NRSG366 Partnerships in Chronicity \u2013 Assessment 1: Information Sheet and Case ScenariosNRSG366 Partnerships in Chronicity
\nAssessment 1: Information Sheet and Case Scenarios<\/p>\n
Attached is information sheet and case scenarios 1&2, you can chose either one to do.
\nmarking rubric is attached, along with the assignment FAQ page for more instructions.
\nNRSG366 Partnerships in Chronicity
\nAssessment 1: Information Sheet and Case Scenarios
\nFor this assessment you are given a choice between two (2) case scenarios. The scenarios are your referral
\ninformation and no additional information is available.
\nEach student is to select one (1) scenario on which to base their assessment. The completed assessment is
\nto be submitted through the appropriate turn-it-in drop box on the NRSG366 LEO site. The Assessment
\nOne marking criteria in the unit outline is to be used to guide the preparation of this assessment.
\nWhen submitting your assessment, please do not use the scenario as part of your response.
\nOption 1: Epilepsy
\nJessica Williamson is a 28 year old woman with a past history of epilepsy. Two weeks ago Jessica was out socially, drinking
\nalcohol at a dance club. Jessica experienced a seizure whilst on the dance floor. Upon arrival at the local Emergency Department,
\nparamedic staff reported that she had experienced a full tonic-clonic seizure that lasted for three minutes, during which she lost
\nconsciousness. Jessica was assessed and admitted. During her hospitalisation, Jessica was stabilised and discharged from
\nhospital 1 week after the episode. Her discharge medications included an anticonvulsant.
\nOn discharge Jessica was asked to attend her GP for follow-up.
\nMedical History
\nJessica was diagnosed with epilepsy in late adolescence. Initially the seizures were very difficult to control using anticonvulsants
\nbut her condition stabilised 5 years ago. Three months ago she weaned herself off her anticonvulsants as she wanted to fall
\npregnant. During her hospitalization she was recommenced on her anticonvulsant.
\nFour years ago Jessica was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Jessica was taught to control her blood glucose levels using
\ndiet and oral hypoglycaemics, this is now decreasingly effective.
\nHer most recent observations include:
\n BP: 150\/90
\n P: 115 regular
\n Height: 158 cms
\n Weight: 122 kgs
\n BGL 12.9
\nHer current medications are:
\n Epilim 1 gm BD
\n Metformin 850mg BD
\nSocial History
\nJessica lives in a two-storey house with her current partner of six years, Martin. Jessica\u2019s parents live overseas where her mother
\nhas been posted for work. Jessica is an only child. She works as a real estate agent selling homes and covers a large geographic
\narea involving long and irregular work hours. This can involve her driving long distances and for long periods of time. Jessica
\nenjoys her work and the challenges of being independent at work and at home. Despite being advised by her GP that she must
\nnot drive after suffering this recent seizure, Jessica continues to do so.
\nCurrent Issue
\nFollowing the follow-up appointment with the GP, the GP was concerned about Jessica\u2019s seemingly poor acceptance of her
\nmedical diagnoses and her compliance with the treatment regime for both her diabetes and epilepsy. Jessica indicated she did
\nnot need any more prescriptions for her anticonvulsants at the moment.
\nJessica is not particularly careful about monitoring her blood sugar levels. She says she often forgets, and tends to check when
\nshe \u201cfeels fuzzy\u201d.
\nAs this is your first visit to Jessica in her home, justify and discuss the immediate plan of care for her.
\nAssessment Focus
\nYou are the Registered Nurse from the Community Nursing Service.
\nYou will be undertaking an initial visit to Jessica\u2019s home.
\nPrioritise and provide a rationale for the activities you will undertake as part of this initial visit and identify two (2) priorities for
\nyour follow-up visit.
\nOption 2: Chronic Pain
\nJohn Ryan is a 66 year old male with a history of chronic back pain related to spinal stenosis, and degeneration of the left hip. He
\nhas been reviewed in the Outpatient Pain Clinic on a monthly basis for the past 4 months, after a sudden increase in pain and
\nchanges in his level of activity. His pain specialist is concerned about his level of function at home and has referred John to the
\ncommunity nursing service for an initial assessment and review.
