This article covers N 510 Module 3: Discussion Case Study #4 DVT
N 510 Module 3: Discussion Question
N 510 Module 3: Discussion Question – Choose one of the following case studies from the Bruyere textbook and complete. Please post your answers, and then reply to two classmates.
- #4 – DVT
- #6 – hypovolemic shock
- #7 – infective endocarditis
- #8 – peripheral arterial disease
Your initial posting should be 200 to 300 words in length and utilize at least one scholarly source other than the textbook. Please reply to at least two classmates. Replies to classmates should be between 100 and 200 words in length. To properly “thread” your discussion posting, please click on REPLY.
Case Study #4 DVT
- This patient is taking glyburide for his diabetes mellitus.
- Glyburide is protein bound via non-ionic binding, and it is metabolized in the liver to two metabolites. The action of the drug occurs within two hours and has a maximal decrease in serum glucose within three to four hours (PDR LLC , 2018).
- The two vital signs that trigger concern for DVT are the patient’s fever of 99.8 and his increased heart rate of 110.
- The BMI for this patient is 34 which would classify him as obese.
- Two risk factors for DVT: +protein C deficiency, high wbc
- Two abnormal findings consistent negative factor V Leiden mutation, homocys 91
- Three abnormalities that need to be addressed cholesterol, triglycerides, ESR
- Two drugs that may serve as initial DVT treatment is low-molecular-weight heparin, anticoagulants and thrombolytics.
- The therapy should be for about three to six months.
N 510 Module 3: Discussion Question References
PDR LLC . (2018). glyburide- Drug Summary . Retrieved from PDR prescribers’ Digital Reference : https://www.pdr.net/drug-summary/DiaBeta-glyburide-1903
N 510 Module 3: Discussion Question Criteria
Response contains little to none of the required aspects of the prompt; Content is off topic; references are not included. APA reference/citation format is not used.5.6 points
Major required aspects of the prompt are not addressed or the response speaks in vague generalities. Information is too general; 1 reference is present, but it is non-scholarly (if required) and/or it does not appropriately reflect the topic. APA reference/citation format may be inaccurate in the response.6.4 points
Response addresses prompt requirements. Content is relevant and germane to the intent of the prompt; 1 or more references are scholarly (if required) and/or appropriately reflect topic, and have few APA formatting errors.8 points
Content includes additional or novel points beyond the intent of the prompt. References are sufficient, scholarly in nature, and are formatted correctly in APA format.8 / 8Critical Thinking of Thread/Post Weight: 10%0 points
Little analysis or insight is displayed; Little or no logical support or reasoning is present1.4 points
Some illogical statements and poor reasoning displayed; argument is unclear or convoluted1.6 points
Response indicates that thought, insight, and analysis has taken place; Argument is solid and logical2 points
Response is rich in critical thinking, and full of thought, insight, and analysis; Argument is clear and concise2 / 2Quality of Written Communication in Initial Thread/Post Weight: 20%0 points
Style and voice inappropriate or do not address given audience, purpose, etc. Word choice is excessively redundant, clichéd, and unspecific. Inconsistent grammar, spelling, punctuation, and paragraphing. Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.2.8 points
Style and voice are somewhat appropriate to given audience and purpose. Word choice is often unspecific, generic, redundant, and clichéd. Repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language, sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.3.2 points
Style and voice are appropriate to the given audience and purpose. Word choice is specific and purposeful, and somewhat varied throughout. Minimal mechanical or typographical errors are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.4 points
Style and voice are not only appropriate to the given audience and purpose, but also show originality and creativity. Word choice is specific, purposeful, dynamic and varied. Free of mechanical and typographical errors. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.4 / 4Discussion Responses to Classmates’ Threads/Posts Weight: 30%0 points
Did not make an effort to participate in learning community as it develops; Displays lack of engagement with discussion forum; Did not make the minimum of 2 responses to classmates.4.2 points
Occasionally makes meaningful reflection on group’s efforts; Marginal effort to become involved with group; Made one response to classmates4.8 points
Frequently attempts to direct the discussion and present relevant viewpoints for consideration by group; Interacts freely; Met the minimum of 2 responses to classmates6 points
Shows astute awareness of needs of community; Frequently attempts to motivate the group discussion; Presents creative approaches to topic; Made at least 2 responses to classmates