP NOTE only and describe your case study.
Provide a differential diagnosis (dx) with a minimum of 3 possible conditions or diseases.
Define what you believe is the most important diagnosis. Be sure to include the priority in conducting your assessment.
Explain which diagnostic tests and treatment options you would recommend for your patient and explain your reasoning.
Also, share with your colleagues your experiences as well as what you learned from these experiences.
Use your Learning Resources and/or evidence from the literature to support your thinking and perspectives.
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 tests or treatment options that your colleagues suggested and why. 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!
NRNP_6552_Week5_Case_Study_Discussion_Rubric
NRNP_6552_Week5_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
Poor Point 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
ExcellentPoint 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
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 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