\nMedical history
\nJohn has spinal stenosis which was diagnosed in his early forties. He has significant pain in his lower back and hip, slight (L) leg
\nweakness and slight loss of sensation in both his feet. He is generally fit, but slightly overweight.
\nHis most recent observations are as follows:
\n BP: 135\/80
\n P: 60 bpm,
\n R: 18 bpm,
\n Height: 180 cm
\n Weight 95 kg.
\nCurrent medications:
\n Ibuprofen 400 mg 6qh
\n Baclofen 20 mg BD
\n Diazepam 2.5mg \u2013 5mg PRN
\nSocial history:
\nJohn is an engineer with a mining company who spends his time equally between the mine in a remote location as a Fly In, Fly
\nOut (FIFO) worker. He has an office location in the CBD for his locally based work.
\nJohn is married to Donna and they have two adult children, both married. Donna works part time as office manager for a small
\ncompany and is hoping they can retire soon so they can travel and see more of their grandchildren.
\nTheir daughter Jean (37 years) lives with her husband and three small children in a large coastal community, 45 minutes drive
\nfrom John and Donna\u2019s home. Their son Robert (39 years) lives with his partner in another major interstate city.
\nCurrent Issue
\nJohn reports being woken up by pain at night. During the day, he has pain if he sits still for too long, but also if he walks or rides
\na bike for too long, and the time he can spend on these activities varies. John states he is sick of the hours of focused exercise he
\nneeds to do to keep his core muscles strong and to keep him mobile and flexible. He is also sick of always having to take pain
\nmedications that have not been effective. In addition he reported being \u2018fed up with being aware of my back and hip all the time
\nand feeling limited because of them\u2019. Recently, whilst playing with his four-year-old grandchild, swinging him through the air,
\nJohn experienced a significant flare in his level of pain.
\nJohn has been alternating between being angry about having ongoing pain, and being depressed because he is increasingly
\nunable to do the activities he has always done. He was a keen hiker and had dreams of spending his retirement hiking in remote
\nplaces. Now he can barely walk five kilometers on level ground without pain. He was also a keen bicycle rider. Initially this
\nhelped with his pain management. But increasingly, he is losing interest in riding as it also causes increased pain.
\nJohn has been seen by a physiotherapist on a regular basis over the years, but he stopped going, because he felt they were not
\nhelping him, as he was progressively experiencing more pain. He has increasing bilateral leg weakness, bilateral muscle wasting
\nand reduced sensation in both feet. He experiences blisters on his feet as a result of pressure on his feet, which he ignores.
\nThe specialist at the Pain Clinic is also concerned about John\u2019s level of medication adherence.
\nAssessment Focus
\nYou are the Registered Nurse from the Community Nursing Service.
\nYou will be undertaking an initial visit to John\u2019s home.
\nPrioritise and provide a rationale for the activities you will undertake as part of this initial visit and identify two (2) priorities for
\nyour follow-up visit.
\n.
\nHi Ashton:)
\nHope you are well.
\nI have a question about what is meant by \u201cplease do not use the scenario as
\npart of your response.\u201d
\nI have read the unit outline and the additional information you have provided
\nfor the assignment and understand we are required to present a
\ncomprehensive discussion and justification identifying 2 care priorities within
\na clinical scenario using the \u201cLevette-Jones clinical reasoning Cycle.\u201d
\nSo I read more into what the levette Jones clinical reasnoing cyle was, how I
\ncould relate it to the scenario I have chosen and the priorities I would make in
\nproviding care for my chosen patient in the scenario and read up more on the
\nillness mentioned in the scenario.
\nHowever in the assessment 1 information sheet it says \u201cplease do not use the
\nscenario as part of your response\u201d. So I\u2019m alittle bit confused as to how I
\nformulate my discussion and present my care priorities without mentioning
\nthe patient in scenario. Does my essay need to be based directly on the
\npatient of my scenario or just in general of the illness and its care priorities
\nBecause the assessment focus on the scenarios then say to \u201d prioritise and
\nprovide a rational for the activities you will be undertaking as part of your
\ninitial visit and identify 2 priorities for you follow up visit.\u201d So I\u2019m not sure if I
\nwrite about the patient directly and thecare priorities for her or not to write
\nabout her at all.
\nsorry about the confusion with it all, I just wasn\u2019t sure i was understanding it
\ncorrectly so thought I would make sure first..
\nthanks for you time!<\/p>\n
jhanil
\nHi Jhanil,
\nThank you for your forum post and I can appreciate how this wording could
\nbe misunderstood. .
\nTo begin, before you can prioritise your care and implement a specific
\nintervention you (as in all of your clinical practice as a registered nurse) will
\nfirst need to perform an assessment that is relevant, this will add strength to
\nyour chosen priority by demonstrating to the reader why it is that you\u2019ve
\nchosen this priority. You must then explain the priority, with relevant reference
\nto the chosen client. This essentially, is the first three components of the
\nclinical reasoning cycle, consider the patient, collect cues and information and
\nprocess this information and essentially will end with you identifying the
\npriority ( known as identifying problems\/issues). You are then required to
\nestablish goals relevant to the patient and in doing so you must justify why
\nhave you chosen this priority- this is the taking action component of the cycle.
\nYou must support your chosen priority with the most relevant and up to date
\nevidence and then describe how you will assess the success of your
\nsuggested intervention or in other words you will be required to reflect on the
\npractice you have just suggested.
\nThe number of priorities in the first visit is entirely up to you, however
\nremember there is a 1600 +\/- 10% word limit for the paper.
\nYou are then required to, using the same process as above, identify a further
\ntwo priorities for your follow up visit.
\nTherefore, you will need to use the case study information throughout your
\npaper and refer back to it at times, however this phrase \u2018please do not use
\nthe scenario as part of your response\u2019 was intended to deter students from
\nsimply copying and pasting the entire case study as part of their assignment,
\nwhich is what happened last year- the emphasis is on you being able to
\nidentify priorities of care given the information provided not to simply show me
\nthat you can copy and paste.
\nI hope that this helps to clarify for you,
\nAshton
\nHi, Ashton:
\nThank you for your specific explanation. However, I am a little bit confused
\nabout the format of this essay. If I have several nursing diagnosis, Can I write
\ndown my assessments at first (this will be very thorough and contain
\neverything), then I will write down these several diagnosis and apply
\ninterventions to each diagnosis Or I have to write down one assessment-one
\nnursing diagnosis- one intervention and then write down the second
\nassessment-second nursing diagnosis- nursing intervention
\nI am not sure which format is more appropriate for this essay
\nI am looking forward to your reply. Thanks
\nKind regards
\nSheena
\nHi Sheena,
\nThank you for your forum post.
\nUnfortunately, I am unable to provide specific guidance in relation to the
\nformat you choose to present the assignment in. This is primarily because
\nthere is no right or wrong answer here, there are multiple ways you could
\nformat this, you should use the information above from me as a guide and
\ndetermine what works best in your individual case. Additionally, ensuring that
\nyou have taken into account all aspects of the rubric will assist with this.
\nAshton
\nHi Ashton:)
\nHope you are well.
\nI have a question about what is meant by \u201cplease do not use the scenario as
\npart of your response.\u201d
\nI have read the unit outline and the additional information you have provided
\nfor the assignment and understand we are required to present a
\ncomprehensive discussion and justification identifying 2 care priorities within
\na clinical scenario using the \u201cLevette-Jones clinical reasoning Cycle.\u201d
\nSo I read more into what the levette Jones clinical reasnoing cyle was, how I
\ncould relate it to the scenario I have chosen and the priorities I would make in
\nproviding care for my chosen patient in the scenario and read up more on the
\nillness mentioned in the scenario.
\nHowever in the assessment 1 information sheet it says \u201cplease do not use the
\nscenario as part of your response\u201d. So I\u2019m alittle bit confused as to how I
\nformulate my discussion and present my care priorities without mentioning
\nthe patient in scenario. Does my essay need to be based directly on the
\npatient of my scenario or just in general of the illness and its care priorities
\nBecause the assessment focus on the scenarios then say to \u201d prioritise and
\nprovide a rational for the activities you will be undertaking as part of your
\ninitial visit and identify 2 priorities for you follow up visit.\u201d So I\u2019m not sure if I
\nwrite about the patient directly and thecare priorities for her or not to write
\nabout her at all.
\nsorry about the confusion with it all, I just wasn\u2019t sure i was understanding it
\ncorrectly so thought I would make sure first..
\nthanks for you time!<\/p>\n
jhanil
\nHi Jhanil,
\nThank you for your forum post and I can appreciate how this wording could
\nbe misunderstood. .
\nTo begin, before you can prioritise your care and implement a specific
\nintervention you (as in all of your clinical practice as a registered nurse) will
\nfirst need to perform an assessment that is relevant, this will add strength to
\nyour chosen priority by demonstrating to the reader why it is that you\u2019ve
\nchosen this priority. You must then explain the priority, with relevant reference
\nto the chosen client. This essentially, is the first three components of the
\nclinical reasoning cycle, consider the patient, collect cues and information and
\nprocess this information and essentially will end with you identifying the
\npriority ( known as identifying problems\/issues). You are then required to
\nestablish goals relevant to the patient and in doing so you must justify why
\nhave you chosen this priority- this is the taking action component of the cycle.
\nYou must support your chosen priority with the most relevant and up to date
\nevidence and then describe how you will assess the success of your
\nsuggested intervention or in other words you will be required to reflect on the
\npractice you have just suggested.
\nThe number of priorities in the first visit is entirely up to you, however
\nremember there is a 1600 +\/- 10% word limit for the paper.
\nYou are then required to, using the same process as above, identify a further
\ntwo priorities for your follow up visit.
\nTherefore, you will need to use the case study information throughout your
\npaper and refer back to it at times, however this phrase \u2018please do not use
\nthe scenario as part of your response\u2019 was intended to deter students from
\nsimply copying and pasting the entire case study as part of their assignment,
\nwhich is what happened last year- the emphasis is on you being able to
\nidentify priorities of care given the information provided not to simply show me
\nthat you can copy and paste.
\nI hope that this helps to clarify for you,
\nAshton
\nHi, Ashton:
\nThank you for your specific explanation. However, I am a little bit confused
\nabout the format of this essay. If I have several nursing diagnosis, Can I write
\ndown my assessments at first (this will be very thorough and contain
\neverything), then I will write down these several diagnosis and apply
\ninterventions to each diagnosis Or I have to write down one assessment-one
\nnursing diagnosis- one intervention and then write down the second
\nassessment-second nursing diagnosis- nursing intervention
\nI am not sure which format is more appropriate for this essay
\nI am looking forward to your reply. Thanks
\nKind regards
\nSheena
\nHi Sheena,
\nThank you for your forum post.
\nUnfortunately, I am unable to provide specific guidance in relation to the
\nformat you choose to present the assignment in. This is primarily because
\nthere is no right or wrong answer here, there are multiple ways you could
\nformat this, you should use the information above from me as a guide and
\ndetermine what works best in your individual case. Additionally, ensuring that
\nyou have taken into account all aspects of the rubric will assist with this.
\nAshton
\nNRSG366 Partnership in Chronicity, Semester 1 2016 Page 1 of 2
\nASSESSMENT TASK 1: Individual Case Study Marking Criteria \u2013 Weighting: 40 %
\nTeam Assessment
\nCriteria
\nHIGH DISTINCTION
\n85-100
\nDISTINCTION
\n75-84
\nCREDIT
\n65-74
\nPASS
\n50-64
\nFAIL
\n1-49
\nNO ATTEMPT
\n0
\nMARK
\nLanguage Awareness
\nand Sequencing
\nThe language is
\nsophisticated, and
\nappropriate for the target
\naudience, and suits the
\npurpose for which the essay
\nis intended
\nThe content in the essay
\nmatches the outline
\npresented in the introductory
\nparagraph. Paragraphs are
\norganised, and there is a
\nlogical progression of ideas
\nso that content flows from
\none paragraph to the next.
\nThe essay ends with a
\nrational conclusion.
\nThe language is appropriate
\nfor the target audience, with
\nintegrated professional
\nlanguage and terminology
\nthat suits the purpose for
\nwhich the essay is intended.
\nThe content in the essay
\nmatches the outline
\npresented in the
\nintroductory paragraph.
\nParagraphs are organised
\nin a logical manner so that
\ncontent flows from one
\nparagraph to the next, and
\nthe essay ends with a
\nrational conclusion.
\nThe language is appropriate
\nfor the target audience, and
\nsuits the purpose for which
\nthe essay is intended
\nThe content in the essay
\nmatches the outline presented
\nin the introductory paragraph.
