Please make sure this has no plagerism NONe . Due tonight at 10 pm a must

 Richard is a 50-year-old male with nasal congestion, sneezing, rhinorrhea, and postnasal drainage. Richard has struggled with an itchy nose, eyes, palate, and ears for 5 days. As you check his ears and throat for redness and inflammation, you notice him touch his fingers to the bridge of his nose to press and rub there. He says he’s taken Mucinex OTC the past 2 nights to help him breathe while he sleeps. When you ask if the Mucinex has helped at all, he sneers slightly and gestures that the improvement is only minimal. Richard is alert and oriented. He has pale, boggy nasal mucosa with clear thin secretions and enlarged nasal turbinates, which obstruct airway flow but his lungs are clear. His tonsils are not enlarged but his throat is mildly erythematous. 

 

• Review this week’s Learning Resources and consider the insights they provide.
• Consider what history would be necessary to collect from the patient.
• 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.

Rubric Detail

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

Content

Name:

 

NURS_6512_Week_5_Assignment_1_Rubric

• Grid View
• List View

 

Using the Episodic/Focused SOAP Template:
· Create documentation or an episodic/focused note in SOAP format about the patient in the case study to which you were assigned.
·  Provide evidence from the literature to support diagnostic tests that would be appropriate for your case.

·   List five different possible conditions for the patient’s differential diagnosis, and justify why you selected each.

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.

Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation

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.

Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Points: Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly follows the SOAP format to document the patient in the assigned case study. The response thoroughly and accurately provides detailed evidence from the literature to support diagnostic tests that would be appropriate for the patient in the assigned case study. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 39 (39%) – 44 (44%) The response accurately follows the SOAP format to document the patient in the assigned case study. The response accurately provides detailed evidence from the literature to support diagnostic tests that would be appropriate for the patient in the assigned case study. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 33 (33%) – 38 (38%) The response follows the SOAP format to document the patient in the assigned case study, with some vagueness and inaccuracy. The response provides evidence from the literature to support diagnostic tests that would be appropriate for the patient in the assigned case study, with some vagueness or inaccuracy in the evidence selected. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 32 (32%) The response incompletely and inaccurately follows the SOAP format to document the patient in the assigned case study. The response provides incomplete, inaccurate, and/or missing evidence from the literature to support diagnostic tests that would be appropriate for the patient in the assigned case study. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 30 (30%) – 35 (35%) The response lists five distinctly different and detailed possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, and provides a thorough, accurate, and detailed justification for each of the five conditions selected. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 24 (24%) – 29 (29%) The response lists four or five different possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study and provides an accurate justification for each of the five conditions selected. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 18 (18%) – 23 (23%) The response lists three to five possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, with some vagueness and/or inaccuracy in the conditions and/or justification for each. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 17 (17%) The response lists two or fewer, or is missing, possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, with inaccurate or missing justification for each condition selected. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. Feedback:

Show Descriptions

Show Feedback

Using the Episodic/Focused SOAP Template:
· Create documentation or an episodic/focused note in SOAP format about the patient in the case study to which you were assigned.
·  Provide evidence from the literature to support diagnostic tests that would be appropriate for your case.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly follows the SOAP format to document the patient in the assigned case study.
The response thoroughly and accurately provides detailed evidence from the literature to support diagnostic tests that would be appropriate for the patient in the assigned case study.

Good
39 (39%) – 44 (44%)

The response accurately follows the SOAP format to document the patient in the assigned case study.
The response accurately provides detailed evidence from the literature to support diagnostic tests that would be appropriate for the patient in the assigned case study.

Fair
33 (33%) – 38 (38%)

The response follows the SOAP format to document the patient in the assigned case study, with some vagueness and inaccuracy.
The response provides evidence from the literature to support diagnostic tests that would be appropriate for the patient in the assigned case study, with some vagueness or inaccuracy in the evidence selected.

Poor
0 (0%) – 32 (32%)

The response incompletely and inaccurately follows the SOAP format to document the patient in the assigned case study.
The response provides incomplete, inaccurate, and/or missing evidence from the literature to support diagnostic tests that would be appropriate for the patient in the assigned case study.

Feedback:

·   List five different possible conditions for the patient’s differential diagnosis, and justify why you selected each.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
30 (30%) – 35 (35%)

The response lists five distinctly different and detailed possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, and provides a thorough, accurate, and detailed justification for each of the five conditions selected.

Good
24 (24%) – 29 (29%)

The response lists four or five different possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study and provides an accurate justification for each of the five conditions selected.

Fair
18 (18%) – 23 (23%)

The response lists three to five possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, with some vagueness and/or inaccuracy in the conditions and/or justification for each.

Poor
0 (0%) – 17 (17%)

The response lists two or fewer, or is missing, possible conditions for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, with inaccurate or missing justification for each condition selected.

Feedback:

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.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
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.

Good
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.

Fair
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.

Poor
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. Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

Good
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

Fair
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

Poor
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.

Feedback:

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.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct APA format with no errors.

Good
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.

Fair
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.

Poor
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.

Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NURS_6512_Week_5_Assignment_1_Rubric