Comprehensive Case Study on COPD, Heart Failure, Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus, health & medical homework help

Science

Please use APA format and in text citation

Comprehensive Case Study on COPD, Heart Failure, Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus

M.K. is a 45 year old female; measuring 5’5” and weighs 225 lbs. M.K. has a history of smoking about 22 years along with a poor diet. She has a history of Type II diabetes mellitus along with primary hypertension. M.K. has recently been diagnosed with chronic bronchitis. Her current symptoms include chronic cough, more severe in the mornings with sputum, light-headedness, distended neck veins, excessive peripheral edema, and increase urination at night. Her current medications include Lotensin and Lasix for the hypertension along with Glucophage for the Type II diabetes mellitus. The following are lab findings that are pertinent to this case:

Vitals

BP

158/98 mm Hg

CBC

Hematocrit

57%

Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c)

7.3 %

Arterial Blood Gas Assessment

PaCO₂

52 mm Hg

PaO₂

48 mm Hg

Lipid Panel

Cholesterol

242 mg/dL

HDL

32 mg/dL

LDL

173 mg/dL

Triglycerides

184 mg/dL

  1. What clinical findings correlate with M.K.’s chronic bronchitis? What type of treatment and recommendations would be appropriate for M.K.’s chronic bronchitis?
  2. Which type of heart failure would you suspect with M.K.? Explain the pathogenesis of how this type of heart failure develops.
  3. According to the B.P. value, what stage of hypertension is M. K. experiencing? Explain the rationale for her current medications for her hypertension. Also, discuss the impact of this disease in the U.S. population.
  4. According to the lipid panel, what other condition is M.K. at risk for? According to this case study, what other medications should be given and why? What additional findings correlate for both hypertension and Type II diabetes mellitus?
  5. Interpret the lab value for HbA1c and explain the rationale for this value in relation to normal/abnormal body function?

Rubric

Proficient Competent Novice New Column4
Content / Information
Discussion Question 1
Points:

13
(13%)

Content / Information Discussion Question 1
Feedback:

Points:

9.75
(9.75%)

Provides 3-4 clinical findings, treatment, and recommendations of chronic bronchitis from the first column. Information is mostly scientifically sound, thorough, necessary and sufficient
Feedback:

Points:

6.5
(6.5%)

Provides 1-2 clinical findings, treatment, and recommendations of chronic bronchitis from the first column. Information is not entirely scientifically sound, necessary and explanations are insufficient
Feedback:

Points:

3.25
(3.25%)

Does not or incorrectly answers with insufficient explanations for those answers. Information is not scientifically sound, necessary or sufficient
Feedback:

Content / Information
Discussion Question 2
Points:

12
(12%)

Identifies type of heart failure and explains the pathogenesis. Information is scientifically sound, thorough, necessary and sufficient.
Feedback:

Points:

9
(9%)

Identifies type of heart failure and explains the pathogenesis. Information is mostly scientifically sound, thorough, necessary and sufficient.
Feedback:

Points:

6
(6%)

Identifies type of heart failure and explains the pathogenesis. Information is insufficient.
Feedback:

Points:

3.25
(3.25%)

Does not or incorrectly answers with insufficient explanations for those answers. Information is not scientifically sound, necessary or sufficient
Feedback:

Content / Information
Discussion Question 3
Points:

13
(13%)

Provides thorough explanations for stage of hypertension, current medications and the impact of the disease in the U.S. population. Information is scientifically sound, necessary and sufficient
Feedback:

Points:

9.75
(9.75%)

Provides sufficient explanations for stage of hypertension, current medications and the impact of the disease in the U.S. population. Information is scientifically sound, necessary and sufficient
Feedback:

Points:

6.5
(6.5%)

Provides insufficient explanations. Information is not entirely scientifically sound, necessary and sufficient. Does not address one of the questions.
Feedback:

Points:

3.25
(3.25%)

Does not or incorrectly answer with insufficient explanations. Information is not scientifically sound, necessary or sufficient.
Feedback:

Content / Information
Discussion Question 4
Points:

12
(12%)

Provides thorough explanations of lipid panel, the correlation of hypertension and Type II diabetes mellitus and other medications that should be given. Information is scientifically sound, necessary and sufficient
Feedback:

Points:

9
(9%)

Provides sufficient explanations of lipid panel, the correlation of hypertension and Type II diabetes mellitus and other medications that should be given. Information is scientifically sound, necessary and sufficient
Feedback:

Points:

6
(6%)

Provides insufficient explanations of rationale. Information is not entirely scientifically sound, necessary and sufficient. Does not address one of the questions.
Feedback:

Points:

3
(3%)

Does not or incorrect answers with insufficient explanations. Information is not scientifically sound, necessary or sufficient
Feedback:

Content / Information
Discussion Question 5
Points:

13
(13%)

Provides thorough explanations for lab value along with the rationale in relation to normal/abnormal body function. Information is scientifically sound, necessary and sufficient
Feedback:

Points:

9.75
(9.75%)

Provides sufficient explanations for lab value along with the rationale in relation to normal/abnormal body function. Information is scientifically sound, necessary and sufficient
Feedback:

Points:

6.5
(6.5%)

Provides insufficient explanations of HbA1c. Information is not entirely scientifically sound, necessary and sufficient
Feedback:

Points:

3.25
(3.25%)

Does not or incorrect answers with insufficient explanations. Information is not scientifically sound, necessary or sufficient
Feedback:

Quality of Writing
Clarity of sentences and paragraphs. No grammatical errors
Organization and coherence of ideas
Points:

12
(12%)

Answers are well written throughout. Information is well organized and clearly communicated. It is free of spelling and grammatical errors
Feedback:

Points:

9
(9%)

Answers are well written throughout and the information is reasonably organized and communicated. It is mostly free of spelling and grammatical errors.
Feedback:

Points:

6
(6%)

Answers are somewhat organized and lacks some clarity. Contains some spelling and grammatical errors
Feedback:

Points:

3
(3%)

Answers are not well written and the information is poorly organized and lacks clarity. It contains many spelling and grammatical errors
Feedback:

Format/Layout
Follows requirements of length, font, style, APA format
Points:

13
(13%)

Follows all the requirements related to format, length and layout
Feedback:

Points:

9.75
(9.75%)

Follows length requirement and most of the requirements related to format and layout.
Feedback:

Points:

6
(6%)

Follows most of the requirements related to format, length and layout.
Feedback:

Points:

3.25
(3.25%)

Does not follow format, length and layout requirements.
Feedback:

References
Effective use and quality of references
At least one non-internet source
Points:

12
(12%)

All references are appropriate. There is a minimum of 3 scholarly resources with at least 1 non-internet source. All references are correctly cited and listed
Feedback:

Points:

9
(9%)

References used are mostly appropriate. There is a minimum of 3 scholarly resources with at least 1 non-internet source. All references are correctly cited and listed.
Feedback:

Points:

6
(6%)

References used are mostly appropriate. There is a minimum of 3 scholarly resources but is missing a non-internet source. All references are mostly correctly cited and listed.














0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *