NURS 6551 Discussion - Diagnosing and Managing Common Endocrine and Musculoskeletal Conditions

NURS 6551 Discussion – Diagnosing and Managing Common Endocrine and Musculoskeletal Conditions

Endocrine and musculoskeletal conditions, especially when left untreated, can have a significant impact on women’s health. Many of these conditions present unique challenges for women, making risk assessments and routine screenings an important part of primary care. As an advanced practice nurse, you must identify signs and symptoms of these conditions and educate at-risk patients so they can also monitor themselves. For this NURS 6551 Discussion – Diagnosing and Managing Common Endocrine and Musculoskeletal Conditions, consider how you would diagnose, treat, and educate the patients in the following three case studies:

Case Study 2 (diagnosis Polycystic Ovary Syndrome)

A 28-year-old Latina obese female presents to the clinic with increasing body hair and irregular menses. She now has coarse body hair on her chest and upper back. Her menstrual periods used to be fairly regular, but now she can skip three or four months before her next menstrual cycle. She has never been pregnant. She has one male sex partner.

Case Study 3 ( diagnosismultiple sclerosis)

A 28-year-old Caucasian female comes to clinic concerned about three episodes of urinary incontinence associated with difficulty walking. The first two episodes resolved spontaneously after a couple of days without residuals, but this current episode has lasted a week. Today she began to have some blurred vision. Physical exam is remarkable for mild edema of the optic disc and difficulty with heel-to-toe walking. Deep tendon reflexes are 2+ and there is no extremity weakness.

To prepare for NURS 6551 Discussion – Diagnosing and Managing Common Endocrine and Musculoskeletal Conditions:

Review Chapter 8 of the Tharpe et al. text and the McSweeney et al. article in this week’s Learning Resources.
Review and select one of the three provided case studies. Analyze the patient information.
Consider a differential diagnosis for the patient in the case study you selected. Think about the most likely diagnosis for the patient.
Reflect on the appropriate clinical guidelines. Think about a treatment and management plan for the patient. Be sure to consider appropriate dosages for any recommended pharmacologic and/or nonpharmacologic treatments.
Consider strategies for educating patients on the treatment and management of the disorder you identified as your primary diagnosis.

Post 250 words (no introduction or conclusion)

1. explanation of the differential diagnosis for the patient in the case study you selected.

2. Explain which is the most likely diagnosis for the patient and why.

3. Then, based on the appropriate clinical guidelines, explain a treatment and management plan for the patient, including proper dosages for any recommended treatments.

4. Finally, explain strategies for educating patients on the disorder.

NURS 6551 Discussion – Diagnosing and Managing Common Endocrine and Musculoskeletal Conditions.

Course Rubric

Grid View List View Outstanding Performance Excellent Performance Competent Performance Proficient Performance Room for Improvement   Main Posting:
Response to the discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.           Points:
Points Range:    44 (44%) – 44 (44%)

Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s) is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

supported by at least 3 current, credible sources
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 40 (40%) – 43 (43%)

Responds to the discussion question(s)

is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth supported by at least 3 credible references
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to most of the discussion question(s). NURS 6551 Discussion – Diagnosing and Managing Common Endocrine and Musculoskeletal Conditions

is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

50% of post has exceptional depth and breadth supported by at least 3 credible references
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 31 (31%) – 34 (34%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s)

one to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 30 (30%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s)

lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria

lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis

does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

contains only 1 or no credible references
   Feedback:     Main Posting:
Writing           Points:
Points Range:    6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors

Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Written clearly and concisely

May contain one or no grammatical or spelling error

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. NURS 6551 Discussion – Diagnosing and Managing Common Endocrine and Musculoskeletal Conditions
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Written concisely

May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Written somewhat concisely

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Contains some APA formatting errors
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 4 (4%)

Not written clearly or concisely

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style
   Feedback:     Main Posting:
Timely and full participation           Points:
Points Range:    10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation

posts main discussion by due date
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation. Discussion: Diagnosing and Managing Common Cardiovascular and Neurologic Conditions
Feedback: First Response:

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. Points:
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings

responds to questions posed by faculty

the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives

KINDLY ORDER NOW FOR A CUSTOM-WRITTEN AND PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER

Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth
   Feedback:     First Response:
Writing           Points:
Points Range:    6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources

Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are answered if posed

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources

Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed

Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources

Response is written in Standard Edited English.
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed

Few or no credible sources are cited
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 4 (4%)

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective

Response to faculty questions are missing

No credible sources are cited
   Feedback:     First Response:
Timely and full participation           Points:
Points Range:    5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation

posts by due date
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation
   Feedback:     Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.           Points:
Points Range:    9 (9%) – 9 (9%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings * responds to questions posed by faculty

the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth
   Feedback:     Second Response:
Writing           Points:
Points Range:    6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. NURS 6551 Discussion – Diagnosing and Managing Common Endocrine and Musculoskeletal Conditions

Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources

Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are answered if posed

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources

Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed

Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources

Response is written in Standard Edited English
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed

Few or no credible sources are cited
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 4 (4%)

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective

Response to faculty questions are missing

No credible sources are cited
   Feedback:     Second Response:
Timely and full participation           Points:
Points Range:    5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation

Posts by due date
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA
Feedback: Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation

Feedback:

Show DescriptionsShow Feedback
Main Posting:
Response to the discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.–Levels of Achievement:Outstanding Performance44 (44%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s)

is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

supported by at least 3 current, credible sources
Excellent Performance40 (40%) – 43 (43%)
Responds to the discussion question(s)

is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth

supported by at least 3 credible references
Competent Performance35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the discussion question(s)

is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

50% of post has exceptional depth and breadth

supported by at least 3 credible references
Proficient Performance31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s)

one to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed

is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis

somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references
Room for Improvement0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s)

lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria

lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis

does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

contains only 1 or no credible referencesFeedback:

Main Posting:
Writing–Levels of Achievement:Outstanding Performance6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors

Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
Excellent Performance5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)
Written clearly and concisely

May contain one or no grammatical or spelling error

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
Competent Performance5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely

May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
Proficient Performance4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)
Written somewhat concisely.

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors
Room for Improvement0 (0%) – 4 (4%)
Not written clearly or concisely

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and styleFeedback:

Main Posting:
Timely and full participation–Levels of Achievement:Outstanding Performance10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely and full participation

posts main discussion by due date
Excellent Performance0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Competent Performance0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Proficient Performance0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Room for Improvement0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participationFeedback:

First Response:

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.–Levels of Achievement:Outstanding Performance9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings

responds to questions posed by faculty

the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives
Excellent Performance8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings
Competent Performance7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting
Proficient Performance6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth
Room for Improvement0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depthFeedback:

First Response:
Writing–Levels of Achievement:Outstanding Performance6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources

Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English
Excellent Performance5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. NURS 6551 Discussion – Diagnosing and Managing Common Endocrine and Musculoskeletal Conditions

Response to faculty questions are answered if posed

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources

Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English
Competent Performance5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed

Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources

Response is written in Standard Edited English
Proficient Performance4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed

Few or no credible sources are cited
Room for Improvement0 (0%) – 4 (4%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective

Response to faculty questions are missing

No credible sources are citedFeedback:

First Response:
Timely and full participation–Levels of Achievement:Outstanding Performance5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely and full participation

posts by due date
Excellent Performance0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Competent Performance0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Proficient Performance0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Room for Improvement0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participationFeedback:

Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.–Levels of Achievement:Outstanding Performance9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings * responds to questions posed by faculty

Second Response:
Writing–Levels of Achievement:Outstanding Performance6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources

Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English
Excellent Performance5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are answered if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources

Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English
Competent Performance5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed

Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources

Response is written in Standard Edited English
Proficient Performance4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed

Few or no credible sources are cited
Room for Improvement0 (0%) – 4 (4%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective

Response to faculty questions are missing

No credible sources are citedFeedback:

Second Response:
Timely and full participation–Levels of Achievement:Outstanding Performance5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely and full participation

Posts by due date
Excellent Performance0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Competent Performance0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Proficient Performance0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Room for Improvement0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participationFeedback:

Total Points: 100