case Study – The Case of the Coughing Housewife

case Study – The Case of the Coughing Housewife

case Study – The Case of the Coughing Housewife

Description

Read the following case study and answer the questions that follow.

The Case of the Coughing Housewife

Jessica, a fifty-nine year old mother of four, moved from a ranch in Colorado to Los Angeles, after the death of her husband, to be closer to her oldest son and his family. She has been in Los Angeles for 18 months and has noticed that she is experiencing shortness of breath which has worsened over the last six months. For the last week, she has been coughing and bringing up yellow mucus. She also noticed swelling in her ankles so she decided to visit a physician about her condition.

Jessica’s family and medical history include a negative history of asthma or allergies, lack of occupational or home exposure to asbestos, a previous smoking history (one package of cigarettes per day between the ages of 16 and 52), episodes of bronchitis, treated with antibiotics on an outpatient basis, and a positive history of heart disease (father at 52 and brother at 56). Jessica has no history of serious illness, including heart disease, and her weight is within five pounds of her “desired” weight. She usually coughs in the morning to “clear her throat”, but there is usually only a small amount of white mucus.

Her nurse practitioner conducts a general physical examination with the following results. Jessica’s skin is normal (no rashes or cyanosis) and her nervous system is functioning normally. Her body temperature was 98.4°F while her pulse was regular at 95 beats per minute with an occasional premature beat. Jessica’s blood pressure was within normal limits, however her jugular veins were slightly distended. Her respiratory rate was 28 breaths per minute; she breathed with pursed lips and used her accessory respiratory muscles more than would be expected. Jessica presented with a barrel chest and mild dyspnea when climbing onto the examination table. When listening to her breathing, the nurse practitioner noticed that Jessica had prolonged expiration accompanied by expiratory wheezes. Evaluation of her abdomen indicated no masses or tenderness, but she presented with both hepatomegaly and splenomegaly. All of her extremities were normal with the exception of bilaterally pedal edema.

case Study - The Case of the Coughing Housewife
case Study – The Case of the Coughing Housewife

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:case Study – The Case of the Coughing Housewife

Based on these results, the nurse practitioner suspected a pulmonary disorder and, after consultation with a physician, ordered laboratory tests (blood and sputum), spirometry and chest x-rays. The results of the laboratory tests were as follows: plasma bicarbonate = 38 mEq/L, hematocrit = 49%, white blood cell count = 9000, pH = 7.38; PaCO2 = 56, and PaO2 = 54. Analysis of the sputum sample indicated the presence of epithelial cells, polymorphonucleocytes and gram positive diplococci. Jessica’s 1 second forced expiratory volume (FEV1) was 1.5 L/sec and her forced vital capacity (FVC) was 4 L. These values were 40% and 83% of normal, respectively. Results of the chest x-ray indicated scarring and hyperinflation of the lungs.

The results of these tests coupled with the physical examination and history lead to a diagnosis of emphysema. Jessica was prescribed antibiotics for the infection and oxygen by nose as well as a ?2-agonist nebulizer as an acute treatment and requested to stay for observation and stabilization. After Jessica’s condition was stabilized she was discharged and given a prescription for an inhaler containing a ?2-agonist to be used as needed. She was also encouraged to exercise regularly and follow the nutritional guidelines she was given. Jessica was also informed that if the symptoms either worsened or did not lessen within the next week, to return and her treatment would be reevaluated and would possibly include nocturnal oxygen and an inhaler containing corticosteroids.

Questions:

  1. What risk factors and symptoms did Jessica present with prior to the physical examination that suggested a pulmonary disorder?
  2. How did the physical examination, chest x-ray, and spirometry confirm this hypothesis?
  3. Identify the muscles involved in respiration.
  4. How are these muscles responsible for the process of ventilation?
  5. If her condition does not progress, why would corticosteroids be used in the inhaler?
  Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Postinga 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