A male went to the emergency room for severe midepigastric abdominal pain. He was diagnosed with AAA ; however, as a precaution, the doctor ordered a CTA scan.
Because of a high potential for misdiagnosis, determining the precise cause of abdominal pain can be time consuming and challenging. By analyzing case studies of abnormal abdominal findings, nurses can prepare themselves to better diagnose conditions in the abdomen.
In this Lab Assignment, you will analyze an Episodic note case study that describes abnormal findings in patients seen in a clinical setting. You will consider what history should be collected from the patients as well as which physical exams and diagnostic tests should be conducted. You will also formulate a differential diagnosis with several possible
The Episodic Note Case Study: Abdominal Assessment
This is the HALF WAY POINT!
LAB ASSIGNMENT: ASSESSING THE ABDOMEN
A male went to the emergency room for severe midepigastric abdominal pain. He was diagnosed with AAA ; however, as a precaution, the doctor ordered a CTA scan.
Because of a high potential for misdiagnosis, determining the precise cause of abdominal pain can be time consuming and challenging. By analyzing case studies of abnormal abdominal findings, nurses can prepare themselves to better diagnose conditions in the abdomen.
In this Lab Assignment, you will analyze an Episodic note case study that describes abnormal findings in patients seen in a clinical setting. You will consider what history should be collected from the patients as well as which physical exams and diagnostic tests should be conducted. You will also formulate a differential diagnosis with several possible
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
REVIEW the Weekly Resources List to access the resources.
TO PREPARE
Review the Episodic note case study your instructor provides you for this weeks 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 weeks 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 patients condition. How would the results be used to make a diagnosis?
Identify at least five possible conditions that may be considered in a differential diagnosis for the patient.
SEE EPISODIC SOAP NOTE, BELOW
ABDOMINAL ASSESSMENT
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 PPIs 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 610; 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 ConditionsThis should be written as a narrative/paragraphs only!DO NOT rewrite a SOAP note.Tell me whats wrong with the Episodic SOAP Note, by responding to the statements/questions above.
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.
NURS_6512_Week_6_Assignment_1_Rubric
NURS_6512_Week_6_Assignment_1_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 readers 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
Learning Resources
Required Readings
Ball, J. W., Dains, J. E., Flynn, J. A., Solomon, B. S., & Stewart, R. W. (2023). Seidel’s guide to physical examination: An interprofessional approach (10th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.
Chapter 18, Abdomen
In this chapter, the authors summarize the anatomy and physiology of the abdomen. The authors also explain how to conduct an assessment of the abdomen.
Dains, J. E., Baumann, L. C., & Scheibel, P. (2019). Advanced health assessment and clinical diagnosis in primary care (6th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.
Credit Line: Advanced Health Assessment and Clinical Diagnosis in Primary Care, 6th Edition by Dains, J.E., Baumann, L. C., & Scheibel, P. Copyright 2019 by Mosby. Reprinted by permission of Mosby via the Copyright Clearance Center.
Chapter 3, Abdominal Pain
This chapter outlines how to collect a focused history on abdominal pain. This is followed by what to look for in a physical examination in order to make an accurate diagnosis.
Chapter 10, Constipation
The focus of this chapter is on identifying the causes of constipation through taking a focused history, conducting physical examinations, and performing laboratory tests.
Chapter 12, Diarrhea
In this chapter, the authors focus on diagnosing the cause of diarrhea. The chapter includes questions to ask patients about the condition, things to look for in a physical exam, and suggested laboratory or diagnostic studies to perform.
Chapter 29, Rectal Pain, Itching, and Bleeding This chapter focuses on how to diagnose rectal bleeding and pain. It includes a table containing possible diagnoses, the accompanying physical signs, and suggested diagnostic studies.
Colyar, M. R. (2015). Advanced practice nursing procedures. Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis.
Credit Line: Advanced practice nursing procedures, 1st Edition by Colyar, M. R. Copyright 2015 by F. A. Davis Company. Reprinted by permission of F. A. Davis Company via the Copyright Clearance Center.
These sections below explain the procedural knowledge needed to perform gastrointestinal procedures
.Chapter 115, X-Ray Interpretation of Abdomen pp. (514520)
