CASE STUDY 3: Focused Ear Exam 

Martha brings her 11-year old grandson, James, to your clinic to have his right ear checked. He has complained to her about a mild earache for the past 2 days. His grandmother believes that he feels warm but did not verify this with a thermometer. James states that the pain was worse while he was falling asleep and that it was harder for him to hear. When you begin basic assessments, you notice that James has a prominent tan. When you ask him how he’s been spending his summer, James responds that he’s been spending a lot of time in the pool.

Assignment 1: Case Study Assignment: Assessing the Head, Eyes, Ears, Nose, and Throat

Photo Credit: Getty Images/Blend Images

Most ear, nose, and throat conditions that arise in non-critical care settings are minor in nature. However, subtle symptoms can sometimes escalate into life-threatening conditions that require prompt assessment and treatment.

Nurses conducting assessments of the ears, nose, and throat must be able to identify the small differences between life-threatening conditions and benign ones. For instance, if a patient with a sore throat and a runny nose also has inflamed lymph nodes, the inflammation is probably due to the pathogen causing the sore throat rather than a case of throat cancer. With this knowledge and a sufficient patient health history, a nurse would not need to escalate the assessment to a biopsy or an MRI of the lymph nodes but would probably perform a simple strep test.

In this Case Study Assignment, you consider case studies of abnormal findings from patients in a clinical setting. You determine what history should be collected from the patients, what physical exams and diagnostic tests should be conducted, and formulate a differential diagnosis with several possible conditions.

To Prepare

• By Day 1 of this week, you will be assigned to a specific case study for this Case Study Assignment. Please see the “Course Announcements” section of the classroom for your assignment from your Instructor.
• Also, your Case Study Assignment should be in the Episodic/Focused SOAP Note format rather than the traditional narrative style format. Refer to Chapter 2 of the Sullivan text and the Episodic/Focused SOAP Template in the Week 5 Learning Resources for guidance. Remember that all Episodic/Focused SOAP Notes have specific data included in every patient case.

With regard to the case study you were assigned:

• 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.

The Assignment

Use the Episodic/Focused SOAP Template and create an episodic/focused note about the patient in the case study to which you were assigned using the episodic/focused note template provided in the Week 5 resources. Provide evidence from the literature to support diagnostic tests that would be appropriate for each case. List five different possible conditions for the patient’s differential diagnosis and justify why you selected each.

Rubric

ExcellentGoodFairPoorUsing 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.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.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.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.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.·   List five different possible conditions for the patient’s differential diagnosis, and justify why you selected each.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.3 (3%) – 3 (3%)Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.0 (0%) – 2 (2%)Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.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.5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Uses correct APA format with no errors.4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.3 (3%) – 3 (3%)Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.0 (0%) – 2 (2%)Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.Total Points: 100ReplyForward
 

ReplyForward