Discussion: NURS 6552 Week 3 Gynecologic Health Case Study 

Discussion: NURS 6552 Week 3 Gynecologic Health Case Study

Discussion: NURS 6552 Week 3 Gynecologic Health Case Study

GYNECOLOGIC HEALTH

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 the development of treatment plans.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE ON; Discussion: NURS 6552 Week 3 Gynecologic Health Case Study 

For this Case Study Discussion, you will review a case study scenario to obtain information related to a comprehensive well-woman exam and determine differential diagnoses, diagnostics, and develop treatment and management plans.

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 10, “Women’s Health After Bariatric Surgery” (pp. 165 – 171)

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Intimate partner violence screening: Fact sheet and resourcesLinks to an external site.. https://www.ahrq.gov/ncepcr/tools/healthier-pregnancy/fact-sheets/partner-violence.html

Fanslow, J., Wise, M. R., & Marriott, J. (2019). Intimate partner violence and women’s reproductive healthLinks to an external site.. Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Reproductive Medicine, 29(12), 342–350. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogrm.2019.09.003

Lockwood, C. J. (2019). Key points for today’s ‘well-woman’ exam: A guide for ob/gynsLinks to an external site.. Contemporary OB/GYN, 64(1), 23–29. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rzh&AN=134229869&site=ehost-live&scope=site&authtype=shib&custid=s6527200

CLINICAL GUIDELINE RESOURCES

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)Links to an external site.. (2020). https://www.acog.org/

American Nurses Association (ANA)Links to an external site.. (n.d.). https://www.nursingworld.org/

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (CDC)Links to an external site.. (n.d.). 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)Links to an external site.. What’s happening at your association. (2020). https://www.aanp.org/

Document: Focused SOAP Note Template Download Focused SOAP Note Template(Word document)

Required Media

Gynecologic Health – Comprehensive Well-Woman Exam

Dr. Phyllis Morgan discusses the comprehensive well-woman exam and any pertinent information related to this topic (27 mins).

SeattlePTC (2015). Examination of Vaginal Wet Preps [Video]Links to an external site.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dgeOPGx6YI&t=3s

Note: This media program is approximately 15 minutes.

Note: As you review this video, consider this as a basic microscopy (yeast, BV).

Optional Resources

Hatcher, R. A., Nelson, A. L., Trussell, J., Cwaik, C., Cason, P., Policar, M. S., Kowal, D. (2018). Contraceptive technology (21st ed.). PDR Network, LLC.

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 10, “Women’s Health After Bariatric Surgery”Download “Women’s Health After Bariatric Surgery”

To prepare:

By Day 1 of this week, you will be assigned to a specific case study scenario for this Discussion. Please see the “Course Announcements” section of the classroom for your case study assignment from your Instructor.

Review the Learning Resources for this week and pay close attention to the media program related to the basic microscope skills. Also, consider re-reviewing the media programs found in Week 1 Learning Resources.

Carefully review the clinical guideline resources specific to your assigned case study.

Use the Focused SOAP Note Template found in the Learning Resources to support Discussion. Complete a FOCUSED SOAP note and critically analyze this and focus your attention on the diagnostic tests. Please post your SOAP note. This will help you develop your differential diagnosis and additional questions

BY DAY 3

Please post your FOCUSED SOAP NOTE with your differential diagnosis. Include the additional questions (additional questions ONLY related to the HPI/CC) you would ask the patient. Be sure to include an explanation of the tests you might recommend, ruling out any other issues or concerns and include your rationale. Be specific and provide examples. Use your Learning Resources and/or evidence from the literature to support your explanations. Your differential diagnosis, additional questions, additional diagnostic tests and rationales are what this assignment and grading is focused on. Your critical thinking for this assignment

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 you might recommend and explain 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_Week3_Case_Study_Discussion_Rubric

NRNP_6552_Week3_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 approprite 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

Excellent Point 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

PoorPoint range: 0–69

Does not meet requirements for full participation… Does not post by due date.

5 pts

Total Points: 100