11-year-old boy complains of wheezing and difficulty getting enough air. Notices it more when he is playing baseball and symptoms improve when exercise activity stops. He says that the symptoms are getting worse and the symptoms are even occurring at rest. Mother says the child is allergic to cat dander and his next-door neighbor in their apartment building recently began sheltering cats for the local humane society. Auscultation demonstrates wheezes on forced expiration throughout all lung fields.
Assignment (1- to 2-page case study analysis)
In your Case Study Analysis related to the scenario provided, explain the following: Each bullet point should reflect a subject heading followed by subsequent content reflective of primary sources of reference as well as Standards of Care.
- The cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes that result in the patient presenting these symptoms.
- Any racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning.
- How these processes interact to affect the patient.
https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pmc/articles/PMC4961993/
RUBRIC:
Develop a 1- to 2-page case study analysis, examining the patient symptoms presented in the case study. Be sure to address the following:
Explain both the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes of why the patient presents these symptoms. Points: Points Range: 28 (28%) – 30 (30%) The response accurately and thoroughly describes the patient symptoms.
The response includes accurate, clear, and detailed reasons, with explanation for both the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 25 (25%) – 27 (27%) The response describes the patient symptoms.
The response includes accurate reasons, with explanation for both the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 23 (23%) – 24 (24%) The response describes the patient symptoms in a manner that is vague or inaccurate.
The response includes reasons for the cardiovascular and/or cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes, with explanations that are vague or based on inappropriate evidence/research. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 22 (22%) The response describes the patient symptoms in a manner that is vague and inaccurate, or the description is missing.
The response does not include reasons for either the cardiovascular or cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes, or the explanations are vague or based on inappropriate or no evidence/research. Feedback: Explain how the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes interact to affect the patient. Points: Points Range: 28 (28%) – 30 (30%) The response includes an accurate, complete, detailed, and specific explanation of how the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes interact to affect the patient. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 25 (25%) – 27 (27%) The response includes an accurate explanation of how the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes interact to affect the patient. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 23 (23%) – 24 (24%) The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of how the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes interact to affect the patient. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 22 (22%) The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of how the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes interact to affect the patient. Feedback: Explain any racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning. Points: Points Range: 23 (23%) – 25 (25%) The response includes an accurate, complete, detailed, and specific explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 20 (20%) – 22 (22%) The response includes an accurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 18 (18%) – 19 (19%) The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning, and/or explanations based on inappropriate evidence/research. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 17 (17%) The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning, or the explanations are based on inappropriate or no evidence/research. Feedback: Written 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 focusedneither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria. Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) 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. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) 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. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) 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. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.
No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided. Feedback: Written Expression and Formatting – English Writing Standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many ( 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the readers understanding. Feedback: Written 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. Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many ( 5) APA format errors. Feedback: Show DescriptionsShow Feedback
Develop a 1- to 2-page case study analysis, examing the patient symptoms presented in the case study. Be sure to address the following:
Explain both the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes of why the patient presents these symptoms.–
Levels of Achievement:Excellent28 (28%) – 30 (30%)The response accurately and thoroughly describes the patient symptoms.
The response includes accurate, clear, and detailed reasons, with explanation for both the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation.Good25 (25%) – 27 (27%)The response describes the patient symptoms.
The response includes accurate reasons, with explanation for both the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation.Fair23 (23%) – 24 (24%)The response describes the patient symptoms in a manner that is vague or inaccurate.
The response includes reasons for the cardiovascular and/or cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes, with explanations that are vague or based on inappropriate evidence/research.Poor0 (0%) – 22 (22%)The response describes the patient symptoms in a manner that is vague and inaccurate, or the description is missing.
The response does not include reasons for either the cardiovascular or cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes, or the explanations are vague or based on inappropriate or no evidence/research.Feedback:
Explain how the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes interact to affect the patient.–
Levels of Achievement:Excellent28 (28%) – 30 (30%)The response includes an accurate, complete, detailed, and specific explanation of how the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes interact to affect the patient.Good25 (25%) – 27 (27%)The response includes an accurate explanation of how the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes interact to affect the patient.Fair23 (23%) – 24 (24%)The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of how the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes interact to affect the patient.Poor0 (0%) – 22 (22%)The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of how the cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary pathophysiologic processes interact to affect the patient.Feedback:
Explain any racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning.–
Levels of Achievement:Excellent23 (23%) – 25 (25%)The response includes an accurate, complete, detailed, and specific explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation.Good20 (20%) – 22 (22%)The response includes an accurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation.Fair18 (18%) – 19 (19%)The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning, and/or explanations based on inappropriate evidence/research.Poor0 (0%) – 17 (17%)The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning, or the explanations are based on inappropriate or no evidence/research.Feedback:
Written 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 focusedneither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria.–
Levels of Achievement:Excellent5 (5%) – 5 (5%)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.Good4 (4%) – 4 (4%)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.Fair3 (3%) – 3 (3%)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.Poor0 (0%) – 2 (2%)Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.
No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided.Feedback:
Written Expression and Formatting – English Writing Standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation–
Levels of Achievement:Excellent5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.Good4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.Fair3 (3%) – 3 (3%)Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.Poor0 (0%) – 2 (2%)Contains many ( 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the readers understanding.Feedback:
Written 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.–
Levels of Achievement:Excellent5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Uses correct APA format with no errors.Good4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.Fair3 (3%) – 3 (3%)Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.Poor0 (0%) – 2 (2%)Contains many ( 5) APA format errors.Feedback:Total Points: 100
