08 Oct This is a discussion with the focus on Case Study
This is a discussion with the focus on Case Study 2. I will find an example to upload. The link to the CDC milestones will be very helpful for this discussion. I read reviews last night on this instructor and she is strick with grading. Those are not my favorite. So with this class whatever feedback she gives I will forward it to you. However, in my eyes and with the last class you are an excellent writer. Discussion: Developmental Red Flags Wellness visits are an important part of pediatric primary care. During these visits, patient growth and development are assessed. As an advanced practice nurse who performs these assessments, you must be able to distinguish between normal and abnormal growth and development to recognize red flags. While some patients may not meet milestones due to differences in rates of development, abnormal development might also be a red flag of an underlying problem. In this Discussion, you examine the following case studies and consider potential developmental red flags. Discussion board posting assignments are assigned alphabetically by FIRST NAME to ensure all cases are covered and discussed. • Case Study 1: A-F • Case Study 2: G-M • Case Study 3: N-Z Case Study 1 A mother brings in her 16-month-old, Brittany, for treatment of an acute illness. During the history, the mother reports that her mother-in-law is concerned about the toddler’s development. Further questioning reveals the following: • Brittany was a term infant born vaginally with no intrapartum complications. Birth weight was 8 pounds 1 ounce and current weight is 26 pounds 9 ounces. • She was breastfed until 12 months of age and now drinks 24 ounces of whole milk and eats table foods daily. • Physical milestones are as follows: Rolled front to back at 6 months, developed pincer grasp at 11 months, crawled at 8 months, and began cruising at 10 months. She does not walk independently. • Social development includes mimicking adult behavior, four-word vocabulary (mama, dada, baba, and no), follows one-step commands, and quiets easily when comforted. Case Study 2: You see a 30-month-old named Brian for a well-child visit. His mother reports the following development: • Physical: Walks independently, runs, able to climb stairs alternating feet, makes a tower of nine cubes, and is able to button his pants. • Social: Follows one-step commands, uses one-word sentences, and has a vocabulary of approximately six words. He is resistant to nighttime and feeding routines, he has marked temper tantrums, and Mom states he does not calm when she tries to comfort him. Case Study 3 Jose is a 36-month-old who presents for a preschool evaluation. His father reports the following development: • Physical: Walks, runs, and jumps independently, walks up stairs alternating feet, pedals a three-wheeler, scribbles, copies circles and squares, and is able to balance on one foot for 2 to 3 seconds. • Social: Recognizes three colors; speech is 75% understandable; uses three- to four-word sentences; talks about friends, favorite activities, and family; frequently engages in imitative play; has an imaginary friend; does stutter on occasion when excited or when intent on getting something said. Will typically repeat the first word in a sentence three to four times, but does not repeat syllables or consonants. This happens three to four times a week. To prepare: • Review this week’s media presentations, as well as “Developmental Management of Infants” and “Developmental Management of Toddlers and Preschoolers” in the Burns et al. text. • Think about how physical, social, and cognitive development vary during infancy, toddlerhood, and the preschool years. Reflect on normal versus abnormal growth and development and consider the decision-making process of identifying and managing red flags of abnormal development. • Select one of the three case studies provided. Reflect on the patient information included in the case study and consider any developmental red flags. • Reflect on standardized screening tools, clinical guidelines, and management strategies that would be used to assess and manage the patient in your selected case study. By Day 3 Post an explanation of the following: • Developmental red flags that presented on the stages of normal physical, social, and cognitive development for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Based on the red flags identified within the physical, social, and cognitive what additional questions should you ask? What additional examinations will you conduct? • Explain how you differentiated between normal and abnormal growth and development for this patient. • Identify which standardized screening tools, clinical guidelines, and management strategies you might use to assess and manage this patient and why. • Health, promotion and anticipatory guidance: o Based on the child’s age, discuss which immunizations this child should have received by now? o When are the next set of immunizations? Which ones should be given? o When should this child return to clinic? Rubric Detail Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout. Name: NURS_6541_Week2_Discussion_Rubric • Grid View • List View Outstanding Performance Excellent Performance Competent Performance Proficient Performance Room for Improvement Main Posting: Response to the discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. 44 (44%) – 44 (44%) Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s) is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. supported by at least 3 current, credible sources 40 (40%) – 43 (43%) Responds to the discussion question(s) is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth supported by at least 3 credible references 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to most of the discussion question(s) is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of post has exceptional depth and breadth supported by at least 3 credible references 31 (31%) – 34 (34%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s) one to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references 0 (0%) – 30 (30%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. contains only 1 or no credible references Main Posting: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Written clearly and concisely Contains no grammatical or spelling errors Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%) Written clearly and concisely May contain one or no grammatical or spelling error Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Written concisely May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%) Written somewhat concisely May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors Contains some APA formatting errors 0 (0%) – 4 (4%) Not written clearly or concisely Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style Main Posting: Timely and full participation 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely and full participation posts main discussion by due date 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirement for full participation First Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings responds to questions posed by faculty the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic, may have some depth 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic, lacks depth First Response: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues Response to faculty questions are answered if posed Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources Response is written in Standard Edited English 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%) Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed Few or no credible sources are cited 0 (0%) – 4 (4%) Responses posted in the discussion lack effective Response to faculty questions are missing No credible sources are cited First Response: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely and full participation posts by due date 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirement for full participation Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings * responds to questions posed by faculty the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic, may have some depth 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic, lacks depth Second Response: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues Response to faculty questions are answered if posed Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources Response is written in Standard Edited English 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%) Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed Few or no credible sources are cited 0 (0%) – 4 (4%) Responses posted in the discussion lack effective Response to faculty questions are missing No credible sources are cited Second Response: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely and full participation Posts by due date 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirement for full participation Total Points: 100 Name: NURS_6541_Week2_Discussion_Rubric
Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.
About Wridemy
We are a professional paper writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework. We offer HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE Papers.
How It Works
To make an Order you only need to click on “Order Now” and we will direct you to our Order Page. Fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Are there Discounts?
All new clients are eligible for 20% off in their first Order. Our payment method is safe and secure.