NURS 6512 WEEK 8 DISCUSSION: ASSESSING MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN

NURS 6512 WEEK 8 DISCUSSION: ASSESSING MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN

NURS 6512 WEEK 8 DISCUSSION: ASSESSING MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN

The body is constantly sending signals about its health. One of the most easily recognized signals is pain. Musculoskeletal conditions comprise one of the leading causes of severe long-term pain in patients. The musculoskeletal system is an elaborate system of interconnected levers that provides the body with support and mobility. Because of the interconnectedness of the musculoskeletal system, identifying the causes of pain can be challenging. Accurately interpreting the cause of musculoskeletal pain requires an assessment process informed by patient history and physical exams.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREENURS 6512 WEEK 8 DISCUSSION: ASSESSING MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN HERE

Thanks for stopping by this assessment. We can assist you in completing it and other subsequent ones. Our expert writers will comprehensively review instructions, synthesize external evidence sources, and customize an A-grade paper for YOU!!!

In this Discussion, 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 one of the following specific case studies for this Discussion. Please see the “Course Announcements” section of the classroom for your assignment from your Instructor.
• Your Discussion post should be in the Episodic/Focused SOAP Note format rather than the traditional narrative style Discussion posting 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.
• Review the following case study:

Case Study:

Case 2: Ankle Pain

A 46-year-old female reports pain in both of her ankles, but she is more concerned about her right ankle. She was playing soccer over the weekend and heard a “pop.” She is able to bear weight, but it is uncomfortable. In determining the cause of the ankle pain, based on your knowledge of anatomy, what foot structures are likely involved? What other symptoms need to be explored? What are your differential diagnoses for ankle pain? What physical examination will you perform? What special maneuvers will you perform? Should you apply the Ottawa ankle rules to determine if you need additional testing?

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 fivepossible conditions that may be considered in a differential diagnosis for the patient.

post 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.

***Please include 3 credible sources***

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

• Ball, J. W., Dains, J. E., Flynn, J. A., Solomon, B. S., & Stewart, R. W. (2023). Seidel’s guide to physical examination: An interprofessional approach(10th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.
  • Chapter 6, “Vital Signs and Pain Assessment” (Previously read in Week 6)
  • Chapter 22, “Musculoskeletal System”
    This chapter describes the process of assessing the musculoskeletal system. In addition, the authors explore the anatomy and physiology of the musculoskeletal system.
• 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 22, “Lower Extremity Limb Pain”Download Chapter 22, “Lower Extremity Limb Pain”
    This chapter outlines how to take a focused history and perform a physical exam to determine the cause of limb pain. It includes a discussion of the most common tests used to assess musculoskeletal disorders.
  • Chapter 24, “Low Back Pain (Acute)”Download Chapter 24, “Low Back Pain (Acute)”The focus of this chapter is the identification of the causes of lower back pain. It includes suggested physical exams and potential diagnoses.
• Sullivan, D. D. (2019). Guide to clinical documentation(3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis.
  • Chapter 2, “The Comprehensive History and Physical Exam” (“Muscle Strength Grading”) (Previously read in Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5)
  • Chapter 3, “SOAP Notes”
    This section explains the procedural knowledge needed to perform musculoskeletal procedures.
• Document: Episodic/Focused SOAP Note Exemplar (Word document)Download Episodic/Focused SOAP Note Exemplar (Word document)
• Document: Episodic/Focused SOAP Note Template (Word document)
  

  ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE NURS 6512 WEEK 8 DISCUSSION: ASSESSING MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN HERE

• NURS_6512_Week_8_Discussion_Rubric

NURS_6512_Week_8_Discussion_Rubric
Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting	50 to >44.0 pts Excellent “Answers all parts of the Discussion question(s) with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Supported by at least three current, credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 44 to >39.0 pts Good “Responds to the Discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 39 to >34.0 pts Fair “Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Post is cited with two credible sources. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. 34 to >0 pts Poor “Does not respond to the Discussion question(s) adequately. Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible sources. Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.	50 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Post: Timeliness	10 to >0.0 pts Excellent Posts main post by Day 3. 0 pts Fair N/A 0 pts Good N/A 0 pts Poor Does not post main post by Day 3.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response	18 to >16.0 pts Excellent “Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 16 to >14.0 pts Good “Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are 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. 14 to >12.0 pts Fair “Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. 12 to >0 pts Poor “Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.	18 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response	17 to >15.0 pts Excellent “Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 15 to >13.0 pts Good “Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are 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. 13 to >11.0 pts Fair “Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. 11 to >0 pts Poor “Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.	17 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeParticipation	5 to >0.0 pts Excellent Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. 0 pts Fair N/A 0 pts Good N/A 0 pts Poor Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on three different days.	5 pts
Total Points: 100