Ms Gladys Liu is a 45 year old woman has a medical history of HT and a 20 year history of T2DM which is no longer controlled by lifestyle changes.
• She has presented to the ED following a possible UTI for last few days.
• Her admission vital signs are T: 38.7°C, HR: 125bpm, RR 25, BP 100/65 mmHg
• On examination: left flank pain with a pain score of 8/10, cracked lips, poor appetite and sunken eyes on examination.
Question 1
• Explain the pathophysiology of the above signs and symptoms as they apply to Gladys.
Question 2
• Discuss the investigations/tests that you think should be ordered for Gladys and explain your rationale and expected results (including the normal ranges).
Question 3
• Discuss how the information and understanding you have collated in question 1 and 2 informs your nursing care of Gladys,
Performance Standard
Assessment Criteria Excellent Good
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
A detailed explanation of the signs and symptoms presented in the patient scenario with clear links displaying understanding of the pathophysiology /pathogenesis of the illness/ disease. (30%) Accurate, highly relevant information provided with clear, succinct explanation of signs /symptoms related to the specific case.
Accurate, succinct relationship between pathophysiology / pathogenesis and signs/ symptoms presented.
Demonstrates excellent understanding.
(26-30) ? Clear relevant information provided, explaining the signs/ symptoms of the specific case study with minor omissions or errors present.
Good explanation of the relationship between pathophysiology / pathogenesis and signs/ symptoms presented.
Demonstrates good understanding with moderate linkage to the related case study.
(21-25) ? Basic relevant information provided, explaining the signs/ symptoms of the specific case study with some details absent or incorrect.
Basic explanation of the relationship between pathophysiology / pathogenesis and signs/ symptoms presented.
Demonstrates generalised understanding with basic linkage to the related case study.
(15-20) ?
Poor explanation/ irrelevant information provided displaying poor understanding of the signs/ symptoms related to the specific case study.
Poor or very limited explanation of the relationship between pathophysiology / pathogenesis and signs/ symptoms presented.
Demonstrates unsatisfactory understanding / incorrect linkage to the related case study.
(0-14) ?
A detailed explanation of any investigations considered necessary related to the case study, including a discussion with rationales and possible results. (30%)
Accurate, highly relevant linkage provided between investigations / case study and rationales.
Succinct discussion of investigations and expected results.
(26-30) ?
Clear explanation of links between investigations / case study and rationales – although some errors present or information missing.
Clear discussion of investigations and expected results demonstrated
(21-25) ? Basic explanation of investigations.
Generalised discussion with basic rationales and generalised results demonstrated.
Generalised links between investigations/ case study and rationales demonstrated.
(15-20) ? Poor explanation of investigations.
Poor presentation of links between investigations/ case study and rationales.
Minimal discussion with no results provided.
Information missing or irrelevant.
Demonstrates unsatisfactory understanding.
(0–14) ?
Discussion on the application of the identified pathophysiology/ pharmacology and investigational information to nursing practice for the case study patient (30%)
Accurate, succinct, highly relevant explanation of applying pathophysiology/ pharmacology/ investigational information to nursing practice.Discussion comprehensively supported by relevant evidence (26-30) ?
Clearexplanation, some elements omitted- explanation of applying pathophysiology/ pharmacology/ investigational information to nursing practice.Discussion well supported by relevant evidence
(21-25) ?
Basic/generic safe explanation ofapplying pathophysiology/ pharmacology/ investigational information to nursing practice.Discussion well supported by relevant evidence
(15-20) ?
Poor/ unsafe explanation ofapplying pathophysiology/ pharmacology/ investigational information to nursing practice.Demonstrated unsafe understanding.
No or irrelevant evidence
(0–14) ?
Meet all style and academic requirements. Quality of sources and correct use of references (10%) Uses Harvard Referencing with no errors. Mostly peer reviewed references used, essay structure/style excellent.
(9-10) ? Uses Harvard Referencing. Very minor errors in presentation of the reference list and/or in-text referencing.
General and peer reviewed references used, structure /style good.
(7-8.5) ? Uses Harvard Referencing with a number of errors evident in presentation of the reference list and/or in-text referencing. Mostly general references used, structure/style unclear in areas.
(5-6.5) ? Harvard Referencing not used, or consistently incorrect or absent. Referencing MUST be used appropriately. Failure to do so may result in a fail grade.Lacking structure/style.
(0-4.5) ?
Markers Name:
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH NURSING HOMEWORK HELP TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT
