Critical Thinking Question
Sample Answer for Critical Thinking Question Included After Question
Description
Critical Thinking Question # 3
What is your working diagnosis and appropriate differential diagnoses (DDx) list (include three DDx)?
Critical Thinking Question # 4
What is your treatment plan for this patient including education, counseling, & health promotion/disease prevention?
ONE REPLY
A 48-year-old male presents to the office after being discharged from the hospital 14 days ago for community-acquired pneumonia. PMH significant for COPD and cigarette smoking. He was recovering well from CAP with minimal SOB and cough. Denies wheezing. He received both influenza and pneumococcal vaccine in the hospital. He complains of new onset diarrhea today started three days ago and feeling ill.
Additional historical (subjective) information needed is as follows:
History of Present Illness
Onset
Has the patient experienced this problem before?
Is there anyone else the patient has been in contact with that has similar symptoms?
Has the patient traveled internationally recently?
Has the patient had any changes in his diet recently?
Duration
How often is the patient having diarrhea?
Is it constant or intermittent?
Character
What is the consistency of the stool?
Alleviating factors
Is there anything that makes the diarrhea better?
Aggravating factors
Is there anything that makes the diarrhea worse?
During his hospital stay, did he receive intravenous antibiotics?
Past medical history
Does the patient have a history of irritable bowel syndrome or inflammatory bowel disease?
Does the patient has a history of Crohn’s disease?
Does a patient have a history of celiac disease?
Social History
What is his current living situation?
What are his living conditions like in regard to cleanliness?
References
Czepiel, J., Dró?d?, M., Pituch, H., Kuijper, E. J., Perucki, W., Mielimonka, A., Goldman, S., Wulta?ska, D., Garlicki, A., & Biesiada, G. (2019). Clostridium Difficile infection: Review. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 38(7), 1211–1221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-019-03539-6
Schäffler, H., & Breitrück, A. (2018). Clostridium Difficile: from colonization to infection. Frontiers in Microbiology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.00646
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Posting | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or 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 two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
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 one or no credible sources.
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 Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses 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. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses 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. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||