It is written in the file. Choose one case study?
5/16/2021 Assessment 4: Written assignment https://canvas.lms.unimelb.edu.au/courses/104418/assignments/161846 1/8 Assessment 4: Written assignment Due May 24 by 18:00 Points 100 Submitting a file upload Available Mar 29 at 0:00 - May 24 at 18:30 about 2 months Start Assignment Due date: Monday, Week 9, 6.00pm AEDT/AEST Word count: Equivalent to 2000 words Weighting: 40% Submission: Use the 'Submit assignment' at the top of this page. Feedback: Tutor feedback provided after the end of term. Introduction For this assessment, you will complete a written assignment about the assessment, ventilation and nursing considerations of a critically unwell person presented in a case study. Skills in analysing and interpreting the key features presented in the case study will help you make informed clinical decisions about critically unwell people. By completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your ability to: Integrate core principles covered in this subject and its prerequisite, Applied Pathophysiology, to establish specialist knowledge of the impact of treatment on the disease trajectory, acute illness, and management of patients with a range of acute health problems (LO1) Incorporate knowledge learnt in the subject to recognise and plan an evidence-based intervention for patients experiencing alterations to health and wellness that occur in the specific context of critical care (LO2) Demonstrate the capacity to problem-solve, think critically and promote rational inquiry when provided with a clinical scenario (LO3) Demonstrate skills in communication as it applies to critical care nursing (LO4) Identify the role of resilience, effective communication, and patient and family education on the outcomes of care (LO5). Instructions 1. Select a case study: Joe is a two-month-old boy (actual = predicted weight), admitted generally unwell with a cough and pyrexia, reduced appetite and minimally wet nappies for two days. Over the past 4 hours Joe has been tachypnoeic with lengthy dips in his SpO and HR. He has required frequent nasal suctioning and is on 2 L/minute oxygen via nasal catheter. Due to poor capillary refill and decreased urine output he has also had an IV fluid bolus for likely dehydration. Lab results suggest this is bronchiolitis related to Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV). His CXR shows generalised broncho-vascular markings around the hilar region but no consolidation or collapse. Case study 1: Joe (bronchiolitis)+ 2 5/16/2021 Assessment 4: Written assignment https://canvas.lms.unimelb.edu.au/courses/104418/assignments/161846 2/8 Figure 1. Joe's chest X-ray Source Jones, 2015 Jones, J. (2015). Bronchiolits [X-ray]. Radiopaedia. Retrieved from https://radiopaedia.org/cases/bronchiolitis-2 (https://radiopaedia.org/cases/bronchiolitis-2) Over the next 24 hours, his vital signs deteriorate with an increase in his respiratory rate (76 breaths per minute), heart rate (188 beats per minute) and further temperature (39.4 degrees Celsius). He has also required an increase in his FiO due to persistently low oxygen saturation level (< 88%).="" he="" is="" now="" lethargic="" with="" increased="" work="" of="" breathing="" manifested="" by="" nasal="" flaring,="" soft="" tissue="" retractions,="" head="" bobbing,="" a="" tracheal="" tug="" and="" grunting.="" lung="" auscultation="" demonstrates="" wheezing="" with="" poor="" air="" entry="" bilaterally="" from="" mid="" zones="" to="" bases.="" he="" was="" commenced="" on="" continuous="" positive="" airway="" pressure="" (cpap)="" via="" a="" nasal="" mask="" at="" 5="" cm="" h="" o="" pressure.="" over="" the="" next="" hour="" he="" remained="" tachypnoeic="" with="" increased="" work="" of="" breathing;="" the="" cpap="" was="" increased="" to="" 8="" cm="" h="" o="" pressure.="" worsening="" respiratory="" acidosis="" and="" fatigue="" resulted="" in="" joe="" being="" sedated,="" intubated="" and="" ventilated.="" he="" is="" now="" being="" ventilated="" using="" the="" mode="" of="" pressure="" control="" –="" synchronised="" intermittent="" mandatory="" ventilation="" (simv-pc).="" joe="" is="" breathing="" spontaneously.="" a="" chest="" x-ray="" shows="" good="" position="" of="" the="" nasal="" endo-tracheal="" tube.="" 1.="" given="" joe’s="" age,="" outline="" and="" justify="" the="" ventilator="" mode,="" settings="" and="" alarms="" you="" would="" recommend="" in="" his="" case.="" after="" 30="" minutes="" joe="" is="" still="" sedated="" and="" ventilated,="" but="" he="" has="" become="" bradycardic="" and="" is="" also="" triggering="" low="" minute="" ventilation="" alarm.="" 2.="" draw="" a="" concept="" map="" which="" illustrates:="" a.="" the="" likely="" pathophysiological="" processes="" underpinning="" the="" development="" of="" joe’s="" bradycardia="" and="" low="" minute="" ventilation="" alarm="" after="" he="" was="" recently="" intubated="" and="" ventilated;="" and="" b.="" one="" nursing="" intervention="" related="" to="" each="" of="" the="" reasons="" for="" the="" bradycardia="" and="" low="" minute="" ventilation="" you="" have="" identified.="" joe="" has="" now="" stabilised="" and="" remains="" sedated,="" intubated="" and="" ventilated.="" 3.="" identify="" and="" explain="" five="" key="" nursing="" considerations="" related="" to="" this="" sedated,="" intubated="" and="" ventilated="" patient="" to="" minimise="" complications="" as="" associated="" with="" mechanical="" ventilation="" and="" that="" contribute="" to="" improving="" patient="" outcomes.="" justify="" your="" explanation="" with="" supporting="" evidence.="" 2="" 2="" 2="" https://radiopaedia.org/cases/bronchiolitis-2="" 5/16/2021="" assessment="" 4:="" written="" assignment="" https://canvas.lms.unimelb.edu.au/courses/104418/assignments/161846="" 3/8="" jax="" is="" a="" 73-year-old,="" 70="" kg="" man="" (actual="ideal" weight;="" height="" 175="" cm),="" who="" has="" been="" admitted="" following="" a="" two-day="" history="" of="" increasing="" shortness="" of="" breath="" (sob)="" at="" rest,="" following="" a="" recent="" lower="" respiratory="" tract="" infection="" identified="" as="" a="" community="" acquired="" pneumonia.="" he="" has="" a="" past="" medical="" history="" of="" emphysema="" and="" is="" a="" previous="" smoker="" of="" 30="" cigarettes/day.="" jax="" is="" currently="" receiving="" oxygen="" via="" a="" reservoir="" (non-rebreather)="" mask="" at="" 10="" l/minute.="" despite="" oxygen="" therapy,="" antibiotics="" and="" steroids,="" jax="" has="" become="" persistently="" tachypnoeic,="" tachycardic="" and="" increasingly="" confused.="" he="" is="" changed="" to="" high="" flow="" nasal="" cannula="" and="" his="" oxygen="" saturation="" at="" fio="" 0.4="" is="" 82%.="" his="" abg="" showed="" ph="" 7.38,="" paco="" 64="" mmhg,="" pao="" 52,="" hco="" 33="" mmol/l,="" be="" +10,="" while="" his="" chest="" x-ray="" shows="" the="" presence="" of="" multiple="" bronco-pneumonic="" bilateral="" infiltrates="" and="" a="" left="" lateral="" pleural="" effusion.="" figure="" 1.="" jax's="" chest="" x-ray="" source="" cardinale,="" volpicelli,="" lamorte,="" martino,="" &="" veltri,="" 2012,="" p.="" 399="" cardinale,="" l.,="" volpicelli,="" g.,="" lamorte,="" a.,="" martino,="" j.,="" &="" veltri,="" a.="" (2012).="" revisiting="" signs,="" strengths="" and="" weaknesses="" of="" standard="" chest="" radiography="" in="" patients="" of="" acute="" dyspnea="" in="" the="" emergency="" department.="" journal="" of="" thoracic="" disease,="" 4(4),="" 398–407.="" http://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2012.05.05="" jax="" was="" unable="" to="" tolerate="" a="" trial="" of="" non-invasive="" ventilation="" and="" so="" underwent="" rapid="" sequence="" induction="" and="" intubation="" followed="" by="" mechanical="" ventilation="" due="" to="" increasing="" fatigue.="" he="" has="" been="" commenced="" on="" synchronised="" intermittent="" mandatory="" ventilation="" –="" volume="" control="" (simv-vc)="" mode.="" 1.="" given="" jax’s="" weight,="" outline="" and="" justify="" the="" ventilator="" mode,="" settings="" and="" alarms="" you="" would="" recommend="" in="" his="" case.="" he="" has="" been="" ventilated="" for="" 30="" minutes="" over="" which="" time="" he="" has="" become="" hypotensive="" and="" tachycardic.="" he="" also="" begun="" triggering="" the="" low="" minute="" ventilation="" alarm.="" case="" study="" 2:="" jax="" (pneumonia)+="" 2="" 2="" 2="" 3="" –="" 5/16/2021="" assessment="" 4:="" written="" assignment="" https://canvas.lms.unimelb.edu.au/courses/104418/assignments/161846="" 4/8="" nurs90122="" assessment="" 4:="" written="" assignment="" 2.="" draw="" a="" concept="" map="" which="" illustrates:="" a.="" the="" likely="" pathophysiological="" processes="" underpinning="" the="" development="" of="" jax’s="" hypotension="" and="" low="" minute="" ventilation="" after="" he="" was="" recently="" intubated="" and="" ventilated;="" and="" b.="" one="" nursing="" intervention="" related="" to="" each="" of="" the="" reasons="" for="" the="" hypotension="" and="" low="" minute="" ventilation="" you="" have="" identified.="" jax="" has="" now="" stabilised="" and="" remains="" sedated,="" intubated="" and="" ventilated,="" but="" is="" now="" spontaneously="" breathing.="" 3.="" identify="" and="" explain="" five="" key="" nursing="" considerations="" related="" to="" this="" sedated,="" intubated="" and="" ventilated="" patient="" to="" minimise="" complications="" associated="" with="" mechanical="" ventilation="" and="" that="" contribute="" to="" improving="" patient="" outcomes.="" justify="" your="" explanation="" with="" supporting="" evidence.="" 2.="" respond="" to="" the="" questions="" in="" your="" chosen="" case="" study,="" with="" reference="" to="" the="" 2000-word="" limit.="" each="" case="" study="" asks="" for="" the="" following="" items:="" evidence="" of="" your="" three-best="" activity-related="" discussion="" posts,="" including="" at="" least="" one="" post="" related="" to="" week="" 3's="" concept="" map="" practice="" discussion="" board="" activity.="" your="" week="" 3="" concept="" maps="" should="" be="" uploaded="" to="" the="" discussion="" board="" no="" later="" than="" the="" end="" of="" week="" 4.="" your="" comments="" and="" feedback="" on="" your="" peers="" concept="" maps="" should="" be="" posted="" no="" later="" than="" the="" end="" of="" week="" 5.="" the="" evidence="" of="" your="" three-best="" contributions="" should="" be="" provided="" after="" the="" reference="" list="" in="" your="" written="" assignment.="" this="" is="" not="" included="" in="" your="" word="" count.="" a="" written="" response="" about="" ventilation="" mode,="" settings="" and="" alarms="" a="" concept="" map,="" submitted="" as="" an="" image,="" and="" a="" written="" response="" about="" nursing="" considerations="" for="" the="" patient.="" 3.="" reference="" your="" sources="" in="" apa="" style.="" see="" the="" university's="" re:cite="" guide="" (https://library.unimelb.edu.au/recite)="" (https://library.unimelb.edu.au/recite)="" for="" guidance="" on="" appropriate="" apa="" format.="" the="" word="" limit="" does="" not="" include="" the="" title="" page,="" the="" reference="" list="" or="" appendices="" (or="" concept="" map="" bibliography).="" in-="" text="" reference="" citations,="" including="" direct="" quotes="" are="" counted="" as="" part="" of="" the="" word="" count="" -="" please="" see="" faqs="" for="" further="" details.="" 4.="" submit="" your="" assignment="" as="" a="" .pdf.="" plagiarism="" declaration="" by="" submitting="" work="" for="" assessment="" i="" hereby="" declare="" that="" i="" understand="" the="" university’s="" policy="" on="" academic="" integrity="" (https://academicintegrity.unimelb.edu.au/)="" and="" that="" the="" work="" submitted="" is="" original="" and="" solely="" my="" work,="" and="" that="" i="" have="" not="" been="" assisted="" by="" any="" other="" person="" (collusion)="" apart="" from="" where="" the="" submitted="" work="" is="" for="" a="" designated="" collaborative="" task,="" in="" which="" case="" the="" individual="" contributions="" are="" indicated.="" i="" also="" declare="" that="" i="" have="" not="" used="" any="" sources="" without="" proper="" acknowledgment="" (plagiarism).="" where="" the="" submitted="" work="" is="" a="" computer="" program="" or="" code,="" i="" further="" declare="" that="" any="" copied="" code="" is="" declared="" in="" comments="" identifying="" the="" source="" at="" the="" start="" of="" the="" program="" or="" in="" a="" header="" file,="" that="" comments="" inline="" identify="" the="" start="" and="" end="" of="" the="" copied="" code,="" and="" that="" any="" modifications="" to="" code="" sources="" elsewhere="" are="" commented="" upon="" as="" to="" the="" nature="" of="" the="" modification.="" https://library.unimelb.edu.au/recite="" https://canvas.lms.unimelb.edu.au/courses/104418/pages/frequently-asked-questions="" https://academicintegrity.unimelb.edu.au/="" 5/16/2021="" assessment="" 4:="" written="" assignment="" https://canvas.lms.unimelb.edu.au/courses/104418/assignments/161846="" 5/8="" criteria="" ratings="" pts="" 25="" pts="" 20="" pts="" ventilation="" mode,="" settings="" &="" alarms="" 25="" to="">23.0 pts Outstanding Outlines and justifies appropriate and/or accurate ventilation mode and/or, settings and/or alarms for the patient case study. 23 to >21.0 pts Very high standard Outlines and justifies appropriate and/or accurate ventilation mode and/or, settings and/or alarms for the patient case study. Minimal clarifications or corrections required. 21 to >18.0 pts High standard Outlines and justifies mostly appropriate and/or accurate ventilation mode and/or, settings and/or alarms for the patient case study. However, some important mode and/or, settings and/or alarms for the patient case study may not have been considered and/or some corrections required. 18 to >16.0 pts Sound Outlines and justifies mostly appropriate and/or accurate ventilation mode and/or, settings and/or alarms for the patient case study. However, some important mode and/or, settings and/or alarms for the patient case study may not have been considered and/or frequent corrections may be required. 16 to >12.0 pts Satisfactory (PASS) Outlines and justifies mostly appropriate and/or accurate ventilation mode and/or, settings and/or alarms for the patient case study. However, some important mode and/or, settings and/or alarms for the patient case study may not have been considered and/or significant clarification may be needed, and/or significant corrections may be required. 12 to >0 pts Unsatisfactory (FAIL) No or insufficient outline and/or justification of appropriate and/or ventilation mode and/or, settings and/or alarms for the patient case study. Important mode and/or, settings and/or alarms for the patient case study may have been omitted and/or not have been considered and/or significant clarification may