The Pathophysiology and Key Clinical Manifestations of Asthma - Nursing Assignment Help

Assignment Task:

STRUCTURE

For this written assessment item, students are required to discuss, critically analyse and develop a plan of care for a supplied patient case study. Students will be provided with the patient scenario, hospital notes, medication chart and vital signs chart. Students are then required to discuss the following points in relation to their patient scenario as outlined in the rubric:

1. Pathophysiology

2. Clinical Manifestations

3. Nursing management (focused assessment, escalation, oxygen management, pharmacological management, psychosocial management)

4. Collaborative management

5. Referencing in APA 7th

LEARNING OUTCOMES

1)Applying knowledge and concepts of the pathophysiological basis for commonly encountered conditions and their application to nursing care of clients in medical and surgical settings.

2)Describe the nursing application of diagnostic,therapeutic and preventative techniques associated with caring for the deteriorating patients in the clinical setting.

3)Demonstrate indepth knowledge of complex health problems experience by patients throughout the lifespan in the clinical setting.

4)Apply knowledge of commonly used pharmacological interventions in the context of drug actions,indications,contraindications,dosage,interactions and reactions in the patient with the acute illness.

The aim of this assessment is to help you develop your clinical judgement skills, by identifying patient problems and implementing suitable interventions.

After working through this case, you should be able to:

1. Identify and explain the pathophysiology & key clinical manifestations of asthma in relation to a specific presentation
2. Critically discuss nursing interventions that could be implemented in the delivery of care to a patient with asthma, including: escalation, focussed respiratory assessment, oxygen delivery devices, pharmacology/medication management & psychosocial management
3. Identify two (2) members of the multidisciplinary team who you will collaborative with and explain their role in the care of your patient

INSTRUCTIONS

1. CAREFULLY REVIEW your patient Jennifer Hoffman’s admission notes,vital signs chart,medication chart.

2. It is 1600hrs and you enter Jennifer's room. You note that she is in respiratory distress; she presents clinically with shortness of breath an increased work of breathing and an audible expiratory wheeze. On auscultation of her lungs, decreased air entry and a widespread wheeze is noted. Jennifer's vital signs are as follows;

• Respiratory Rate 35 breaths per minute
• Oxygen Saturations 88% (on room air)
• Heart Rate 128 beats per minute
• Blood Pressure 155/75mmHg
• Temperature 36.5 degrees Celsius

3. Critically analyse and discuss the following points in relation to your patient as outlined in the rubric. The focus of this assignment should be on the management of this new episode of respiratory distress which commenced when you entered the room at 1600hrs.

• PATHOPHYSIOLOGY
• CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS
• NURSING MANAGEMENT
  • Focused Assessment
  • Escalation
  • Oxygen management
  • Pharmacological management
  • Psychosocial management
• COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT
• REFERENCING

Please see full marking breakdown in the marking rubric

PRESENTATION REQUIREMENTS

• Pages should be numbered in the bottom right corner
• Student ID number should be in the footer of each page.
• Submitted assignments must be submitted in WORD format.
• Size 11 or 12 point font should be used.
• Font style should be Times New Roman, Calibri or Arial
• Assessments should be presented using double (or 1.5) line spacing
• All in-text references count in the word count. Reference list is excluded from word count (refer to Word Count Guidelines Policy).
• Students must reference in the APA 7th style of referencing.
• Students need to complete the university declaration on submission.
• You may use subheadings to develop your paper and ensure you address each component of the question.
• There is no requirement for a title page.

RUBRIC(STRICTY FOLLOW):

N (< 50%)

P (50-59%)

C (60-69%)

D (70-79%)

HD (80-100%)

Pathophysiology

(10 marks)

Comprehensively outlines and discusses the pathophysiology of asthma.

(0 – 4.9 Marks)

Does not clearly/adequately explain the pathophysiology of asthma.

Much of the information is inaccurate or there is significant information not included.

(5 – 5.9 Marks)

Simplistic outline that addresses the pathophysiology of asthma.

Most of the information is accurate however, there are some errors or important omissions.

(6 – 6.9 Marks)

Outlines and discusses the pathophysiology of asthma.

Information is mostly accurate and generally well articulated.

(7 – 7.9 Marks)

Outlines and discusses the pathophysiology of asthma, including all key points.

Information is relevant, accurate and well articulated.

(8 – 10 Marks)

Comprehensively explains the pathophysiology of asthma.

All information is highly relevant, accurate, has a logical flow, and is very well articulated.

Clinical manifestations

(10 marks)

Clinical manifestations are identified, described and linked to the underlying pathophysiology of asthma.

(0 – 4.9 Marks)

Patient’s clinical manifestations of asthma are not identified.

Generalised clinical manifestations of asthma are discussed but they are not specific to the patient’s clinical presentation

(5 – 5.9 Marks)

Basic identification of the patient’s clinical manifestations associated with asthma. Clinical manifestations discussed in isolation.

Neglects pathophysiology of asthma. Important detail is omitted.

(6 – 6.9 Marks)

Accurate identification and discussion of the patient’s observed clinical manifestations.

Some links made to the pathophysiology of asthma. Some errors or inaccuracies present.

(7 – 7.9 Marks)

Discussion of the patient’s observed clinical manifestations is mostly accurate and is strongly linked to the pathophysiology of asthma.

Some minor errors included.

(8 – 10 Marks)

The discussion of the patient’s observed clinical manifestations is accurate, comprehensive and flows logically.

There are strong links to the pathophysiology of asthma.

Respiratory Assessment

(10 marks)

The importance of performing a comprehensive respiratory assessment of the patient is discussed.

(0 – 4.9 Marks)

The summary does not include respiratory assessment as a management strategy for the patient.

Respiratory assessment is included but very unclearly expressed. Understanding of respiratory assessment is not demonstrated

(5 – 5.9 Marks)

Respiratory assessment is identified as a management strategy for the patient.

Simplistic rationale is provided. Some components of respiratory assessment not discussed.

(6 – 6.9 Marks)

Respiratory assessment with rationale is included and is clear and feasible.

Most components of a comprehensive respiratory assessment are explained/discussed.

Some errors or inaccuracies present.

(7 – 7.9 Marks)

The importance of performing a comprehensive respiratory assessment for the patient is clear and appropriate.

All components of a comprehensive respiratory assessment are discussed.

Some minor errors included.

(8 – 10 Marks)

The importance of performing a comprehensive respiratory assessment for the patient is discussed and based upon comprehensive rationales.

The components of a comprehensive respiratory assessment are very well articulated.

Escalation

(10 marks)

The appropriate escalation of the patients care is identified and discussed.

(0 – 4.9 Marks)

Escalation of the patient’s care is not identified or discussed. OR

The escalation process is very unclearly expressed.

(5 – 5.9 Marks)

The escalation of the patient’s care is vague/simplistic.

No/inadequate rationale for escalation of care is provided OR there are some important omissions.

(6 – 6.9 Marks)

The escalation process discussed is safe and clear.

The escalation strategy of choice may not be the best option for the patient, but is safe and appropriate.

(7 – 7.9 Marks)

The escalation process identified for the patient is appropriate and is supported with a well articulated rationale.

Minor errors.

(8 – 10 Marks)

The escalation process identified for the patient is appropriate and based upon a comprehensive rationale.

Key evidence of effectiveness is presented and supports the proposed strategy.

Oxygen Management

(10 marks)

Appropriate oxygen management strategies for the patient is discussed.

(0 – 4.9 Marks)

The summary does not include oxygen delivery device management or strategies or rationales.

Oxygen management strategies are unsafe, inappropriate or very unclearly expressed.

Understanding of oxygen management is not demonstrated.

(5 – 5.9 Marks)

The importance of oxygen management for the patient is included but is simplistic.

No rationale is provided OR there are some important omissions.

(6 – 6.9 Marks)

The oxygen management of the patient is discussed and is clear and feasible.

Basic evidence of effectiveness is provided, but limited.

The management strategy of choice may not be the best option for the patient, but is safe and appropriate.

(7 – 7.9 Marks)

The oxygen management of the patient is well articulated, safe and appropriate.

Evidence of effectiveness is considered. Minor errors noted.

(8 – 10 Marks)

The oxygen management of the patient is appropriate and based upon a comprehensive rationale.

Key evidence of effectiveness is presented and supports the proposed oxygen management.

Pharmacological management

(10 marks)

Appropriate pharmacological management of the patient is discussed

(0 – 4.9 Marks)

The summary does not identify or include pharmacological management strategies or rationales or they are inappropriate or very unclearly expressed.

OR Understanding of the pharmacological management is not demonstrated.

(5 – 5.9 Marks)

Pharmacological management strategies are included, but some of these are unfeasible, inappropriate or unclear.

At least one appropriate pharmacological management strategy for the patient is included.

(6 – 6.9 Marks)

Two appropriate pharmacological management strategies for the patient are included.

Basic evidence of effectiveness is provided, but is limited.

(7 – 7.9 Marks)

Two pharmacological management strategies for the patient are included and are clear and appropriate.

Evidence of effectiveness is considered for each strategy, with a few minor inaccuracies.

(8 – 10 Marks)

Two pharmacological management strategies for the patient are identified and are appropriate and based upon comprehensive rationales.

Key evidence of effectiveness is presented and supports the proposed pharmacological management.

Psychosocial Management

(10 marks)

The appropriate psychosocial nursing management of the patient is discussed

(0 – 4.9 Marks)

The discussion does not clearly identify or address the psychosocial management of the patient. OR management identified is unclear/inaccurate.

Understanding of the patient situation is not demonstrated.

(5 – 5.9 Marks)

Psychosocial management strategies are included, but some of these are unfeasible, inappropriate or unclear.

At least one appropriate psychosocial management strategy is included.

(6 – 6.9 Marks)

Psychosocial management strategies are clear and feasible.

The management strategies of choice may not be the best option for the patient, but are safe and appropriate.

(7 – 7.9 Marks)

Psychosocial management strategies are clear and appropriate.

Some details are incomplete or holistic elements are missed.

(8 – 10 Marks)

A variety of psychosocial management strategies are clearly presented.

The choice of issues discussed demonstrates a holistic and person-centred understanding of care of the patient.

Collaborative Management

(20 marks)

Identifies two allied health professionals and explains how they contribute to the patient’s care

(0 – 9.9 Marks)

The summary does not identify or include collaborative management with allied health or rationales or they are inappropriate or very unclearly expressed.

OR Understanding of collaborative management is not demonstrated.

(10 – 11.9 Marks)

Collaborative management with allied health professionals is included, but some of these management strategies are unfeasible, inappropriate or unclear.

At least one appropriate allied health professional is identified and their role in the care of the patient is included.

(12 – 13.9 Marks)

Two appropriate allied health professionals and their role in the care of the patient is included and discussed.

Basic evidence of effectiveness is provided, but is limited

(14 – 15.9 Marks)

Two appropriate allied health professionals and their role in the care of the patient is included and is clear and appropriate.

Evidence is considered for each allied health professional, with a few minor inaccuracies.

(16 – 20 Marks)

Two appropriate allied health professionals and their role in the care of the patient is identified and based upon comprehensive rationales.

Key evidence is presented and supports the proposed allied health collaborative management strategies.

Referencing,

Literature and evidence base

(10 Marks)

Finding and selecting appropriate sources. Citing ideas effectively

(0 – 4.9 Marks)

Either no evidence of literature being consulted or use of irrelevant, dated (>7 years) or very few or no academic sources.

Very poor paraphrasing and referencing with evidence of plagiarism. Omission or major APA 7th errors

(5 – 5.9 Marks)

Literature presented uncritically such that it demonstrates a limited understanding of the evidence. Minimum number of academic references used.

Poor paraphrasing with emphasis on direct quotations. Frequent APA 7th errors

(6 – 6.9 Marks)

Clear evidence and application of an adequate number of academic references. Some problems with paraphrasing and expressing ideas from the literature.

Mostly adheres to APA 7th with minor errors in in-text citations & reference list

(7 – 7.9 Marks)

Well developed & justified ideas based on a good number of academic references. Mainly uses own words to express concepts from the literature.

Very good paraphrasing. Very good adherence to APA 7th. References used appropriately throughout.

(8 – 10 Marks)

Critical appraisal of the literature based on a wide range of high quality academic references. Own words used to discuss ideas from the literature.

Excellent adherence to APA 7th. References used appropriately throughout.

 

This Nursing Assignment has been solved by our Nursing Experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.