academic paper that investigates the case study
Order Description
Case study:
Ms Gladys Liu is a 45 year old woman has a medical history of HT and a 20 year history of T2DM which is no longer controlled by lifestyle changes.
• She has presented to the ED following a possible UTI for last few days.
• Her admission vital signs are T: 38.7°C, HR: 125bpm, RR 25, BP 100/65 mmHg
• On examination: left flank pain with a pain score of 8/10, cracked lips, poor appetite and sunken eyes on examination.

Question 1
• Explain the pathophysiology of the above signs and symptoms as they apply to Gladys.
Question 2
• Discuss the investigations/tests that you think should be ordered for Gladys and explain your rationale and expected results (including the normal ranges).

Question 3
• Discuss how the information and understanding you have collated in question 1 and 2 informs your nursing care of Gladys,
Performance Standard
Assessment Criteria Excellent Good
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
A detailed explanation of the signs and symptoms presented in the patient scenario with clear links displaying understanding of the pathophysiology /pathogenesis of the illness/ disease. (30%) Accurate, highly relevant information provided with clear, succinct explanation of signs /symptoms related to the specific case.
Accurate, succinct relationship between pathophysiology / pathogenesis and signs/ symptoms presented.
Demonstrates excellent understanding.
(26-30) ? Clear relevant information provided, explaining the signs/ symptoms of the specific case study with minor omissions or errors present.
Good explanation of the relationship between pathophysiology / pathogenesis and signs/ symptoms presented.
Demonstrates good understanding with moderate linkage to the related case study.
(21-25) ? Basic relevant information provided, explaining the signs/ symptoms of the specific case study with some details absent or incorrect.
Basic explanation of the relationship between pathophysiology / pathogenesis and signs/ symptoms presented.
Demonstrates generalised understanding with basic linkage to the related case study.
(15-20) ?
Poor explanation/ irrelevant information provided displaying poor understanding of the signs/ symptoms related to the specific case study.
Poor or very limited explanation of the relationship between pathophysiology / pathogenesis and signs/ symptoms presented.
Demonstrates unsatisfactory understanding / incorrect linkage to the related case study.
(0-14) ?

A detailed explanation of any investigations considered necessary related to the case study, including a discussion with rationales and possible results. (30%)

Accurate, highly relevant linkage provided between investigations / case study and rationales.
Succinct discussion of investigations and expected results.
(26-30) ?

Clear explanation of links between investigations / case study and rationales – although some errors present or information missing.
Clear discussion of investigations and expected results demonstrated
(21-25) ? Basic explanation of investigations.
Generalised discussion with basic rationales and generalised results demonstrated.
Generalised links between investigations/ case study and rationales demonstrated.
(15-20) ? Poor explanation of investigations.
Poor presentation of links between investigations/ case study and rationales.
Minimal discussion with no results provided.
Information missing or irrelevant.
Demonstrates unsatisfactory understanding.
(0–14) ?
Discussion on the application of the identified pathophysiology/ pharmacology and investigational information to nursing practice for the case study patient (30%)

Accurate, succinct, highly relevant explanation of applying pathophysiology/ pharmacology/ investigational information to nursing practice.Discussion comprehensively supported by relevant evidence (26-30) ?

Clearexplanation, some elements omitted- explanation of applying pathophysiology/ pharmacology/ investigational information to nursing practice.Discussion well supported by relevant evidence
(21-25) ?

Basic/generic safe explanation ofapplying pathophysiology/ pharmacology/ investigational information to nursing practice.Discussion well supported by relevant evidence
(15-20) ?
Poor/ unsafe explanation ofapplying pathophysiology/ pharmacology/ investigational information to nursing practice.Demonstrated unsafe understanding.
No or irrelevant evidence
(0–14) ?
Meet all style and academic requirements. Quality of sources and correct use of references (10%) Uses Harvard Referencing with no errors. Mostly peer reviewed references used, essay structure/style excellent.
(9-10) ? Uses Harvard Referencing. Very minor errors in presentation of the reference list and/or in-text referencing.
General and peer reviewed references used, structure /style good.
(7-8.5) ? Uses Harvard Referencing with a number of errors evident in presentation of the reference list and/or in-text referencing. Mostly general references used, structure/style unclear in areas.
(5-6.5) ? Harvard Referencing not used, or consistently incorrect or absent. Referencing MUST be used appropriately. Failure to do so may result in a fail grade.Lacking structure/style.
(0-4.5) ?

Markers Name:
Grade: Pass/ Fail Overall Comment:
Case study

youhave learnt how to link signs and symptoms to anatomy and pathophysiology in order to understand themedical management and develop comprehensive relevant nursing care. In developing this understanding you have also explored linking the pharmacology through mode of action, dosages, adverse effects and nursing precautions.
For your supplementary assessment you are asked to present an academic paper that investigates the below case study with reference to the presented questions. The marking rubric will guide your development of this paper.

Length: 2,000 words

Case study:
Ms Gladys Liu is a 45 year old woman has a medical history of HT and a 20 year history of T2DM which is no longer controlled by lifestyle changes.
• She has presented to the ED following a possible UTI for last few days.
• Her admission vital signs are T: 38.7°C, HR: 125bpm, RR 25, BP 100/65 mmHg
• On examination: left flank pain with a pain score of 8/10, cracked lips, poor appetite and sunken eyes on examination.

Question 1
• Explain the pathophysiology of the above signs and symptomsas they apply to Gladys.
Question 2
• Discuss the investigations/tests that you think should be ordered for Gladys and explain your rationale and expected results (including the normal ranges).

Question 3
• Discuss how the information and understanding you have collated in question 1 and 2 informs your nursing care of Gladys,

Order Description
Case study:
Ms Gladys Liu is a 45 year old woman has a medical history of HT and a 20 year history of T2DM which is no longer controlled by lifestyle changes.
• She has presented to the ED following a possible UTI for last few days.
• Her admission vital signs are T: 38.7°C, HR: 125bpm, RR 25, BP 100/65 mmHg
• On examination: left flank pain with a pain score of 8/10, cracked lips, poor appetite and sunken eyes on examination.

Question 1
• Explain the pathophysiology of the above signs and symptoms as they apply to Gladys.
Question 2
• Discuss the investigations/tests that you think should be ordered for Gladys and explain your rationale and expected results (including the normal ranges).

Question 3
• Discuss how the information and understanding you have collated in question 1 and 2 informs your nursing care of Gladys,
Performance Standard
Assessment Criteria Excellent Good
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
A detailed explanation of the signs and symptoms presented in the patient scenario with clear links displaying understanding of the pathophysiology /pathogenesis of the illness/ disease. (30%) Accurate, highly relevant information provided with clear, succinct explanation of signs /symptoms related to the specific case.
Accurate, succinct relationship between pathophysiology / pathogenesis and signs/ symptoms presented.
Demonstrates excellent understanding.
(26-30) ? Clear relevant information provided, explaining the signs/ symptoms of the specific case study with minor omissions or errors present.
Good explanation of the relationship between pathophysiology / pathogenesis and signs/ symptoms presented.
Demonstrates good understanding with moderate linkage to the related case study.
(21-25) ? Basic relevant information provided, explaining the signs/ symptoms of the specific case study with some details absent or incorrect.
Basic explanation of the relationship between pathophysiology / pathogenesis and signs/ symptoms presented.
Demonstrates generalised understanding with basic linkage to the related case study.
(15-20) ?
Poor explanation/ irrelevant information provided displaying poor understanding of the signs/ symptoms related to the specific case study.
Poor or very limited explanation of the relationship between pathophysiology / pathogenesis and signs/ symptoms presented.
Demonstrates unsatisfactory understanding / incorrect linkage to the related case study.
(0-14) ?

A detailed explanation of any investigations considered necessary related to the case study, including a discussion with rationales and possible results. (30%)

Accurate, highly relevant linkage provided between investigations / case study and rationales.
Succinct discussion of investigations and expected results.
(26-30) ?

Clear explanation of links between investigations / case study and rationales – although some errors present or information missing.
Clear discussion of investigations and expected results demonstrated
(21-25) ? Basic explanation of investigations.
Generalised discussion with basic rationales and generalised results demonstrated.
Generalised links between investigations/ case study and rationales demonstrated.
(15-20) ? Poor explanation of investigations.
Poor presentation of links between investigations/ case study and rationales.
Minimal discussion with no results provided.
Information missing or irrelevant.
Demonstrates unsatisfactory understanding.
(0–14) ?
Discussion on the application of the identified pathophysiology/ pharmacology and investigational information to nursing practice for the case study patient (30%)

Accurate, succinct, highly relevant explanation of applying pathophysiology/ pharmacology/ investigational information to nursing practice.Discussion comprehensively supported by relevant evidence (26-30) ?

Clearexplanation, some elements omitted- explanation of applying pathophysiology/ pharmacology/ investigational information to nursing practice.Discussion well supported by relevant evidence
(21-25) ?

Basic/generic safe explanation ofapplying pathophysiology/ pharmacology/ investigational information to nursing practice.Discussion well supported by relevant evidence
(15-20) ?
Poor/ unsafe explanation ofapplying pathophysiology/ pharmacology/ investigational information to nursing practice.Demonstrated unsafe understanding.
No or irrelevant evidence
(0–14) ?
Meet all style and academic requirements. Quality of sources and correct use of references (10%) Uses Harvard Referencing with no errors. Mostly peer reviewed references used, essay structure/style excellent.
(9-10) ? Uses Harvard Referencing. Very minor errors in presentation of the reference list and/or in-text referencing.
General and peer reviewed references used, structure /style good.
(7-8.5) ? Uses Harvard Referencing with a number of errors evident in presentation of the reference list and/or in-text referencing. Mostly general references used, structure/style unclear in areas.
(5-6.5) ? Harvard Referencing not used, or consistently incorrect or absent. Referencing MUST be used appropriately. Failure to do so may result in a fail grade.Lacking structure/style.
(0-4.5) ?

Markers Name:
Grade: Pass/ Fail Overall Comment:
Case study

youhave learnt how to link signs and symptoms to anatomy and pathophysiology in order to understand themedical management and develop comprehensive relevant nursing care. In developing this understanding you have also explored linking the pharmacology through mode of action, dosages, adverse effects and nursing precautions.
For your supplementary assessment you are asked to present an academic paper that investigates the below case study with reference to the presented questions. The marking rubric will guide your development of this paper.

Length: 2,000 words

Case study:
Ms Gladys Liu is a 45 year old woman has a medical history of HT and a 20 year history of T2DM which is no longer controlled by lifestyle changes.
• She has presented to the ED following a possible UTI for last few days.
• Her admission vital signs are T: 38.7°C, HR: 125bpm, RR 25, BP 100/65 mmHg
• On examination: left flank pain with a pain score of 8/10, cracked lips, poor appetite and sunken eyes on examination.

Question 1
• Explain the pathophysiology of the above signs and symptomsas they apply to Gladys.
Question 2
• Discuss the investigations/tests that you think should be ordered for Gladys and explain your rationale and expected results (including the normal ranges).

Question 3
• Discuss how the information and understanding you have collated in question 1 and 2 informs your nursing care of Gladys,