A discussion about the patient presented in your viva voce
Order Description
this essay is a extension of a ISBAR handover during placement. third person needed. for the pathothysiology part. patients diagnosis is laparopscopic nissen 360 fundoplication (more words). patient had the reflux, weight loss and haematemesis as signs and symtoms. For the pharmacology part. patient took panadol, clexane and ondansetron. i would like you talk more about ondansetron. patient also have fentanyl and oxycodone as PRN.
Investigation: Patient had endoscopy before.(as patient history) i will give you the copy of the result of his endoscopy. talk about vital signs as well. he’s obs was stable. the side effect of laparopscopic nissen 360 fundoplication, such as should tip pain. (rational) . the reason of Barrium swallow after surgery as well.
Recommendation: wound care, mobility and soft diet etc.
Introduction:
Introduction identifies purpose of the paper, details of patient and describes events leading up to and reason/s for admission.
Rationale for admission with inclusion of patient risks.
10% Comprehensive introduction to the paper and patient. Confidentiality maintained
Comprehensive description of events leading to and reasons for admission of patient.
Excellent, rationale linked to patient risks. Introduction to the patient and purpose of the paper clearly described. Confidentiality maintained
Description of events leading to and reasons for admission of patient are clear.
Rationale good, with clear links to patient risks. Introduction to the patient and purpose of the paper described however, some areas / points confusing. Confidentiality maintained
Broad description of events leading to and reasons for admission of patient – not always clear.
Rationale, unclear, however, clear links to patient risks. No introduction to the patient and / or purpose of the paper.
Confidentiality not maintained.
No or minimal description of events/ reasons leading to admission.
No or poor rationale, no linking to patient risks.
Pathophysiology/ Pharmacology:
Display understanding of links between presenting signs and symptoms and pathophysiological/ pharmacological changes leading to this admission.
30% Displays comprehensive understanding of pathophysiological/ pharmacological changes linked explicitly to presenting signs and symptoms on admission.
Comprehensively supported with relevant evidence.
Presents good understanding of pathophysiological/ pharmacological changes linked to all presenting signs and symptoms on admission.
Sound support of discussion with relevant evidence General / broad understanding of pathophysiological/ pharmacological changes linked to most presenting signs and symptoms on admission.
No more than two unclear links.
Discussion supported with mostly relevant evidence No or unsatisfactory understanding presented of pathophysiological/ pharmacological changes. No or discussion linking changes to signs and symptoms is incorrect.
Confusing, incorrect /poor understanding presented.
No or inappropriate evidence utilised to support discussion
Investigations:
Display understanding of assessment (vital signs, history, physical etc) and diagnostic (Xray, bloods, ECG etc) activities/ tests through critical evaluation of collected data during this patient’s admission. Display how these activities informed the patients plan and management of care.
20% Comprehensive understanding of assessment and diagnostic activities/tests.
Comprehensive critical analysis of the investigations and collected data, supported with relevant evidence.
Comprehensive discussion on how data informed plan for management of care. Good understanding of assessment and diagnostic activities/tests presented.
Clear critical analysis of the collected data, supported with relevant evidence.
Good discussion on how data informed plan for management of care. Satisfactory understanding of assessment and diagnostic activities/tests. Sometimes unclear/ confusing/ not all aspects considered.
Limited but accurate critical analysis of the collected data, supported with relevant evidence.
Satisfactory discussion on how data informed plan for management of care. Links not always evident. No or unsatisfactory understanding of assessment and diagnostic activities/tests presented.
No/ unsatisfactory/ incorrect critical analysis of data collected. No or inappropriate evidence supporting discussion.
No or unsatisfactory discussion on how data informed plan for management of care.
Recommendations:
Identify and provide a rationale for your patients the most urgent issue (eg: diet, mobility, self- care) resulting from your above discussion to be incorporated in their discharge planning. Expected inclusion of other health disciplines which may support self-care on discharge
10% Comprehensive justification and rationale of prioritised patient discharge need.
Comprehensive relationship presented between other health disciplines and patient need. Good identification and rationale of prioritised patient discharge need.
Relationship presented between other health disciplines and patient need clearly addressed. Satisfactory identification of prioritised patient discharge need. Some gaps in rationale of need/ priority evident.
Satisfactory relationship presented between other health disciplines and patient need – lacks some clarity/ clear link. No/ unsatisfactory or incorrect identification and/ or rationale of prioritised patient discharge need.
No/ unsatisfactory relationship presented between other health disciplines and patient need.
