NR305-10247: Health Assessment for the Practicing RN #4

Sample Solution

NR305 Week 4 iHuman Nurse Notes Template

Complete each item below:

S – Mrs. Washington is an African American woman in her 48s who has a history of high blood pressure and hypercholesterolemia. She arrived at the emergency room with symptoms like a stroke that started with a terrible headache last night at 8:00 p.m. after work. According to her spouse, she woke up around 0500 with slurred speech, left-sided weakness, and confusion. For nausea, she is taking IV Ondansetron 4mg. She is a full code, and she is in critical condition.

B – Both Mrs. Washington’s hypertension and hypercholesterolemia are out of control. Simvastatin 40 mg, metoprolol 50 mg bid, and acetaminophen for pain are the medications she uses. She lives with her husband, has no known allergies, and has all of her shots.

A – Mrs. Washington is lucid, vigilant, and oriented x 2. She lacks a sense of time. Hypertension, left-sided weakness, left-sided facial drooping, tongue deviation, and a failed bedside swallow test are all symptoms of hypertension. She hasn’t lost her gag reflex. 11 on the NIH stroke scale. No major vascular blockage is visible on the CT image. Positive for a potential acute right-sided cerebellar infarct but negative for hemorrhagic stroke or haemorrhage.

R – Mrs. Washington will get NIH stroke examinations every hour and will need to remain NPO until she has successfully completed a speech and language pathologist’s swallow evaluation. Q15 is the vitals. Telemetry, continuous pulse oximetry, and strict I/O. 30-degree angle at the bedhead. Mrs. Washington received treatment from numerous healthcare organizations. She was initially examined at the emergency room, evaluated for stroke-like symptoms, diagnosed, and given Ondansetron, oxygen, and IV normal saline. She was also transported to a floor for monitoring with telemetry, continuous pulse oximetry, vitals q15, and stringent I/O’s after having labs and diagnostics requested immediately. Until she could pass a swallow test, she would then be monitored on a unit and seen by a physical therapist and a speech-language pathologist. Depending on how far she had come, a rehabilitation team would need to evaluate her, or she would be able to take care of herself. She would require long-term follow-up with a healthcare professional to make sure she is helped in both her recovery and the future prevention of unfavorable health outcomes. The delivery of appropriate care along the stroke route is seen as requiring multidisciplinary teamwork. Numerous members of the healthcare team may be involved in the patient’s care, depending on their comorbidities.

1. Identify two other healthcare team professionals with whom you would collaborate when caring for Ms. Washington.

1) The occupational therapist and the neurologist are two prominent medical specialists who are involved in Mrs. Washington’s care. The capacity of a stroke patient to engage in activities of daily living is a topic that occupational therapists specifically address. Additionally, they might develop a strategy to increase the patient’s capacity for routine tasks like dressing and washing. Additionally, the occupational therapist can show the patient how to use home modifications including grab bars, raised toilet seats, and shower benches.
2) A doctor who specializes in conditions affecting the brain, spinal cord, and nervous system is known as a neurologist. Stroke prevention, care, and outcomes can be improved through a comprehensive team of caregivers. These specialized doctors can direct patients to the proper care, medication, or therapy after a stroke. In addition, they are very often the physicians who diagnose the stroke and can assess the damage

2. What findings in your iHuman assessment led you to select these two providers?
The following iHuman evaluation results prompted me to choose the occupational therapist and the neurologist as the two healthcare professionals who would benefit the patient the most:
History of stroke-like symptoms: A crucial finding is the patient’s history of stroke-like symptoms because it indicates that she may be at risk for having a stroke. A neurologist is an expert in the diagnosis and treatment of neurological conditions, such as stroke. A neurologist can evaluate the patient’s stroke risk factors, carry out the required tests to identify a stroke, and create a plan of action to treat or manage a stroke.
Potential for impaired function: A crucial finding is the patient’s history of stroke-like symptoms because it indicates that she may be at risk for having a stroke. A neurologist is an expert in the diagnosis and treatment of neurological conditions, such as stroke. A neurologist can evaluate the patient’s stroke risk factors, carry out the required tests to identify a stroke, and create a plan of action to treat or manage a stroke.

3. Describe the role each of the two identified healthcare professionals would have in providing Ms. Washington with individualized, patient-centered care.

Individualized, patient-centered care for Ms. Washington would be provided by an occupational therapist (OT). Occupational therapists (OTs) are experts in assisting people with impairments in acquiring the skills necessary to live independently and carry out activities of daily living (ADLs). The demands of the patient’s physical, mental, and social well-being are all taken into account by occupational therapists (OTs), who deal with patients of all ages and capacities. A neurologist is an expert in the diagnosis and treatment of neurological conditions, such as stroke. Neurologists are experts in the functioning of the neurological system. Additionally, they have received training in the diagnosis and management of a variety of neurological conditions, such as epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and other dementias

Purpose

The purpose of this debriefing is to re-examine the experience completing the Week 3 iHuman Cardiovascular Assessment assignment while engaging in dialogue with faculty and peers. In the debriefings, students:

  • Reflect on the simulation activity
  • Share what went well and consider alternative actions
  • Engage in meaningful dialogue with classmates
  • Express opinions clearly and logically, in a professional manner

Course Outcomes

This assignment enables the student to meet the following course outcomes:

  • CO 2: Differentiate between normal and abnormal health assessment findings. (PO 4)
  • CO 3: Describe physical, psychosocial, cultural, and spiritual influences on an individual’s health status. (PO 1)
  • CO 4: Demonstrate effective communication skills during health assessment and documentation. (PO 3)

Due Date

  • During the assigned week (Sunday the start of the assigned week through Sunday the end of the assigned week):

    • Posts in the discussion at least two times, and
    • Posts in the discussion on two different days

Total Points Possible

50 points

Directions

  • Debriefing is an activity that involves thinking critically about your own experiences related to the virtual simulation you completed. In debriefings students:
    • Demonstrate understanding of concepts for the week
    • Engage in meaningful dialogue with classmates and/or instructor
    • Express opinions clearly and logically, in a professional manner
  • Use the rubric on this page as you compose your answers.
  • Scholarly sources are NOT required for this debriefing
  • Best Practices include:
    • Participation early in the week is encouraged to stimulate meaningful discussion among classmates and instructor.
    • Enter the debriefing often during the week to read and learn from posts.
    • Select different classmates for your reply each week.

 Debriefing

Use the following format to reflect on the Week 3 iHuman Cardiovascular Assessment. This was the Michael Granger case.

  • Paragraph One: What went well for you in the simulation? Provide examples of when you felt knowledgeable and confident in your skills. Do you feel the scenario was realistic? Why or why not?
  • Paragraph Two: What would you do differently next time if you were caring for a patient similar to Mr. Granger? Describe at least one area you identified where improvements could be made, specific to Mr. Granger’s assessment. Were you surprised by any of the feedback you were provided by iHuman? If yes, please explain.
  • Paragraph Three: What did you learn from this simulation that you could apply to nursing practice? Or, what did this simulation reinforce that you found valuable? Do you have any questions related to the scenario?

Grading

To view the grading criteria/rubric, please click on the 3 dots in the box at the end of the solid gray bar above the discussion board title and then Show Rubric. See Syllabus for Grading Rubric Definitions.

Sample Solution

A couple of things went well in this scenario. I was more familiar with reading the chart and obtaining the information. I felt more confident than I did in the last scenario in doing the initial intake interview. I focused more on the predominant information and identified the questions to be asked. During the assessment, I could quickly differentiate abnormal heart and lung sounds and focus more on the needed findings for this patient. The scenario was realistic. I enjoyed the back-and-forth conversation in the evaluation, and the patient’s answers were natural.

                I would do a couple of things differently next time. I would ask about his diet and how he adheres to it. I just remembered that I forgot to ask about it on the first attempt and later learned that Mr. Granger was eating cheeseburgers with fries and a milkshake, which is not on his recommended diet. I would also like to be more comfortable in identifying heart sounds. I could recognize that it was abnormal, but I would like to be more confident in determining what is abnormal.

                I learned a couple of things. I learned about abnormal heart sounds and what S3 sounds like. I learned that an S3 heart sound is usually a sign of systolic heart failure, which then causes fluid to back up into the lungs, which would then sound like crackles. The shortness of breath that Mr. Grander was having was attributed to the crackles, which then attributed to his low 02 sat. It all snowballs off each other, which I found interesting. My question from the scenario is that I need clarification on when to administer medication. On the last question, it asked what meds to give. I was following the MAR and saw that I had chosen incorrectly. The patient did not need any medication then.

 
  •