Sick Child Clinical Case Presentation

Demonstrate an advancing understanding of the care of women and children.
Demonstrate the ability to analyze previous patients seen in the clinical setting be able to perform an evidenced-based review of their case, diagnosis, and plan, while guiding and taking feedback from peers regarding the case
Demonstrate professional communication and leadership, while advancing the education of peers.
Course Outcomes
Integrate current evidence based clinical practice guidelines in the care of childbearing and childrearing families.
Appropriately apply anticipatory guidance and health promotion in the care of childbearing and childrearing families.
Assess growth and developmental milestones in the care of childbearing and childrearing families.
Construct an evidence based reproductive health management plan.
Identify and address healthcare needs of marginalized childbearing and childrearing families
Requirements
For Week 3 of the course you will be presenting your own case from clinical. The case should be clear, organized, and meet the following guidelines:
Initial Case Presentation:
Present only the subjective and objective data only on the patient organized as you would organize them in a SOAP (CC, HPI (no OLDCART for HPI); ROS, PE findings, and any lab or diagnostic findings for your patient.
**Do not put the diagnosis or plan in initial post. No Assessment/Plan in the initial post. No citations or references are required for your initial post, you will post references in your summary post.
WEEK 3: The case should be pediatric (a patient age 17 years or younger).
WEEK 3 specific guidelines: The case must not be something overly simple. The list of things that should not be covered include sore throat, URI, UTI, ear infection, or contact dermatitis (poison ivy). You need to present a case that intrigued you or presents new content in a different light. *One of the above diagnosis can be presented if the findings were unusual and you clear such case with your course faculty prior to posting (at least 2 days before posting). In the pediatric case you must also include in the objective data growth chart percentiles for height, weight, and BMI, and tanner staging. A patient you saw both for initial complaint and follow-up would be ideal, but not required.
Leading the Discussion: Post your subjective, objective, and diagnostic data for your patient by Wednesday at 11:59 PM MT.
Interactive Dialogue: As a student you will also be required to respond to at least two (2) other students initial case presentation. In your responses, you must include the following: Your top three (3) differentials based on the information provided and why (rationale based on presentation findings), the primary diagnosis you are leaning toward, how you would treat that diagnosis. Use references to support your response. *DEADLINE – YOUR RESPONSES TO 2 STUDENTS ARE DUE BY FRIDAY AT 11:59 p.m. (MT). **If all students have a response, then choose the student with the least responses to their posting.
Clinical Case Presentation Summary Criteria:
By Sunday 11:59 p.m. MT, post a summary reply to your initial post and respond to any faculty questions to your initial posting or question(s) posed to the general class. Use references to support all of your responses.
Criteria for Summary Post should include all of the following required elements: Summary post written in paragraph(s) type format (No SOAP note for Summary Post); discuss primary and any applicable secondary diagnoses along with treatment plan for each diagnosis. Scholarly and evidence based in-text citation support for all of the listed diagnoses; Scholarly and evidence based in-text citation for each treatment plan. Differential diagnoses are eliminated. Summarize your peer’s posts to your presentation.
*Remember not to use any patient identifiers in your posting (this would be full names or disclosure of clinic name, preceptor name, et cetera). Please include age, gender, and race.
Assignment Rubric Detailsclose
Rubric
NR602 W3 Peds Clinical Case Presentation
NR602 W3 Peds Clinical Case Presentation
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeApplication of Course Knowledge 30.0 pts
Exceptional-Case presentation contributes unique perspectives/insights applicable to the results from the physical exam and diagnosis(es). Initial presentation need to include the following elements: • chief complain/concern, • HPI – • ROS – PE only pertinent positives • Lab/diagnostic data 26.0 pts
Exceeds- Case presentation contributes unique perspectives or insights, but may lack some applicability to presented case study: Initial presentation is missing ONE of the following: HPI, CC, ROS, PE, or Lab/diagnostic data 24.0 pts
Meets- Case presentation contributes unique perspectives or insights, but may lack some applicability to presented case study: Initial presentation is missing TWO of the following: HPI, CC, ROS, PE, or Lab/diagnostic data 11.0 pts
Needs Improvement- Case presentation contributes unique perspectives or insights, but may lack some applicability to presented case study: Initial presentation is missing THREE of the following: HPI, CC, ROS, PE, or Lab/diagnostic data 0.0 pts
Developing- Case presentation offers no insight or application to the case presentation. Four or more elements of SOAP criteria expectation are missing or not met.
30.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSupport from Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) References for responding to peer’s posts are in addition to this requirement 20.0 pts
Exceptional- Case presentation discussion is supported by evidence from four (4) appropriate sources –One from an EBP Clinical Guidelines and three from Peer Reviewed Journal Articles from Chamberlain Online Library published within the last 5 years. In-text citations and full references are provided. 18.0 pts
Exceeds- Case presentation discussion is supported by three (3) scholarly sources: at least one from an EBP Clinical Guidelines and two from Peer Reviewed Journal Articles from Chamberlain Online Library published within the last 5 years. In-text citations and full references are provided. 16.0 pts
Meets- Case presentation discussion is supported by two (2) scholarly sources: at least one from an EBP Clinical Guidelines and one from Peer Reviewed Journal Articles from Chamberlain Online Library published within the last 5 years. In-text citations and full references are provided. 8.0 pts
Needs Improvement- Case presentation discussion is partially supported with one scholarly source or include citations to non-scholarly/evidence based websites as support. Reference(s) listed and cited but does not fully support – particularly diagnoses and treatment(s). References used not published within the last 5 years. In-text citations and full references are not provided. 0.0 pts
Developing- Discussion posts contain no evidence-based practice reference or citation from appropriate sources. *Students should note that factitious sources, sources that are clearly not read by the student and used, or sources that have incorrect dates will result in an automatic ZERO (0) for this section for the week.
20.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummary Post 15.0 pts
Exceptional- Summary post is submitted by due date and includes all of the following required elements: Summary post written in paragraph(s) type format (No SOAP); discuss primary and any secondary diagnoses along with treatment plan for each diagnosis. Scholarly and evidence based in-text citation support for all of the listed diagnoses; Scholarly and evidence based in-text citation for each treatment plan. Student summarizes their peer’s responses to their case study. 13.0 pts
Exceeds- Summary post is missing one (1) of the following elements: use of correct format (No SOAP); Discussion of primary diagnosis; Any applicable secondary diagnoses; Scholarly and evidence based in-text citation support for all of the listed diagnoses; Scholarly and evidence based in-text citation for each treatment plan; differential diagnoses are eliminated; submitted by due date. Student summarizes their peer’s responses to their case study. 12.0 pts
Meets- Summary post is missing two (2) of the following elements: use of correct format (No SOAP); discussion of primary and any secondary diagnoses along with treatment plan for each diagnosis. Scholarly and evidence based in-text citation support for all of the listed diagnoses; Scholarly and evidence based in-text citation for each treatment plan Differential diagnoses are eliminated; submitted by due date. Student minimally summarizes their peer’s responses to their case study. 6.0 pts
Needs Improvement- Summary post is missing three (3) of the following elements: use of correct format (No SOAP). Discussion of primary and any secondary diagnoses along with treatment plan for each diagnosis. Scholarly and evidence based in-text citation support for all of the listed diagnoses; Scholarly and evidence based in-text citation for each treatment plan Differential diagnoses are eliminated; submitted by due date. Student does not summarize their peer’s responses to their case study. 0.0 pts
Developing- Summary post is missing four (4) or more of the following elements: use of correct format (No SOAP). Discuss primary and any secondary diagnoses along with treatment plan for each diagnosis. Scholarly and evidence based in-text citation support for all of the listed diagnoses; Scholarly and evidence based in-text citation for each treatment plan Differential diagnoses are eliminated; submitted by due date.
15.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInteractive Dialogue with Peers 30.0 pts
Exceptional- Responds substantively to at least two topic-related post of a peer including evidence from appropriate sources. 26.0 pts
Exceeds- Responds to at least two (2) student peers’ initial post but the nature of one or more responses are not substantive or missing evidence from appropriate sources to support responses. 24.0 pts
Meets- Responds substantively to one (1) student peer’s initial post with evidence from appropriate sources to support response. 11.0 pts
Needs Improvement- Responds to one (1) student peer’s initial post but the nature of the responses is not substantive or missing evidence from appropriate sources to support response. 0.0 pts
Developing- Does not respond to any topic-related peer post.
30.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization of Case Study & Grammar, Syntax, APA 5.0 pts
Presents case study in a logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence and APA format, grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation are accurate, or with zero to one errors. 4.0 pts
Presents case study in a logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence AND/OR Two to four errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and syntax noted. 3.0 pts
Five to seven errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and syntax noted. 2.0 pts
Case Study is not presented in an logical, meaningful, or understandable sequence AND/OR Eight to nine errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and syntax noted. 0.0 pts
Case Study presentation is unclear or not relevant to presenting chief complaint/concern/HPI AND/OR Post contains ten or greater errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation or repeatedly makes the same errors after faculty feedback

VERY IMPORTANT
Avoid using references from other countries, U.S. guidelines or practices may be quite different than what other countries do. Besides you will be tested on what we do in the U.S on your national board certification exams when you finish this program. Also, you may use Nursing Guides and books but you cannot count these towards your required number of sources for your assignments unless the book is a guideline book (make sure you are using the most up to date guideline too). Books  are not considered appropriate EBP sources because they are considered secondary sources and Nursing Guides are too brief, but you can look at the references they used and incorporate any  EBP article that was used to compile the Nursing Guide providing it is not older than 5 years.
Review this document under the course resources: What is a Scholarly Source?