Week 6 Case sTudy-Advance Pathophysilogy.
Instructions
Assignment Objectives:
· Identify and select appropriate interventions including diagnostic tests and nursing interventions.
· Analyze physiological and psychological responses to illness and treatment modalities
Purpose: Examine case studies related to neurologic disease and answer the assigned questions. This assignment should help refine your clinical/critical thinking skills.
Assignment Description:
· Describe the pathophysiology of extradural and subdural hematomas.
· Identify the surgical emergency and provided rationale for the choice.
· Describe the most likely type of head injury and outline an approriate treatment plan.
· Your answer must follow APA 6th edition format.
· Submit the answer to this assignment area.
Patient 1 – Two individuals come to the emergency department with head injuries. One, 25 years old, has just been in a motor vehicle accident (MVA) and has a temporal lobe injury. The other, 65 years old, has increasing confusion after a fall that happened earlier in the week.
a. Differentiate the pathophysiology of extradural hematoma and subdural hematoma.
b. Identify the patient in the above scenario requiring immediate emergency surgical intervention and provide rationale for your choice.
Patient 2 – An 38 year old was driving his 1970 Chevy Corvette to a Milwaukee Brewers baseball game when a deer jumped out in front of him on the highway. He swerved his car and hit a telephone pole instead. His head hit the windshield and he suffered severe head trauma.
a. Describe the most likely specific type of head injury he suffered.
b. Outline the treatment plan for this patient.
Estimated time to complete: 6 hours
Rubric
NU621 Unit 6 Case Study
NU621 Unit 6 Case Study
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent & Concepts
NU621-CO1; NU621-CO2; NU621-CO3; PRICE-P; PRICE-I
50 pts
5
Ideas and concepts are consistently clear and always well explained. Relationships between concepts and ideas are always discussed fairly and always synthesized in a logical fashion with strong, well-founded supporting arguments. All discussion and arguments are thoroughly supported with research and/or resource materials that are pertinent, valid, and reliable.
48.34 pts
4
Ideas and concepts are clear and well explained. Relationships between concepts and ideas are discussed fairly and synthesized in a logical fashion with well-founded supporting arguments. Discussion and arguments are supported with research and/or resource materials that are pertinent, valid, and reliable
45 pts
3
Ideas and concepts are reasonably well explained. Discussion and arguments are, for the most part, supported with research and/or resource materials that are pertinent, valid, and reliable relationships between concepts, and ideas are discussed. These could be further strengthened with additional research or resource materials.
38.34 pts
2
Basic ideas and concepts are presented; however, they are under-developed and poorly explained. There is minimal evidence of a relationship between ideas and concepts. Discussion and arguments are not supported with additional research or research that is pertinent and valid.
33.34 pts
1
Some basic ideas and concepts are started, but not developed. There is no identifiable relationship between ideas and concepts. There is little or no discussion and/or argument with supporting research.
0 pts
0
There are no developed ideas or concepts. There is no supporting research.
50 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis
NU621-CO1; NU621-CO2; NU621-CO3; PRICE-I; PRICE-P
30 pts
5
Organizes and synthesizes evidence to reveal insightful patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.
27 pts
4
Organizes and analyzes evidence to reveal insightful patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.
24 pts
3
Organizes evidence to reveal important patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.
21 pts
2
Organizes evidence, but the organization is not effective in revealing important patterns, differences, or similarities.
18 pts
1
Describes evidence, but it is not organized and/ or is unrelated to focus.
0 pts
0
Lists evidence, but it is not organized and/ or is unrelated to focus.
30 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting Conventions
PRICE-P; PRICE-I
10 pts
5
The paper exhibits a superior command of written English language conventions. The paper has no errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling.
9 pts
4
The paper exhibits a strong command of written English language conventions. The paper has no errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impair the flow of communication.
8 pts
3
The paper exhibits command of written English language conventions. The paper has minor errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impact the flow of communication.
7 pts
2
The paper exhibits a limited command of written English language conventions. The paper has frequent errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impede the flow of communication.
6 pts
1
The paper exhibits little command of written English language conventions. The paper has errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that cause the reader to stop and reread parts of the writing to discern meaning.
0 pts
0
The paper does not demonstrate command of written English language conventions. The paper has multiple errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that cause the reader difficulty discerning the meaning.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA
PRICE-I; PRICE-P
10 pts
5
The required APA elements are all included with correct formatting, including in-text citations and references.
8 pts
4
The required APA elements are all included with minor formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.
6 pts
3
The required APA elements are all included with multiple formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.
4 pts
2
The required APA elements are not all included. AND/OR there are major formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.
2 pts
1
Several APA elements are missing. The errors in formatting demonstrate limited understanding of APA guidelines, in-text-citations, and references.
0 pts
0
There is little to no evidence of APA formatting. AND/OR there are no in-text citations AND/OR references.
10 pts
Total Points: 100
Write From Scratch