Common Gynecologic Conditions, Part 2
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 to the development of treatment plans.
For this Case Study Assignment, you will choose from four case studies to identify a challenging gynecological disease process. You will then explore this case study to determine the diagnosis, diagnostic tests, and treatment options for the patient.
Resources
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
To prepare:
· Review the 4 case studies under this week’s learning resources. Select one of the cases to prepare your written assignment.
· Review the Learning Resources for this week.
Assignment Instructions:
· Use the Case Study Template from the Learning Resources to complete the assignment. Your submission must include a brief case write-up, followed by the fully completed template, which must be integrated into the document rather than submitted separately.
· Include a title page, a case summary in your own words, the completed template, and a reference page formatted in APA style.
· Ensure your submission meets all criteria outlined in the template and rubric for completeness and accuracy.
By Day 7 of Week 5
Submit your case study assignment by
Day 7 of Week 5.
submission information
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the
Turnitin Drafts from the
Start Here area.
1. To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as
Wk5Assgn_LastName_Firstinitial
2. Then, click on
Start Assignment near the top of the page.
3. Next, click on
Upload File and select
Submit Assignment for review.
Rubric
NRNP_6552_Week5_Case_Study_Assignment_Rubric
|
NRNP_6552_Week5_Case_Study_Assignment_Rubric |
||
|
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalyzes subjective and objective data and outlines applicable diagnostic tests related to case studies. |
30 to >26.7 ptsExcellentThe response provides clear, complete, and comprehensive descriptions of subjective and objective case data, appropriately outlining all diagnostic tests, clinical procedures and pharmacological interventions. 26.7 to >23.7 ptsGoodThe response provides clear, complete partial descriptions of the components of the subjective and objective case data, appropriately outlining most of the diagnostic tests, clinical procedures and pharmacological interventions. 23.7 to >20.7 ptsFairThe response provides some components of the subjective and objective case data, but they are incomplete, vague or inaccurate, outlining some of the diagnostic tests, clinical procedures and pharmacological interventions. 20.7 to >0 ptsPoorThe response provides unclear or incomplete components of subjective and objective case data. The diagnostic tests, clinical procedures and pharmacological interventions are missing, incorrect, or inappropriately applied. |
30 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentifies differential diagnoses related to case studies. |
30 to >26.76 ptsExcellentThe response contains at least 3 differential diagnoses relevant and applicable to the case. 26.76 to >23.7 ptsGoodThe response contains at least 2 differential diagnoses relevant and applicable to the case. 23.7 to >20.7 ptsFairThe response contains at least 1 differential diagnosis relevant and applicable to the case. 20.7 to >0 ptsPoorThe response contains few or no differential diagnoses and/or diagnoses are not relevant and applicable to the case. |
30 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFormulates a treatment plan related to case studies based on scientific rationale, evidence- based standards of care, and practice guidelines. Integrates ethical, psychological, physical, financial issues and Social Determinants of Health in plan. |
30 to >26.76 ptsExcellentFormulates a thorough treatment plan including explanations of appropriate diagnostic tests and treatment options. Fully incorporates syntheses representative of knowledge gained from the resources for the module and current credible sources, with no less than 75% of the treatment plan having exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least 3 current peer- reviewed, references or professional practice guidelines. 26.76 to >23.7 ptsGoodFormulates a partially complete treatment plan including partial explanations of appropriate diagnostic tests and treatment options. Somewhat incorporates syntheses representative of knowledge gained from the resources for the module and current credible sources with no less than 50% of the treatment plan having exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least 3 current peer- reviewed, references or professional practice guidelines. 23.7 to >20.7 ptsFairFormulates a minimally complete treatment plan including incomplete or vague explanations of appropriate diagnostic tests and treatment options. Lacking in synthesis of knowledge gained from the resources for the module and current credible sources. Supported by at least 2 current peer- reviewed, references or professional practice guidelines. 20.7 to >0 ptsPoorFormulates a treatment plan that contains incomplete explanations of appropriate diagnostic tests and treatment options and/ or explanations are missing. Lacks synthesis gained from the resources for the module and current credible sources. Supported by 1 or no current peer- reviewed, references or professional practice guidelines. |
30 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation |
5 to >4.45 ptsExcellentUses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4.45 to >3.95 ptsGoodContains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3.95 to >3.45 ptsFairContains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3.45 to >0 ptsPoorContains 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, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. |
5 to >4.45 ptsExcellentUses correct APA format with no errors. 4.45 to >3.95 ptsGoodContains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. 3.95 to >3.45 ptsFairContains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. 3.45 to >0 ptsPoorContains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. |
5 pts |
Barbara.
History of Present Illness (HPI): Barbara is a 73-year-old Caucasian G2P2002. She is a retired
schoolteacher, lives alone. She complains of 2-year history of ten episodes of daytime frequency with
small frequent voids, a constant desire to urinate, and nocturia x 3 every night, resulting in poor sleep.
More recently, symptoms have worsened and now include a sudden urge to void and occasional urinary
incontinence with structured physical activity. She changes pads three times a day and complains of
superficial dyspareunia. She denies OAB meds or hormone replacement therapy in the past. She
complains of mild constipation and has had three lower urinary tract infections (UTIs) in the last 12
months.
Prior medical history: HTN, UTI. Prior surgical history: Appendectomy (1998)
Current medications: Cardura 2mg daily, furosemide 20mg daily. Allergies: Penicillin
OB- GYN History: Forceps-assisted VD x 2. Menarche age 14, normal throughout life. No history of
sexually transmitted infections (STDs). Last pap smear age 67 years, normal.
LMP: Approximately 25 years ago. Contraception history: None.
Social history: Lives alone. Retired schoolteacher. ETOH: 1-2 glasses red wine nightly. No recreational
drug use. Never smoked. Plays bingo 3 times weekly and participates in structured physical activity
(pickle ball and Pilates) 3-4 times weekly.
Family history: Mother (deceased age 79)- CVA. Father (deceased age 72) – MI/ASHD
Review of Systems (ROS): As noted in HPI.
Physical Exam (PE)
VS: BP: 133/68, P: 68, RR: 16, T: 97.3, Weight 134lbs, Height 64 inches, BMI 23 kg/m2
On physical exam, marked urogenital atrophy is noted, no ulcerations noted. Positive urine leakage when
asked to cough. There is uterine descent into vagina up to the introitus, bladder is noted just at the
opening of the vagina, and rectum noted halfway to hymen.
