Abdominal Assessment Case Study

Review the Episodic note case study your instructor provides you for this week’s Assignment. Please see the “Course Announcements” section of the classroom for your Episodic note case study.

With regard to the Episodic note case study provided:
- 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.
- 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
  
  ORDER A PLAGIARISM FREE PAPER HERE ON ;Abdominal Assessment Case Study
  
  patient.

SEE EPISODIC SOAP NOTE, BELOW

ABDOMINAL ASSESSMENT

Struggling to meet your deadline ?

Get assistance on

Abdominal Assessment Case Study

done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!

Subjective:

CC: “My stomach has been hurting for the past two days.”

HPI: LZ, 65 y/o AA male, presents to the emergency department with a two days history of intermittent epigastric abdominal pain that radiates into his back. He went to the local Urgent Care where was given PPI’s with no relief. At this time, the patient reports that the pain has been increasing in severity over the past few hours; he vomited after lunch, which led his to go to the ED at this time. He has not experienced fever, diarrhea, or other symptoms associated with his abdominal pain.

PMH: HTN

Medications: Metoprolol 50mg

Allergies: NKDA

FH: HTN, Gerd, Hyperlipidemia

Social Hx: ETOH, smoking for 20 years but quit both 2 years ago, divorced for 5 years, 3 children, 2 males, 1 female

Objective:

VS: Temp 98.2; BP 91/60; RR 16; P 76; HT 6’10”; WT 262lbs
Heart: RRR, no murmurs
Lungs: CTA, chest wall symmetrical
Skin: Intact without lesions, no urticaria
Abd: abdomen is tender in the epigastric area with guarding but without mass or rebound. Diagnostics: US and CTA

Assessment:

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA)
Perforated Ulcer
Pancreatitis

PLAN: This section is not required for the assignments in this course (NURS 6512) but will be required for future courses.

***Please DO NOT recopy this SOAP note to your assignment for Submission.

THE ASSIGNMENT

Analyze the subjective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation.
Analyze the objective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation.
Is the assessment supported by the subjective and objective information? Why or why not?
What diagnostic tests would be appropriate for this case, and how would the results be used to make a diagnosis?
Would you reject/accept the current diagnosis? Why or why not? Identify three possible conditions that may be considered as a differential diagnosis for this patient. Explain your reasoning using at least three different references from current evidence-based literature.
This should be a paper with subheadings, please use subheadings below. This makes your papers a lot easier to read and ensures you are answering all the questions on the Rubric. Be sure to answer all information to receive maximum points.

Subjective Portion

Objective Portion

Assessment Supported

Diagnostic Tests

Rejection or Acceptance

Possible Conditions

This should be written as a narrative/paragraphs only!

DO NOT rewrite a SOAP note.

Tell me what’s wrong with the Episodic SOAP Note, by responding to the statements/questions above.

GRADING RUBRIC:

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWith regard to the SOAP note case study provided, address the following:Analyze the subjective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation.

12 to >9.0 pts

Excellent

The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly analyzes the subjective portion of the SOAP note and lists detailed additional information to be included in the documentation.

9 to >6.0 pts

Good

The response accurately analyzes the subjective portion of the SOAP note and lists additional information to be included in the documentation.

6 to >3.0 pts

Fair

The response vaguely and/or with some inaccuracy analyzes the subjective portion of the SOAP note and vaguely and/or with some inaccuracy lists additional information to be included in the documentation.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

The response inaccurately analyzes or is missing analysis of the subjective portion of the SOAP note, with inaccurate and/or missing additional information included in the documentation.

12 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalyze the objective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation.

12 to >9.0 pts

Excellent

The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly analyzes the objective portion of the SOAP note and lists detailed additional information to be included in the documentation.

9 to >6.0 pts

Good

The response accurately analyzes the objective portion of the SOAP note and lists additional information to be included in the documentation.

6 to >3.0 pts

Fair

The response vaguely and/or with some inaccuracy analyzes the objective portion of the SOAP note and vaguely and/or inaccurately lists additional information to be included in the documentation.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

The response inaccurately analyzes or is missing analysis of the objective portion of the SOAP note, with inaccurate and/or missing additional information included in the documentation.

12 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIs the assessment supported by the subjective and objective information? Why or why not?

16 to >13.0 pts

Excellent

The response clearly and accurately identifies whether or not the assessment is supported by the subjective and/or objective information, with a thorough and detailed explanation.

13 to >10.0 pts

Good

The response accurately identifies whether or not the assessment is supported by the subjective and/or objective information, with an explanation.

10 to >7.0 pts

Fair

The response vaguely and/or inaccurately identifies whether or not the assessment is supported by the subjective and/or objective information, with a vague explanation.

7 to >0 pts

Poor

The response inaccurately identifies whether or not the assessment is supported by the subjective and/or objective information, with an inaccurate or missing explanation.

16 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWhat diagnostic tests would be appropriate for this case, and how would the results be used to make a diagnosis?

20 to >17.0 pts

Excellent

The response thoroughly and accurately describes appropriate diagnostic tests for the case and explains clearly, thoroughly, and accurately how the test results would be used to make a diagnosis.

17 to >14.0 pts

Good

The response accurately describes appropriate diagnostic tests for the case and explains clearly and accurately how the test results would be used to make a diagnosis.

14 to >11.0 pts

Fair

The response vaguely and/or with some inaccuracy describes appropriate diagnostic tests for the case and vaguely and/or with some inaccuracy explains how the test results would be used to make a diagnosis.

11 to >0 pts

Poor

The response inaccurately describes appropriate diagnostic tests for the case, with an inaccurate or missing explanation of how the test results would be used to make a diagnosis.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome· Would you reject or accept the current diagnosis? Why or why not?· Identify three possible conditions that may be considered as a differenial diagnosis for this patient. Explain your reasoning using at least three different references from current evidence-based literature.

25 to >22.0 pts

Excellent

The response states clearly whether to accept or reject the current diagnosis, with a thorough, accurate, and detailed explanation of sound reasoning. The response clearly, thoroughly, and accurately identifies three conditions as a differential diagnosis, with reasoning that is explained clearly, accurately, and thoroughly using at least three different references from current evidence-based literature.

22 to >19.0 pts

Good

The response states whether to accept or reject the current diagnosis, with an accurate explanation of sound reasoning. The response accurately identifies three conditions as a differential diagnosis, with reasoning that is explained accurately using three different references from current evidence-based literature.

19 to >16.0 pts

Fair

The response states whether to accept or reject the current diagnosis, with a vague explanation of the reasoning. The response identifies two or three conditions as a differential diagnosis, with reasoning that is explained vaguely and/or inaccurately using three references from current evidence-based literature.

16 to >0 pts

Poor

The response inaccurately or is missing a statement of whether to accept or reject the current diagnosis, with an explanation that is inaccurate and/or missing. The response identifies two or fewer conditions as a differential diagnosis, with reasoning that is missing or explained inaccurately using three or fewer references from current evidence-based literature.

25 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused–neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria.

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet are brief and not descriptive.

3 to >2.0 pts

Fair

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are vague or off topic.

2 to >0 pts

Poor

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good

Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

3 to >2.0 pts

Fair

Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

2 to >0 pts

Poor

Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running heads, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

Uses correct APA format with no errors.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good

Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.

3 to >2.0 pts

Fair

Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.

2 to >0 pts

Poor

Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.

5 pts

Total Points: 100

Struggling to meet your deadline ?

Get assistance on

Abdominal Assessment Case Study

done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!

Abdominal Assessment Case Study