May 30, | nursing, med, NURS, Paper
Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative
Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative
Applying the Four Principles: Case Study
Part 1: Chart (60 points)
Based on the “Healing and Autonomy” case study, fill out all the relevant boxes below. Provide the information using bullet points or a well-structured paragraph in the box. Gather as much data as possible.
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
Medical Indications
Beneficence and Nonmaleficence
Patient Preferences
Autonomy
The principle of beneficence and non-maleficence is among the major five ethical principles outlined by APA. The beneficence principle states that psychologists should only engage in activities, which are beneficial to others (Young, 2017). On the other hand, the principle of non-maleficence states that practitioners should ensure that no one is hurt during their practices (Singh & Ivory, 2015). They should expose clients to the minimum harm to obtain the best outcomes. In the case study, the incidents of beneficence and non-maleficence are as described below.
· The physician suggested immediate dialysis for James during the first visit due to his elevated blood pressure and fluid buildup,
· Placing James on regular dialysis during the second visit to stabilize his deteriorating condition,
· Proposing a kidney transplant to be performed within the next one year despite James being in a stable state currently,
· Informing Mike and Joanne that the church members were not potential donors due to mismatch of their tissues, and
· Suggesting for Mike and Joanne of a donor that was an ideal tissue match, James’ brother Samuel.
Autonomy is another major ethical principle, which psychologists and healthcare providers are required to adhere to. This ethical principle states that everyone is entitled to the right to independence, self-determination, and freedom to make their own choices without being influenced (Motloba, 2018). In the healthcare sector, the principle of autonomy states that clients have a right to make decisions about their own health without being influenced by care providers. Therefore, healthcare providers should respect autonomy even if they are not in agreement with the decision made by the client. The case study portrays various incidents of autonomy as illustrated below. Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative
v The physician did not interrupt when Mike and Joane were making decisions regarding James’ medication,
v The physician did not interrupt when Mike and Joane were making a decision to forego the dialysis and place their faith in God, and
v The physician did not interrupt when Mike and Joane were making a decision whether to let Samuel donate a kidney to James or perhaps wait for God to do a miracle this time around.
Quality of Life
Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy
Contextual Features
Justice and Fairness
v The physician did not consider Mike or Joanne as ideal kidney donors to James since they were not compatible donors,
v The physician did not consider any of the church members as an ideal donor since their tissues did not match with those of James,
v The physician advised Mike and Joanne to ensure a kidney transplant was done in the next year despite James’ current stable state,
v The physician proposed Samuel as an ideal kidney donor, and Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative
v The physician allowed Mike and Joanne to make a decision about Samuel donating one of his kidneys to his brother, James.
This APA general principle holds that individuals are entitled to the advancements, which have been made within a particular field of practice such as psychology or healthcare (APA, 2020). Justice and fairness are portrayed in the case study in one major incident.
v The physician allowed James to use the dialysis machine. This machine was used to perform daily rounds of dialysis to stabilize his condition.
Part 2: Evaluation
Answer each of the following questions about how principlism would be applied:
In 200-250 words, answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, which of the four principles is most pressing in this case? Explain why. (45 points)
In the context of the Christian worldview, the principle of autonomy would be considered as the most pressing in this case. Autonomy states that everyone is entitled to the right to independence, self-determination, and freedom to make their own choices without being influenced (Singh & Ivory, 2015). In the healthcare sector, the principle of autonomy states that clients have a right to make decisions about their own health without being influenced. Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative. Therefore, healthcare providers should respect autonomy even if they are not agreed with the decision made by the client regarding treatment procedures. In this case, parents (Mike and Joane) are entitled to the independence of thought, and action when making any decision regarding the health care procedures of the patient since he is a minor. Thus, the physician respects their decision even if he was not in an agreement with it. The physician does not interrupt their decision to taking James home and wait for a miracle even if he was proposing for immediate dialysis due to his deteriorating condition. Additionally, he does not influence their decision when they decided to believe in God rather than making their son, Samuel loses his kidney. These two decisions were wrong and they were putting James’ life in danger. He could end up losing his life while they were waiting for God’s best time to perform a miracle for them Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative. Therefore, the Christian worldview considers autonomy as the most pressing principle among the four principles evidence in the case study.
In 200-250 words, answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, how might a Christian rank the priority of the four principles? Explain why. (45 points)
A Christian would rank the principles in order. The principle of Non-maleficence, which advocates for less harmful procedures would be ranked as the first one (Ediger, 2015). This principle ensures that healthcare practitioners expose clients to minimize harm to get the best results. The second principle is justice or fairness. This principle holds that individuals are entitled to the advancements, which have been made within a particular field of practice such as psychology or healthcare. Therefore, this principle will give Christians an opportunity to benefit from technological advancements while receiving treatment. The third is the principle of beneficence, which advocates for good intentions towards the patients (Al-Bar & Chamsi-Pasha, 2015). Therefore, Christians should consider a decision that accrues the most benefits to them. Thus, the principle is against the Christians who fail to seek medication on time due to their faith. This behavior makes their health condition deteriorate like in the case of James. The principle of autonomy would be ranked as the last one. This ethical principle states that everyone is entitled to the right to independence, self-determination, and freedom to make their own choices without being influenced Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative. In this case, parents are entitled to the independence of intention, thought, and action when making any decision regarding health care procedures since the patient is a minor. The healthcare practitioner, therefore, is not supposed to use false during the decision-making process. This principle risks the health of most Christians who based their health decisions on faith rather than on facts.
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
References:
Al-Bar, M. A., & Chamsi-Pasha, H. (2015). Beneficence. In Contemporary Bioethics (pp. 129-139). Springer, Cham.
APA. (2020). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct: Including 2010 and 2016 Amendments. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/
Ediger, M. J. (2015). Teaching Clinical Ethics Using the Four Topic Method. International Journal of Athletic Therapy and Training, 20(6), 10-13. Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative
Motloba, P. D. (2018). Understanding the principle of Autonomy (Part 1). South African Dental Journal, 73(6), 418-420.
Singh, J, P & Ivory, M. (2015). Beneficence/Nonmaleficence. The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology. 1-3.
Young, G. (2017). The Five Core and the Five Supplementary Ethical Principles and Their Sub-principles. In Revising the APA Ethics Code (pp. 63-91). Springer, Cham.
Case Study: Healing and Autonomy
Mike and Joanne are the parents of James and Samuel, identical twins born 8 years ago. James is currently suffering from acute glomerulonephritis, kidney failure. James was originally brought into the hospital for complications associated with a strep throat infection. The spread of the A streptococcus infection led to the subsequent kidney failure. James’s condition was acute enough to warrant immediate treatment. Usually cases of acute glomerulonephritis caused by strep infection tend to improve on their own or with an antibiotic. However, James also had elevated blood pressure and enough fluid buildup that required temporary dialysis to relieve Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative.
The attending physician suggested immediate dialysis. After some time of discussion with Joanne, Mike informs the physician that they are going to forego the dialysis and place their faith in God. Mike and Joanne had been moved by a sermon their pastor had given a week ago, and also had witnessed a close friend regain mobility when she was prayed over at a healing service after a serious stroke. They thought it more prudent to take James immediately to a faith healing service instead of putting James through multiple rounds of dialysis Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative. Yet, Mike and Joanne agreed to return to the hospital after the faith healing services later in the week, and in hopes that James would be healed by then.
Two days later the family returned and was forced to place James on dialysis, as his condition had deteriorated. Mike felt perplexed and tormented by his decision to not treat James earlier. Had he not enough faith? Was God punishing him or James? To make matters worse, James’s kidneys had deteriorated such that his dialysis was now not a temporary matter and was in need of a kidney transplant. Crushed and desperate, Mike and Joanne immediately offered to donate one of their own kidneys to James, but they were not compatible donors. Over the next few weeks, amidst daily rounds of dialysis, some of their close friends and church members also offered to donate a kidney to James. However, none of them were tissue matches.
James’s nephrologist called to schedule a private appointment with Mike and Joanne. James was stable, given the regular dialysis, but would require a kidney transplant within the year. Given the desperate situation, the nephrologist informed Mike and Joanne of a donor that was an ideal tissue match, but as of yet had not been considered—James’s brother Samuel.
Mike vacillates and struggles to decide whether he should have his other son Samuel lose a kidney or perhaps wait for God to do a miracle this time around. Perhaps this is where the real testing of his faith will come in? Mike reasons, “This time around it is a matter of life and death. What could require greater faith than that?” Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative
This assignment will incorporate a common practical tool in helping clinicians begin to ethically analyze a case. Organizing the data in this way will help you apply the four principles of principlism.
Based on the ”Case Study: Healing and Autonomy” and other required topic study materials, you will complete the ”Applying the Four Principles: Case Study” document that includes the following:
Part 1: Chart
This chart will formalize principlism and the four-boxes approach by organizing the data from the case study according to the relevant principles of biomedical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice.
Part 2: Evaluation
This part includes questions, to be answered in a total of 500 words, that describe how principalism would be applied according to the Christian worldview.
Remember to support your responses with the topic study materials.
APA style is not required, but solid academic writing is expected.
Applying the Four Principles: Case Study
Part 1: Chart (60 points)
Based on the “Healing and Autonomy” case study, fill out all the relevant boxes below. Provide the information by means of bullet points or a well-structured paragraph in the box. Gather as much data as possible.
Medical Indications
Beneficence and Nonmaleficence Patient Preferences
Autonomy
Quality of Life
Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy Contextual Features
Justice and Fairness
Part 2: Evaluation
Answer each of the following questions about how principlism would be applied:
1. In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, which of the four principles is most pressing in this case? Explain why. (45 points)
2. In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, how might a Christian rank the priority of the four principles? Explain why. (45 points) Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative
References:
May 30, | nursing, med, NURS, Paper
NURS 6541 Week 3 Assignment – acute otitis media SOAP Note
NURS 6541 Week 3 Assignment – acute otitis media SOAP Note
SOAP assignment
Subjective
A 4-year-old male patient’s mother stated that the child had complained of an earache. The child had only made it known to his mother after three days of discomfort. The patient says that a bug crawled into his right ear while playing in the park. The mother believes it is more of an ear infection as she has checked the patient’s ear but found no foreign objects. The patient says there are no fluttering sounds in his ear and neither is the ear blocked
Objective
Vital Signs: Ht 111cm. Wt 19.1kg, BP: 117.75, HR 84, RR 18, T 39C
General observation: no acute distress. The patient is well nourished
CV: no gallops or murmurs, RRR
MSK: full motion range in all body extremities
Abdomen: no hepatosplenomegaly, non-disteneded, non-tender, soft, bowel sounds in all four quadrants
Lungs: no wheezing, rales, rhinchi, CTAB.
ORDER A CUSTOM-WRITTEN, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
Neck: non-tender and mobile, no masses, supple, right cervical lymph node 1cm palpable
HEENT: pink conjunctiva, white sclera. Ears bilateral canals are clean, pearly grey left tympanic membrane with visible bony landmarks and light reflex. Bulging and erythematous right tympanic membrane with no bony landmarks visualized and with reduced light reflex. No observation of purulent drainage. Mastoid bone has no pain on palpitation NURS 6541 Week 3 Assignment – acute otitis media SOAP Note.
Assessment
The patient has acute otitis media
Comparisons were made of the left and right ear to help in elucidating any clinical findings that were abnormal. The assessment also ruled out the possibility of:
Otitis media with effusion- no collection of ear fluid was observed. The patient did not have an upper respiratory infection, sore throat, or cold (Williamson, 2015)
Cholesteotoma: no cyst observed. Patient does not have a history of ear infection. No hearing loss was reported (Prasad, Swapanthi & Harshitha, 2018)
Mastoiditis: no pus excreted from the ear. No swelling behind the ear. No difficulty in hearing reported. No throbbing reported (Stergiopoulou & Walsh, 2016).
Plan
Rx: Benzocaine 20% ear drops. Every 1-2 hours as needed for managing pain
160mg/5ml Tylenol every 4-6 hours as needed to manage fever or pain
90mg/kg/day Amoxicillin bid q10
Non-pharmacological treatment: Avoid inserting objects in the ear. Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT) is recommended. OMT has been shown to be effective when done in combination with pharmacological treatment (Steele, Carreiro, Viola, et al., 2014).
Amoxicillin is used as the first line of treatment (Nwokoye, Egwari, & Olubi, 2015). It is essential that pain is managed. Benzocain is used as additional pain management for children aged 2 years and above.
Patient Education: Improvement of symptoms should be observed within 24-48 hours following antibiotic therapy
Follow Up: The patient should return for a check-up if the condition does not improve after 48 hours following antibiotic administration.
Reflection Notes: The child first stated that an insect had invaded its ear. Children below 4 years are known to insert foreign objects in their ears while playing or out of simple curiosity or boredom. I should have asked the patient if there had been incidences when anything got stuck in his ear. Frequent jamming of foreign objects can cause recurrent ear infections. The parent should be asked to be more observant as the child plays. The child should not be allowed to play with small-enough objects that can easily jam in the ears. In a similar situation, I would ask the patient if he had ever inserted objects in his ears prior to the hospital visit.
References
Nwokoye, N. N., Egwari, L. O., & Olubi, O. O. (2015). Occurrence of otitis media in children and assessment of treatment options. The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, 129(8), 779-783.
Prasad, K. C., Swapanthi, M. B., & Harshitha, T. R. (2018). Aural Atresia with Cholesteotoma and Its Management Strategies. Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, 70(4), 587-590.
Steele, K. M., Carreiro, J. E., Viola, J. H., Conte, J. A., & Ridpath, L. C. (2014). Effect of osteopathic manipulative treatment on middle ear effusion following acute otitis media in young children: a pilot study. The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, 114(6), 436-447.
Stergiopoulou, T., & Walsh, T. J. (2016). Fusobacterium necrophorum otitis and mastoiditis in infants and young toddlers. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 35(5), 735-740.
Williamson, I. (2015). Otitis media with effusion in children. BMJ clinical evidence, 2015.
Assignment 1: Practicum – SOAP Note
SOAP Note submissions are a way to reflect on your Practicum experiences and connect these experiences to your classroom experience. SOAP Notes, such as the ones required in this course, are often used in clinical settings to document patient care. Please refer to this week’s Learning Resources for guidance on writing SOAP Notes.
Select a patient who you examined during the last 3 weeks. With this patient in mind, address the following in a SOAP Note:
Subjective: What details did the patient or parent provide regarding the personal and medical history? Include any discrepancies between the details provided by the child and details provided by the parent, as well as possible reasons for these discrepancies.
Objective: What observations did you make during the physical assessment? Include pertinent positive and negative physical exam findings. Describe whether the patient presented with any growth and development or psychosocial issues.
Assessment: What were your differential diagnoses? Provide a minimum of three possible diagnoses. List them from highest priority to lowest priority. What was your primary diagnosis and why?
Plan: What were your plans for diagnostics and primary diagnosis? What was your plan for treatment and management? Include pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters, as well as a rationale for this treatment and management plan.
Reflection notes: What was your “aha” moment? What would you do differently in a similar patient evaluation?
In this case, we can do 4 years old boy with flu like symptoms, otitis media.
Name: NURS_6541_Week3_Assignment1_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Subjective: CC
(1 point)
Points:1 (1.00%)
Points Range:1 (1.00%) – 1 (1.00%)
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
Subjective: Pertinent positives LOCATES
(10 points)
Points:10 (10.00%)
Points Range:9 (9.00%) – 10 (10.00%)
Includes thorough, accurate, and pertinent positives LOCATES
Points Range:8 (8.00%) – 8 (8.00%)
Includes accurate and pertinent positives LOCATES
Points Range:7 (7.00%) – 7 (7.00%)
Includes positives LOCATES
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 6 (6.00%)
Does not include positives LOCATES or positives LOCATES are not pertinent
Subjective: Pertinent negatives (from ROS)
(10 points)
Points Range:9 (9.00%) – 10 (10.00%)
Includes thorough, accurate, and pertinent negatives (from ROS)
Points Range:8 (8.00%) – 8 (8.00%)
Includes accurate and pertinent negatives (from ROS)
Points Range:7 (7.00%) – 7 (7.00%)
Includes negatives (from ROS)
Points:0 (0.00%)
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 6 (6.00%)
Does not include negatives (from ROS) or negatives (from ROS) are not pertinent
Subjective: Pertinent PMH, SH, and FH
(3 points)
Points:3 (3.00%)
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 3 (3.00%)
Includes thorough, accurate, and pertinent PMH, SH, and FH
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:2 (2.00%) – 2 (2.00%)
Includes PMH, SH, and FH
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 1 (1.00%)
Does not include PMH, SH, and FH or PMH, SH, and FH are not pertinent
Subjective: Medications and drug/food allergies are not included
(1 point)
Points:1 (1.00%)
Points Range:1 (1.00%) – 1 (1.00%)
Does not include medications and drug/food allergies
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
Includes medications and drug/food allergies
Objective: VS including BMI
(2 points)
Points:2 (2.00%)
Points Range:2 (2.00%) – 2 (2.00%)
Includes VS including BMI
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
NURS 6541 Week 3 Assignment – acute otitis media SOAP Note
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 1 (1.00%)
Does not include VS including BMI
Objective: Heart and lungs
(1 point)
Points:1 (1.00%)
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 1 (1.00%)
Includes heart and lungs
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
Does not include heart and lungs
Objective: Systems or specialty exam techniques that are not necessary to arrive at a diagnosis are included.
(5 points)
Points:5 (5.00%)
Points Range:5 (5.00%) – 5 (5.00%)
Includes thorough explanation of systems or specialty exam techniques that are not necessary to arrive at a diagnosis
Points Range:4 (4.00%) – 4 (4.00%)
Includes systems or specialty exam techniques that are not necessary to arrive at a diagnosis
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 3 (3.00%)
Does not include systems or specialty exam techniques that are not necessary to arrive at a diagnosis
Objective: Systems or specialty exam techniques that are necessary to arrive at your diagnosis are omitted.
(10 points)
Points:10 (10.00%)
Points Range:9 (9.00%) – 10 (10.00%)
Omits systems or specialty exam techniques that are necessary to arrive at your diagnosis
Points Range:8 (8.00%) – 8 (8.00%)
Omits most systems or specialty exam techniques that are necessary to arrive at your diagnosis
Points Range:7 (7.00%) – 7 (7.00%)
Omits some systems or specialty exam techniques that are necessary to arrive at your diagnosis
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 6 (6.00%)
Does not omit systems or specialty exam techniques that are necessary to arrive at your diagnosis
NURS 6541 Week 3 Assignment – acute otitis media SOAP Note
Objective: Diagnostic test results
(2 points)
Points:2 (2.00%)
Points Range:2 (2.00%) – 2 (2.00%)
Includes diagnostic test results
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 1 (1.00%)
Does not include diagnostic test results
Assessment: Priority Diagnosis
(30 points – 10 points for each priority diagnosis. If less than 3 are appropriate to include – simply no other diagnoses to consider – you will receive all 30 points. Please do not “stretch” to find 3 if they are not actual possibilities.)
Points:30 (30.00%)
Points Range:27 (27.00%) – 30 (30.00%)
Includes three appropriate priority diagnoses
Points Range:24 (24.00%) – 26 (26.00%)
Includes three appropriate priority diagnoses but some are incorrect or missing
Points Range:22 (22.00%) – 23 (23.00%)
Includes fewer than three priority diagnoses but some are incorrect or missing
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 21 (21.00%)
Does not include three appropriate diagnoses
Plan: Medications discontinued (“d/c lisinopril 10 mg daily”)
(1 point)
Points:1 (1.00%)
Points Range:1 (1.00%) – 1 (1.00%)
Includes discontinued medications
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
Does not include discontinued medications
Plan: Medications started (“start Avapro 150 mg daily”)
(2 points)
Points:2 (2.00%)
Points Range:2 (2.00%) – 2 (2.00%)
Includes medications started
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 1 (1.00%)
Does not include medications started
Plan: Alternative therapies if appropriate (1 point)
Points:1 (1.00%)
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 1 (1.00%)
Includes alternative therapies if appropriate
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
Does not include alternative therapies if appropriate
Plan: Health Promotion strategies – patient/family education
(3 points)
Points:3 (3.00%)
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 3 (3.00%)
Includes health promotion strategies – patient/family education
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:2 (2.00%) – 2 (2.00%)
Includes health promotion strategies – patient/family education, but may not be entirely appropriate for the patient/family
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 1 (1.00%)
Does not include health promotion strategies – patient/family education
Plan: Disease Prevention strategies with timeframe if appropriate
(3 points)
Points:3 (3.00%)
Points Range:3 (3.00%) – 3 (3.00%)
Includes disease prevention strategies with timeframe if appropriate
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:2 (2.00%) – 2 (2.00%)
Includes disease prevention strategies, but does not include timeframe or disease prevention strategies are not appropriate
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 1 (1.00%)
Does not include disease prevention strategies
Plan: Diagnostic tests ordered with timeframe (now, in 2 weeks, prior to f/u visit in 3 months)
(3 points)
Points:3 (3.00%)
Points Range:3 (3.00%) – 3 (3.00%)
Includes appropriate diagnostic tests ordered with timeframe
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:2 (2.00%) – 2 (2.00%)
Includes diagnostic tests but they may not be appropriate, or the timeframe is incorrect or not included
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 1 (1.00%)
Does not include diagnostic tests
NURS 6541 Week 3 Assignment – acute otitis media SOAP Note
Plan: Referrals or consultations if appropriate
(1 point)
Points:1 (1.00%)
Points Range:1 (1.00%) – 1 (1.00%)
Includes referrals or consultations if appropriate
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
Does not include referrals or consultations if appropriate
Plan: Follow-up interval
(1 point)
Points:1 (1.00%)
Points Range:1 (1.00%) – 1 (1.00%)
Includes follow-up interval
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
NA
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)
Does not include follow-up interval
Reflection Notes: What did you learn from this experience? Any ah-ha’s?
(10 points)
Points:10 (10.00%)
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 10 (10.00%)
Response includes thoughtful and insightful explanation of significant learnings
Points Range:8 (8.00%) – 8 (8.00%)
Response includes thoughtful and insightful explanation of learnings
Points Range:7 (7.00%) – 7 (7.00%)
Response includes explanation of learnings
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 6 (6.00%)
Response does not include explanation of learnings
Raw Total: 90.00 (of 100)
Feedback to Learner NURS 6541 Week 3 Assignment – acute otitis media SOAP Note
