6-1 Case Study: Risk Factors
Mr. R is a 48-year-old Hispanic man who has worked the past 10 years as a warehouse worker. He is 5’6″, weighs 175 pounds, and has a waist circumference of 38″. At his last visit at your office, his blood pressure was 140/60 mm Hg. Prior to the visit, he had fasting blood work done, and his primary care provider plans to review the results with him today. The pertinent diagnostic results are as follows: a fasting plasma glucose level of 137 mg/dL, an HDL level of 27 mg/dL, LDL level of 247 mg/dL, a serum triglyceride level of 210 mg/dL. Use the following prompts as guidelines while performing and writing your case study:
- Identify what this individual is most at risk for based on the information presented in this case above.
- Explain the significance of this individual’s weight and waist diameter. Explain how this individual is at increased risk for insulin resistance.
- Explain briefly the differences between hypoinsulinemia, hyperinsulinemia, hyperglycemia, and hypoglycemia as each relate to an individual with type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Pathology: Introduction and Identification
Begin each case study by introducing the scenario/specific themes so that any reader would know what this case study is about. From there, start answering prompts above.
Pathology: Explanation and Plan of Care
Follow the rubric. You need to develop a plan of care for the patient. What education or care would you provide? Provide more than 1 example
Make a table for plan for Pt care
Plan for the Patient Care
Evaluation of the outcome
Response to Questions
Explore issues ideas and concerns as it relates to this patient. Integrate your own thought processes into your responses.
(Adequately address prompts above in the case study, and explore issues, ideas, or concerns)
Follow the rubric. Explain the role of patient care technologies in caring for this patient. What might assist this patient? Provide different Examples(i.e might be a patient portal, tele-medicine, etc.)
Incorporation of Resources
Multiple resources best to support claims
Articulation of Response (APA/Mechanics)
For additional details, please refer to the Case Study Guidelines & Rubric
NUR 315 Case Study Guidelines and Rubric Critical thinking is a habit of mind characterized by the comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, artifacts, and events before accepting or formulating an opinion or conclusion. Case studies are meant to connect real-world scenarios with theoretical teachings. You are expected to test assumptions and find creative ways to consider all the facets contributing to analysis of the case. Prompt: For each case study, be sure to:
Introduce main elements and concerns and identify the pathology. Use the associated questions to guide your paper and explain the pathology in the development of a plan of care. Explain the role patient-care technologies (i.e., point of care testing, computer provider order entry, bar-coding medication administration, EMR/EHR) in
caring for the individual(s). Apply critical thinking in analyzing and interpreting the data. Include evidence to support your analysis of the case. Write clearly and concisely, following standard rules of grammar.
Guidelines for Submission: Your paper must be submitted as at least a 2-page Microsoft Word document with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one-inch margins, and at least two peer-reviewed sources cited in APA format.
Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (85%) Needs Improvement (55%) Not Evident (0%) Value Pathology:
Introduction and Identification
Meets “Proficient” criteria and uses industry-specific language and is exceptionally clear and well-informed
Introduces the reader to specific themes and main elements of the assigned case study without any gaps and precisely identifies specific pathology
Introduces the reader to specific themes and main elements of the assigned case study and identifies the pathology, but with gaps in information presented
Does not accurately introduce the reader to specific themes and main elements of the assigned case study and does not identify the pathology
Pathology: Explanation and Plan
Meets “Proficient” criteria and uses industry-specific language to establish expertise
Comprehensively explains the pathological condition in the development of plan of care for the individual in the assigned case study without any gaps
Explains the pathological condition in the development of plan of care for the individual in the assigned case study, but with gaps
Does not explain the pathological condition in the development of plan of care for the individual in the assigned case study
Response to Questions
Meets “Proficient” criteria and seamlessly incorporates these responses into the submission
Thoroughly addresses all prompts from the case study and comprehensively explores issues, ideas, and concerns
Adequately addresses most prompts included in the case study, but does not explore issues, ideas, or concerns
Addresses less than half of the prompts from the case study
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and explanation is exceptionally clear and well-informed
Accurately explains the role of patient-care technologies (as appropriate) in caring for individuals identified in the assigned case study without any gaps
Accurately explains the role of patient-care technologies (as appropriate) in caring for individuals identified in the assigned case study, but with gaps in information given
Does not accurately explain the role of patient-care technologies (as appropriate) in caring for individuals identified in the assigned case study
Incorporation of Resources
Incorporates more than two discipline-specific, peer- reviewed journal articles and one source from an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal. Viewpoints of experts are analyzed and well-informed
Incorporates sources of evidence from at least two discipline-specific, peer- reviewed journal articles
Incorporates at least two sources of evidence from peer- reviewed journals, but fails to make connection to case study clear
Does not incorporate at least two sources of evidence from a peer-reviewed journal
Articulation of Response
Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy-to-read format
Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization
Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas
Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that obstruct understanding
Earned Total 100%