The assignment is an essay of 1600 words +/- 10% the word limit. The intext citations are included in the word count.With the references, please do not use any website with .com
Use only reliable resources when using websites like the government websites etc.
Please use references only from and after 2008, nothing before that.
We have been provided with the case study, which I have uploaded here. The essay needs to cover three nursing care priorities for the patient and write the essay on these three priorities using the Clinical Reasoning Cycle, which I have uploaded as well.
15 Version: FINAL 201860_05.07.18 APPENDIX A Assessment task 2: Case Study Students will complete a case study which discusses the provision of ethical, legal, evidence- based, holistic person-centred care including the establishment of realistic and relevant goals through the theoretical examination of a particular nursing specialty case study using the Clinical Reasoning Cycle (Levett-Jones, 2013). Students must select and respond to the case study question that reflects their allocated clinical placement specialty. If you have not been allocated a specialty placement, OR you are repeating this unit, please refer to your LEO campus announcements forum and the 3-hour lecture for instructions on how to proceed (you should not repeat the same case study question twice). Case study questions can be found on LEO via this link: https://leo.acu.edu.au/course/view.php?id=27543§ion=4 Due date: Monday 27th August, 2018 5.00pm Weighting: 50% Length and/or format: 1600 words +/-10% Purpose: The case study is designed to allow students the opportunity to demonstrate synthesis of theory and experience acquired in previous and concurrent units while exploring a specific nursing context. Learning outcomes assessed: 2, 5, 6 How to submit: Student should submit into the appropriate Turnitin drop box located in the assessment block on the LEO site. Return of assignment: Assignments will be marked online and students will be notified via LEO when results and feedback are available. Assessment criteria: Further information pertaining to the case study can be found in the assessment block on LEO. Please also refer to the criterion reference rubric below. 16 Version: FINAL 201860_05.07.18 APPENDIX B Criterion Referenced Rubric: Assessment Task 2, Case Study Criteria for marking High Distinction (95-100%) High Distinction (85-94%) Distinction (75-84%) Credit (65-74%) Pass (50-64%) Unsatisfactory (31-49%) Unsatisfactory (0-30%) Sequencing 5% The content in the case study directly matches the outline presented in the introductory paragraph. The case study ends with a rational conclusion. The content in the case study comprehensively matches the outline presented in the introductory paragraph. The case study ends with a rational conclusion. The content in the case study thoroughly matches the outline presented in the introductory paragraph and the case study ends with a rational conclusion. The content in the case study matches the outline presented in the introductory paragraph. and the case study ends with a rational conclusion. The content in the case study mostly matches the outline presented in the introductory paragraph and the case study ends with a conclusion. There is a clear introduction, followed by the body of the case study, with a conclusion. However, content within the body and within paragraphs is not always logically sequenced. There is no clear introduction, body and/or conclusion. There is no sequencing evident. Content 50% Extensively defines and discusses the provision of ethical, legal, evidence- based, holistic person- centred care, including the establishment of realistic and relevant goals. Includes relevant discussion on the collection, processing and presentation of client/patient information. Clearly identifies and prioritises 3 relevant nursing issues/ problems. Strong evidence of use and understanding of the clinical reasoning cycle. Comprehensively defines and discusses the provision of ethical, legal, evidence-based, holistic person-centred care, including the establishment of realistic and relevant goals. Includes relevant discussion on the collection, processing and presentation of client/patient information. Clearly identifies and prioritises 3 relevant nursing issues/ problems. Clear evidence of use and understanding of the clinical reasoning cycle. Thoroughly defines and discusses the provision of ethical, legal, evidence- based, holistic person- centred care, including the establishment of realistic and relevant goals Includes discussion of the collection, processing and presentation of client/patient information. Clearly identifies and prioritises 3 relevant nursing issues/ problems. Evidence of use and understanding of the clinical reasoning cycle. Defines and describes the provision of ethical, legal, evidence-based, holistic person-centred care, including the establishment of relevant goals Includes the collection, processing and presentation of client/patient information. Identifies and prioritises 2-3 relevant nursing issues/ problems. Some evidence of use and understanding of the clinical reasoning cycle. Describes the provision of ethical, legal, evidence-based, holistic person- centred care, but does not provide clear rationale for choices or the establishment of relevant goals Discusses the collection, processing and presentation of client/patient information. Issues/problems identified are unclear or not relevant to the case study. Minimal evidence of use and understanding of the clinical reasoning cycle. Limited evidence of the consideration or provision of ethical, legal, evidence-based, holistic person-centred care, issues/problems identified are not relevant to the case study or poorly prioritised or key issues/problems have been omitted. No evidence of use and understanding of the clinical reasoning cycle No evidence of the consideration or provision of ethical, legal, evidence- based, holistic person centred care, No issues/problems identified. No evidence of use and understanding of the clinical reasoning cycle 18/07/2018 5 Levett-Jones, T. (2018). Clinical Reasoning: Learning to think like a nurse. Pearson: Frenchs Forest. AT2: Case Study • Clinical Reasoning Cycle (Levett-Jones, 2018) as a framework to plan and evaluate person-centred care • Consider the person’s situation • Collect, process and present related health information • Identify and prioritise three (3) nursing problems/issues based on the health assessment data that you have identified for the person at the centre of care. • Establish goals for priority of nursing care related to the nursing problem/issues identified • Discuss the nursing care of the person; link it to assessment data and history. • Evaluate your nursing care strategies to justify the nursing care provided • Reflect on the person’s outcomes Directorate | Office | Faculty | School14 | AT2: Case Study – TIPS! Learn from the mistakes of others • Recall relevant data (pathophysiology, aetiology etc..) • Research, understand the data, identify your problems, prioritise! • Justify and underpin your problems with strong links to evidence • Establish goals (SMART acronym may help) • Justify and underpin the nursing care with strong links to evidence • Evaluate against SMART goals • Make sure you cover all the steps (don’t miss reflection) Directorate | Office | Faculty | School15 | NRSG370 Assessment Task 2: Case Study – High Dependency Mrs. Connie Brownstone Mrs. Connie Brownstone is a 79 year old women admitted to the Emergency Department (ED). Connie was brought into the ED by her daughter with a one-day history of fluctuating shortness of breath/dyspnoea unrelieved by medication. Triage Nurse Assessment: · Vital signs: RR 35, SpO2 90% (room air), HR 125bpm, RR 35, Temp 39.4° Celsius, BP 168/70; · Physical assessment: Dyspnoea, very anxious, audible expiratory wheeze; · Past history: Asthma, allergies to pollen and dust mite, ICU admission 5 years ago (endotracheal intubation and ventilation for 2 days – status asthmaticus). · Medications: (1) Ventolin, and (2) Ipratropium bromide. Due to her respiratory distress, Connie was triaged as a category 2, as per the Australasian Triage Scale, and brought directly from the waiting room into a HDU monitored cubicle where you are the ED nurse allocated to her care (Department of Health and Aging, 2009). Oxygen of 6L/min was applied via the Hudson Mask. Cubicle Nurse Assessment: · Vital signs: RR 35, SpO2 89% (6L oxygen), HR 125bpm, RR 35, Temp 39.4° Celsius, BP 172/75; · Physical assessment: Pt. seated and leaning forward, use of use of accessory muscles evident (sternocleidomastoid, scalene, and intercostal muscles), bilateral expiratory wheeze on auscultation, height 145cm; · Peak Flow 210 L/min (last normal reading 320 L/min) · Secondary survey revealed no other abnormalities. Investigations/Results: FBEWithin normal limits Urea & ElectrolytesWithin normal limits C-Reactive ProteinWithin normal limits Blood CulturesPending TroponinWithin normal limits Chest XRAYHyperexpanded lungs, no consolidation or effusion Arterial Blood Gas (ABG)pH 7.48, PaO2 60, PaCO2 30, HCO3 24 (Respiratory Alkalosis) Normal ABG RangespH 7.35-7.45, PaO2 85-90, PaCO2 35-45, HCO3 22-26 (Vincent, 2011) References Vincent, J. L., Abraham, E., Kochanek, P., Moore, F. A., & Fink, M. (2017). Textbook of Critical Care (7th ed.). St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier. Version 16.2.18