Case Study Assessment
Caring for a patient with pneumonia and chest pain
Mr. John Black is a 61 year old patient admitted to your medical ward via the emergency department with L) Lower Lobe pneumonia.
Past History:
Angina, Hypertension and Type 2 diabetes mellitus
Family History:
Mother – AMI, Migraines
Father – CA Colon
Medications:
• frusemide 40mg Daily
• Slow K 600mg Daily
• metoprolol 50mg Daily
• metformin 500mg BD
• glyceryl trinitrate(GTN) sublingual PRN
• ceftriaxone 1G Daily for 3/7
• salbutamol 5mg 4/24 +PRN via nebuliser
Allergies – Penicillin
Please answer the following questions supported by current health care related literature (i.e. Peer-reviewed Journal articles less than 7 years old).
• Ensure your answers realte to the case study and are not simply a general discussion about the medication/pathophysiology in question
• All answers must be referenced according to the APA 6 citation standards.
• Provide your answers on the marking rubric template provided on LMS
• Provide a brief introduction and conclusion (maximum 100 words each)
• Do not use dot points – use academic writing & sentence construction
• Responses must be provided under the headings Question 1, Question 2 etc
• Word limit: 1500 words +/- 10% (each question = approx. 300 words)
Question 1:
Why is Mr Black prescribed metoprolol? Discuss the rationale behind the use of this drug for Mr Black and relate your discussion to the relevant underlying pathophysiology.
Include in your discussion, action and therapeutic benefits of the drug for Mr Black, as well as possible adverse and/or side effects and nursing precautions that should be considered when administering Metoprolol to this patient specifically.
Question 2:
Discuss the pathophysiology of Angina.
Question 3:
Why is Mr Black prescribed GTN? Discuss the rationale behind the use of this drug for Mr Black.
Include in your discussion, action and therapeutic benefits of the drug for Mr Black, as well as possible adverse and/or side effects and nursing precautions that should be considered when administering GTN to this patient specifically.
Question 4:
Explain why Mr Black has been commenced on IV Ceftriaxone. Discuss the rationale behind the use of this drug for Mr Black.
Include in your discussion, action and therapeutic benefits of the drug for Mr Black, as well as possible adverse and/or side effects and nursing precautions that should be considered when administering ceftriaxone to this patient specifically. Do not include in your discussion any information on how to give IV medications.
Question 5:
Explain why Mr Black is prescribed metformin. Discuss the rationale behind the use of this drug for Mr Black.
Include in your discussion, action and therapeutic benefits of the drug for Mr Black, as well as possible adverse and/or side effects and nursing precautions that should be considered when administering metformin to this patient specifically.
School of Nursing & Midwifery NSG2HPA – Case Study Assessment 2015 (Sing18) Excellent (> 80%) Very good (70-79%) Good (60-69%) Fair (50-59%) Poor (<49%) Max marks
CONTENT • Clearly addressed the topic with an appropriate depth in discussion of the relevant sub-topics
• Correct information given
• Appropriately weighted
• Within the prescribed word count
• (marks – 12-15) • Clearly addressed the topic with some depth in discussion of the relevant sub-topics
• Correct information given (70%+)
• Appropriately weighted
• Within the prescribed word count
• (marks – 10.5-12) • Addressed the topic with some depth in discussion of the relevant sub-topics
• Some areas not well explained
• Correct information given (60%+)
• May be inappropriately weighted
• Within the prescribed word count
• (marks – 9-10.5) • Some of the topic addressed but lacked depth in discussion of the relevant sub-topics
• Some areas poorly explained
• Correct information given (50%+)
• May be inappropriately weighted
• May not be within the prescribed word count
• (marks – 7.5-9) • Most of the topic not addressed and lacked depth in discussion of the relevant sub-topics
• Many areas poorly explained
• Incorrect information given
• Inappropriately weighted
• Not within the prescribed word count
• (marks – < 7.5) • 15
USE OF LITERATURE • Demonstrated an excellent understanding of links between the necessary concepts.