\nMost paragraphs are
\norganised in a logical manner
\nso that content flows from one
\nparagraph to the next, and the
\nessay ends with a rational
\nconclusion.
\nThe language is appropriate
\nfor the target audience, and
\nmostly suits the purpose for
\nwhich the essay is intended
\nThe content in the essay
\nmostly matches the outline
\npresented in the introductory
\nparagraph. Most paragraphs
\nare organised in a logical
\nmanner, and the essay ends
\nwith a rational conclusion.
\nThe language is
\nappropriate for the target
\naudience. However, it
\ndoes not suit the purpose
\nfor which the essay is
\nintended
\nThere is a clear
\nintroduction, followed by
\nthe body of the essay, with
\na conclusion. However,
\ncontent within the body
\nand within paragraphs is
\nnot always logically
\nsequenced.
\nThe language in
\nthe essay is not
\nsuited to the
\ntarget audience.
\nThere is no
\nsequencing.
\n15%
\nContent \u2013 Evidence &
\nExamples
\nA clear, well-constructed and
\nbalanced argument has
\nbeen presented. The
\nargument has been justified.
\nThe content is pertinent to
\nthe topic. High quality
\nevidence and examples are
\npresented.
\nThe content is relevant to
\nthe topic. High quality
\nevidence and examples are
\npresented
\nA clear, well-constructed
\nand balanced argument has
\nbeen presented..
\nThe content is relevant to the
\ntopic. Appropriate evidence
\nand examples are presented.
\nA clear, well-structured
\nargument has been
\npresented.
\nThe content is relevant to the
\ntopic. Evidence and
\nexamples are presented of
\nvarying quality.
\nA clear argument has been
\npresented.
\nMost content is relevant to
\nthe topic. Evidence and
\nexamples are presented of
\nvarying quality.
\nA clear argument has not
\nbeen presented.
\nThe content,
\nevidence and
\nexamples are not
\nappropriate No
\nargument has
\nbeen presented..
\n30%
\nContent: Critical
\nThinking, Reasoning
\nand Evaluation of the
\nEvidence
\nThere is evidence of both
\ndepth and breadth of
\nreading. A considered
\nargument is presented, and
\nis supported by adequate
\nand appropriate evidence.
\nThere is evidence of both
\ndepth and breadth of
\nreading. An argument is
\npresented, and is supported
\nby adequate and
\nappropriate evidence.
\nThere is evidence of both
\ndepth and breadth of reading.
\nA considered argument is
\npresented, and is supported
\nby adequate and appropriate
\nevidence.
\nAn argument is presented,
\nand is supported by adequate
\nand appropriate evidence.
\nAn argument is presented,
\nand is supported by
\nminimal evidence.
\nThere is no clear
\nargument
\npresented.
\n50%
\nNRSG366 Partnership in Chronicity, Semester 1 2016 Page 2 of 2
\nSource & Referencing Credible and relevant
\nreferences are used.
\nAccurate use of APA
\nreferencing style in all
\ninstances. A range of in-text
\ncitations has been used.
\nCredible and relevant
\nreferences are used.
\nAccurate use of APA
\nreferencing style on most
\noccasions. A range of intext
\ncitations has been
\nused.
\nCredible and relevant
\nreferences are used. Accurate
\nuse of APA referencing style
\non most occasions. There is
\nlimited use of a range of in-text
\ncitation formats.
\nCredible and relevant
\nreferences are used.
\nAccurate use of APA
\nreferencing style on most
\noccasions. There is no
\nvariation of in-text citation
\nformat.
\nNot all references are
\ncredible and\/or relevant.
\nMany inaccuracies with the
\nAPA referencing style.
\nThere are no
\nreferences used.
\n5%
\nOVERALL MARK 100%
\nMarked by:
\nComments:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
NRSG366 Partnerships in Chronicity \u2013 Assessment 1: Information Sheet and Case ScenariosNRSG366 Partnerships in Chronicity Assessment 1: Information Sheet and Case Scenarios Attached is information sheet and case scenarios 1&2, you can chose either one to do. marking rubric is Read More …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-93491","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93491","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=93491"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93491\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93491"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93491"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93491"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}