Assignment 1: Lab Assignment: Assessing the Abdomen NURS 6512

April 5, 2022
Want Place Order Now? With All Nursing Essays you can do it easy.

Assignment 1: Lab Assignment: Assessing the Abdomen NURS 6512

Assignment 1: Lab Assignment: Assessing the Abdomen NURS 6512

https://allnursingessays.com/assignment-1-lab-assignment-assessing-the-abdomen-nurs-6512/

Photo Credit: Getty Images/Hero Images

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.

A woman went to the emergency room for severe abdominal cramping. She was diagnosed with diverticulitis; however, as a precaution, the doctor ordered a CT scan. The CT scan revealed a growth on the pancreas, which turned out to be pancreatic cancer—the real cause of the cramping.

In this Lab Assignment, you will analyze an Episodic note case study that describes

Assignment 1 Lab Assignment Assessing the Abdomen NURS 6512

Assignment 1 Lab Assignment Assessing the Abdomen NURS 6512

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 conditions.

To Prepare

Review the Episodic note case study your instructor provides you for this week’s 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 week’s 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 patient’s 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.
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.

Abdominal Assessment

            Nurses and other healthcare providers play an important role in the promotion of health of diverse patient populations. They utilize their knowledge and skills in patient assessment to determine the actual and potential health needs of their patients. Abdominal health problems are part of the conditions that nurses address in their daily practice. Therefore, this essay examines a case study of a patient that came with abdominal health problem. The patient is a 47-year-old male that complained of generalized abdominal pain, which started 3 days ago. The essay examines the additional subjective and objective data that should be obtained from the patient, diagnostic investigations, and differential diagnoses that should be considered.

Subjective Analysis

Subjective information refers mainly to the data that healthcare providers obtain concerning the experiences of the patients with a health problem. Subjective data explores a wide range of aspects of a disease such as the concerns and feelings of the patient. A number of subjective information should be obtained from JR. One of them is the character of the abdominal pain. Besides the rating and intensity of the abdominal pain, questions related to aggravating, precipitating and relieving factors should be obtained. There is also a need to obtain information on whether the pain radiates to other parts of the body, generalized, increasing or decreasing in severity or not. Information about the pain such as its character such as being gradual or of sudden onset should also be obtained. Additional information about the diarrhea should also be obtained. For example, the frequency and number of diarrhea experienced in a day should be obtained. This is important as it provides clues into the hydration status of the patient. Information about the aggravating, precipitating, and relieving factors for diarrhea should also be obtained (Perry et al., 2021). Recent dietary history and habits should also be explored to determine the potential cause of the health problem. The history obtained from the JR indicates that he has a history of GI bleeding. It is therefore important to ask information related to whether there is blood stained stool, smell and color to determine the exact cause of the problem. Comprehensive acquisition of subjective information is therefore crucial to guide the development of the most accurate diagnosis for JR.

Objective Analysis

Objective data refers to the information that the healthcare provider obtains through physical examination. It entails the use of techniques such as observation, auscultation, percussion, and palpation. Objective data is mainly used to validate subjective data and develop accurate diagnosis of a problem affecting a client. A number of objective data needs to be obtained from the client in the case study. The first aspect of objective data is documenting the general appearance of JR. Information about the general appearance of the patient such as if well dressed and sick looking should have been obtained. Patients with chronic illnesses such as colon cancer may appear lethargic and malnourished. JR should have also been examined for jaundice and hydration status. Inspection of the abdomen should also be done to determine whether there is abdominal distention. Abdominal distention may lead to the development of diagnoses such as organomegally or pancreatic cancer. Observation should also aim at determining if there are any scars and distended veins. Palpation should also be done to determine if there is abdominal rigidity, tenderness, or rebound tenderness. Rigidity could indicate accumulation of fluid or abdominal matter in the peritoneal cavity, hence bowel obstruction (Cox, 2019). Therefore, the above objective data would guide the development of accurate diagnosis for the client.

If the Assessment is supported by Subjective and Objective Information

The assessment in the case study is supported by objective and subjective information. As noted initially, subjective data focuses on the perceptions and feelings of the patient with a disease. JR reported subjective data such as diarrhea and vomiting. He also reported pain and history of GI bleeding. Objective data focuses on the information that the healthcare provider obtains through physical assessment (Estes et al., 2019). The data such as vital signs, absence of murmurs, and intact skin without lesions are some of the objective information in the case study.

Diagnostic Tests

Additional diagnostic tests should be performed to come up with an accurate diagnosis of the health problem that the client in the case study is experiencing. One of the tests would be stool occult test to determine if there is blood in the stool or not. The other test is complete blood count to determine if the client has infection. Liver function tests may also be performed to determine whether there is an abnormality with liver enzymes, which indicate liver disease. Ultrasound of the abdomen may also be needed to view the abdominal organs for any abnormality (Williams, 2021).

Accepting or Rejecting Diagnosis and Possible Conditions

I would reject the diagnosis. The assessment was not comprehensive. For example, it did not examine the lower quadrant pain to determine its character. The subjective data points towards a possible diagnosis of gastroenteritis. The presence of abdominal pain, low-grade fever, vomiting and nausea are often associated with gastroenteritis. One of the differential diagnoses for JR in this case study is abdominal obstruction. Patients with abdominal obstruction often experience symptoms such as abdominal pains, vomiting, nausea, and vomiting. However, this condition is least likely due to the presence of diarrhea (Perry et al., 2021). The other possible differential diagnosis is pancreatic cancer. Patients with pancreatic cancer may experience symptoms such as abdominal pains, nausea, and vomiting. However, this should be ruled out by performing comprehensive history taking and physical examination. Diagnostic investigations such as abdominal ultrasound will help determine if JR is suffering from pancreatic cancer. The last differential diagnosis is diverticulitis. Diverticulitis is also associated with left lower quadrant pain, nausea, fever, and vomiting (Williams, 2021). The condition should be ruled out through a CT scan of the abdomen.

Conclusion

In conclusion, comprehensive assessment and physical examination is important in patient care. Additional subjective and objective data should be obtained from the patient in the case study to develop an accurate diagnosis. In addition, diagnostic investigations should be done to determine the actual cause of the abdominal problem. Differential diagnoses should be considered to guide the development of the treatment plan.

 

 

By Day 7 of Week 6

Submit your Lab Assignment.

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK6Assgn1+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
Click the Week 6 Assignment 1 Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
Click the Week 6 Assignment 1 link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK6Assgn1+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
Grading Criteria

Click here to ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT:   Assignment 1: Lab Assignment: Assessing the Abdomen NURS 6512

To access your rubric:

Week 6 Assignment 1 Rubric

Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity

To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:

Submit your Week 6 Assignment 1 draft and review the originality report.

Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 6

To participate in this Assignment:

Week 6 Assignment 1

Exam: Week 6 Midterm Exam

This exam is a test of your knowledge in preparation for your certification exam. No outside resources, including books, notes, websites, or any other type of resource, are to be used to complete this exam. You are expected to comply with Walden University’s Code of Conduct.

This exam will be on topics covered in weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Prior to starting the exam, you should review all of your materials. This exam is timed with a limit of 2 hours for completion. When time is up, your exam will automatically submit.

By Day 7 of Week 6

Submit your Midterm Exam.

Submission and Grading Information

Submit Your Midterm Exam by Day 7 of Week 6.

To Complete this Exam:

Week 6 Exam

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: NURS_6512_Week_6_Assignment_1_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
With 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.
10 (10%) – 12 (12%)
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.
7 (7%) – 9 (9%)
The response accurately analyzes the subjective portion of the SOAP note and lists additional information to be included in the documentation.
4 (4%) – 6 (6%)
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.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
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.
Analyze the objective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation.
10 (10%) – 12 (12%)
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.
7 (7%) – 9 (9%)
The response accurately analyzes the objective portion of the SOAP note and lists additional information to be included in the documentation.
4 (4%) – 6 (6%)
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.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
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.
Is the assessment supported by the subjective and objective information? Why or why not?
14 (14%) – 16 (16%)
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.
11 (11%) – 13 (13%)
The response accurately identifies whether or not the assessment is supported by the subjective and/or objective information, with an explanation.
8 (8%) – 10 (10%)
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.
0 (0%) – 7 (7%)
The response inaccurately identifies whether or not the assessment is supported by the subjective and/or objective information, with an inaccurate or missing explanation.
What diagnostic tests would be appropriate for this case, and how would the results be used to make a diagnosis?
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
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.
15 (15%) – 17 (17%)
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.
12 (12%) – 14 (14%)
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.
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
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.
· 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.
23 (23%) – 25 (25%)
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.
20 (20%) – 22 (22%)
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.
17 (17%) – 19 (19%)
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.
0 (0%) – 16 (16%)
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.
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 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 (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.
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.
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.
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.
Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
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.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6512_Week_6_Assignment_1_Rubric

 NURS_6512_Week_6_Assignment_1_Rubric

Excellent Good Fair Poor
With 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.

Points Range: 10 (10%) – 12 (12%)
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.
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 9 (9%)
The response accurately analyzes the subjective portion of the SOAP note and lists additional information to be included in the documentation.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 6 (6%)
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.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
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.
Analyze the objective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation.
Points Range: 10 (10%) – 12 (12%)
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.
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 9 (9%)
The response accurately analyzes the objective portion of the SOAP note and lists additional information to be included in the documentation.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 6 (6%)
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.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
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.
Is the assessment supported by the subjective and objective information? Why or why not?
Points Range: 14 (14%) – 16 (16%)
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.
Points Range: 11 (11%) – 13 (13%)
The response accurately identifies whether or not the assessment is supported by the subjective and/or objective information, with an explanation.
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 10 (10%)
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.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 7 (7%)
The response inaccurately identifies whether or not the assessment is supported by the subjective and/or objective information, with an inaccurate or missing explanation.
What diagnostic tests would be appropriate for this case, and how would the results be used to make a diagnosis?
Points Range: 18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
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.
Points Range: 15 (15%) – 17 (17%)
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.
Points Range: 12 (12%) – 14 (14%)
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.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
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.
·   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.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH ALL NURSING ESSAYS TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT  ordernowcc-blue
Posted in nursing by Clarissa