• Demonstrated clear and consistent evidence of critical appraisal of
• Reference material
• Evidence of synthesis of information and logical development of arguments
• Well supported with sufficient and appropriate material from relevant and credible sources
• (marks – 12-15) • Demonstrated a very good understanding of links between the necessary concepts.
• Demonstrated some evidence of critical appraisal of reference
• Material
• Some evidence of synthesis of information and logical development of arguments
• Well supported with sufficient and appropriate material from relevant and credible sources
• (marks – 10.5-12) • Demonstrated a good understanding of links between the necessary concepts.
• Demonstrated inconsistent evidence of critical appraisal of reference
• Material
• Inconsistent evidence of synthesis of information and logical development of arguments
• Supported with references
• Some inappropriate material and/or from poor quality sources
• (marks – 9-10.5) • Demonstrated limited understanding of links between the necessary concepts.
• Demonstrated limited evidence of critical appraisal of reference
• Material
• Limited evidence of synthesis of information and logical development of arguments
• Poorly supported with references
• Much inappropriate material and/or from poor quality sources
• (marks – 7.5-9) • Demonstrated lack of understanding of links between the necessary concepts.
• No evidence of critical appraisal of reference material
• Inadequate evidence of synthesis of information and logical
• Development of arguments
• Poorly supported with references
• Much inappropriate material and/or from poor quality sources
• (marks – < 7.5) • 15
STRUCTURE & ORGANISATION • Introduction, body & conclusion appropriate to type and format of response
• Well structured, with coherent and logical development of key ideas in appropriate sections/paragraphs
• (marks – 4-5) • Introduction, body & conclusion appropriate to type and format of response
• Well structured, with mostly coherent and logical development of key ideas in appropriate
Sections/paragraphs
• (marks – 3.5-4) • Introduction, body or conclusion may not be appropriate to type and format of response
• Structure coherent with logical development of key ideas in appropriate sections/paragraphs
Some of the time
• (marks – 3-3.5) • Introduction, body or conclusion
• May not be appropriate to type and format of response
• Structure may not be coherent & no logical development of key ideas
• (marks – 2.5-3) • Introduction, body or conclusion may not be appropriate to type and format of response
• Structure lacks logical development of key ideas
• (marks – <2.5) • 5
WRITTEN EXPRESSION, PRESENTATION & REFERENCING • Writing was fluent
• Very minimal spelling, typing or grammatical errors
• Key ideas from the literature were effectively paraphrased and cited
• Specified format used (font, margins etc)
• Correct style for citations and reference list the majority (80%+)
Of the time
• (marks – 8-10 • Writing was fluent
• Very minimal spelling, typing or grammatical errors
• Key ideas from the literature were effectively paraphrased and cited
• Specified format used (font, margins etc)
• Correct style for citations and reference list most (70%+) of the
Time
• (marks – 7-8) • Writing was not always fluent
• Some spelling, typing or grammatical errors
• Key ideas from the literature were not always effectively paraphrased or cited
• Specified format used (font, margins etc)
• Correct style for citations and reference list most (60%+) of the
Time
• (marks – 6-7) • Writing may not be fluent
• Some spelling, typing or grammatical errors
• Key ideas from the literature were not always effectively paraphrased or cited
• Specified format may not have been used (font, margins etc)
• Correct style for citations and reference list 50%+ of the time
• (marks – 5-6) • Writing was not fluent
• Many spelling, typing or grammatical errors
• Key ideas from the literature were not effectively paraphrased or cited
• Specified format may not have been used (font, margins etc)
• Incorrect style for citations and reference list
• (marks – <5) • 10
COMMENTS
Marker:
TOTAL MARK
/45
Adapted from La Trobe University grading criteria & the work of Pauline Wong (LTU/Alfred Clinical School)
Student Name:
LTU Student ID:
Please commence your assignment below this line: