Hi, I have attached the case study, marking rubric and example of the case study done by previous yr student on different topic for a reference. Please have a good look of the assignment criteria and rubric and example case study to write your case study on sepsis .
Applied Bioscience 264 – Case Study Working Document Assessment 1 1500 words Due: Friday 11 September 2020 11:59 pm (WST) (Week 6) You are required to write your own case study on a patient who has sepsis. You can draw from clinical practicum experience and/or read widely on the topic and develop your own case study. The case study should include/In the description of the patient the following: You can use the below as headings for your case study. Section 1. The purpose of this section is to provide the reader with a detailed overview of the patient. You will need to read broadly on the topic to accurately present the case study information. 1. Patient background (History prior to hospital admission) – What happened before hospital arrival. 2. Reason for admission – Signs and symptoms – Initial vital signs 3. Past medical/surgical history – What might be applicable to sepsis and why? Please note that most of the information in the patient background, reason for admission and past medical/ surgical history sections will come from you. As such, only provide references where you want to justify or support your point. 4. Aetiology and brief pathophysiology - These should be consistent with the information provided in the reason for admission and past medical/surgical history sections. 5. Physical examination of the patient and expected findings based on the condition. · Only focus on areas that are related to sepsis. Many medical-surgical books or journal articles will provide areas to focus on when conducting a physical examination of a patient with a diagnosis of sepsis. · It is also important to include physical examination techniques (e.g. inspection, palpation, etc.) in your writing. · Diagnostic tests (e.g. blood test, chest x-ray, etc.) are not part of the physical examination. Section 2. Students are then required to cover the following 1. Critique in detail 1 treatment for the diagnosis (Pharmacological or non-pharmacological), giving an evidence-based rationale for the treatment and highlighting any nursing care. · You will be required to clearly explain the mechanism of action, how the treatment impacts on outcomes of a patient with sepsis and specific nursing care to be considered (the nursing care should be related to the critiqued treatment). · If you choose to critique a pharmacological treatment, it is important that your critique should be based on one specific medication rather than a class/group of medications. Your case study you must have: · Cover and contents page · References no more than 7 years old · Minimum of 8-10 references from journal articles and textbooks. The use of information and downloads from websites will not be accepted · Correct spelling and grammar · Strict APA 7th ed. Referencing style · Length: 1500 words +/- 10% · Please make sure each section relates back to your case study when considering your answers. Formatting · 11 or 12 point readable font (e.g., Calibri, Times New Roman, Arial etc.) · 1.5 line spacing throughout (including the reference list) · Include page numbers · Full sentences (no dot points unless the question asks you to list); · Contractions (where two words have been shortened into one e.g., doesn’t, wouldn’t, couldn’t etc.) should not be used in academic writing; · Numbers under 10 should be in written format (e.g., ‘five’); numbers over 10 should be in numeric format (e.g., ‘20’). · All numbers (no matter how big) at the very beginning of a sentence should be in written format (e.g., “Thirty-five patients had a trauma.”) · E.g. and i.e. should only be used when in parentheses (AKA brackets). When outside parentheses use “For example,” for e.g. and “that is” for i.e.; · Always try and paraphrase from your source rather than quote as it demonstrates that you have understood the material · First-person (i.e. “I”, “we” etc.) should not be used for this assessment; · Australian spelling rather than US spelling (e.g., “behaviour” rather than “behavior”); · Careful proofreading of your paper and at least a spelling and grammar check before submission. Academic integrity You are advised to avoid any form of academic misconduct when completing this assessment. Academic misconduct means conduct by a student that is dishonest or unfair in connection with any academic work. This includes all types of plagiarism, cheating, collusion, falsification or fabrication of data or other content, and Academic Misconduct Other, such as falsifying medical certificates for an extension. Students may also be charged with academic misconduct if they are involved in the following: sharing their work with another student so there are similarities between the two case studies, submitting work that has been previously submitted in the unit or another unit, not correctly paraphrasing or referencing. Please note that if academic misconduct is determined it will result in penalties, which may include a warning, a reduced or nil grade, a requirement to repeat the assessment, an annulled grade (ANN) or termination from the course. Some penalties may impact on future enrolment. PAGE 2 Applied Bioscience for Critical Conditions GMED3009 Curtin University SONM Rubric: Case Study Case Study Grading Rubric GMED 3009 Total Marks 30 Below Standard Approaching Standard At Standard Exceeds Standard A clear explanation of: · Patient background (History prior to hospital admission) (1 mark) · Reason for admission (1 Mark) · Past medical/surgical history (2 Mark) · Aetiology (2 marks) and brief pathophysiology (4 Marks) 10 Marks Shows little understanding of the issues, key problems. Patient summary missing or poorly constructed Mark = 0-2 Shows some understanding of the issues, key problems. Patient summary inadequate Mark = 3-4 Shows adequate knowledge of the issues, key problems. Patient summary adequate Mark = 5-8 Shows superior knowledge of the issues, key problems. Effective patient summary Mark = 9-10 Physical examination well-constructed with supportive detail · Physical examination of the patient with expected findings typical of a patient with sepsis 5 Marks Key patient assessment details are poorly identified, and supported by rationales Mark = 0-1 Key patient assessment details are partially identified and supported by rationales Mark = 1.5-2 Key patient assessment details are well identified and supported by rationales Mark= 2.5-4 Key patient assessment details are clearly and precisely identified and supported by rationales Mark = 4.5-5 · Critique in detail 1 treatment for the condition, giving an evidence-based rationale for the treatment, highlighting any nursing care that must be taken into consideration. 10 Marks Critique of treatment is not in-depth and requires further understanding Mark = 0-2 Critique of treatment is in some depth and requires further understanding Mark = 3-4 Critique of treatment is in-depth and shows evidence of understanding. Mark = 5-8 Critique of treatment is in-depth and is of excellent understanding Mark = 9-10 Proper organization, professional writing, and logical flow of analysis. APA formatting · Logically organized · Introduction and Conclusion (your choice if you have word space) · Proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, professional writing, and syntax. · APA Cover and contents page · References no more than 7 years old · Minimum of 8-10 References; from journal articles and textbooks · Strict APA 7th edition referencing style · Word count within 10% - 1500 words · Please make sure each question relates back to your case study when considering your answers. 5 Marks Major difficulties in English and academic language expression, vocabulary or grammar. Contains too many errors in spelling, formatting or punctuation that comprehension is impeded. In-text references and/or reference list are absent (plagiarism). Referencing not APA (7th ed.). References more than 7 years old. All references are from website sources. APA cover and contents page not included. Word count over 10% Mark = 0-1 Significant difficulties in English and/or academic expression. Several grammar errors and/or use of limited vocabulary. Contains numerous spelling, formatting or punctuation errors. References are insufficient (plagiarism). Referencing is APA (7th ed.), but there are many errors. References more than 7 years old. Some website references included. APA cover and contents page not included. Word count over 10%. Mark = 1.5-2 Clear academic English expression. A range of contextually appropriate vocabulary used. Few, if any, errors in grammar. Contains very few spelling, formatting or punctuation errors. References are sufficient. Referencing is APA (7th ed.) and there are no errors. References no more than 7 years old. No website references are included. APA cover and contents page are included. Word count within 10%. Mark = 2.5-4 Clear and effective academic English. Wide range of contextually appropriate vocabulary. Free of grammatical errors. Free from spelling, formatting or punctuation errors. References are plentiful. Referencing is APA (7th ed.) and there are no errors. References no more than 7 years old. No website references are included. APA cover and contents page are included. Word count within 10%. Mark = 4.5-5 1 Contents Page 1.0 Section one 1.1 Patient background 1.2 Reason for admission 1.3 Past medical and surgical history 1.4 Aetiology and pathophysiology 2.0 Physical examination 2.1 Airways 2.2 Breathing 2.3 Circulation 2.4 Disability 2.5 Exposure 3.0 Section two 3.1 Non-pharmacological intervention 3.2 Limitations to intervention 3.3 Nursing care 4.0 References 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 7 1.0 Section one 1.1 Patient background At 0630 hours, Marvin Smith, a 28-year-old Caucasian male, presented to the Royal Perth Hospital (RPH) Emergency Department (ED) with a 2/52 history of flu like symptoms (Royal Perth Hospital, n.d.). Marvin woke up at 0100 hours with severe pain in his chest, shortness of breath, and a dry productive cough with discoloured mucous. At 0600 hours these symptoms progressed into a “fever”, “tight chest”, “body aches”, and “coughing until I almost vomit”. Marvin visited his General Practitioner (GP) 1/7 ago who referred him to RPH ED, where he was diagnosed with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) (Kolditz & Ewig, 2017). Marvin stated he was to commence a course of antibiotics this morning, however suddenly deteriorated overnight. He has now admitted himself back into RPH ED (Royal Perth Hospital, n.d.). 116 1.2 Reason for admission Two weeks prior to presentation, Marvin experienced symptoms of 7/10 pain in his throat, rhinorrhoea, intermittent cough and mild headaches. One week prior to presentation, Marvin’s symptoms developed into a dry productive cough with the use of accessory muscles, emesis, tachypnoea, dyspnoea, febrile, extreme fatigue, and 8/10 pain for body aches. Marvin’s nurse gathered a set of vital observations that were recorded as: respiratory rate 28 and laboured,