Health assessment

/in /by

Link

https://cdn-media.waldenu.edu/2dett4d/Walden/NURS/6512/bc/index.html#/lessons/xwkftMAeX7bSDGQVLYgjrxYtIRMRyeDT

Simulation Case Study #3: Gastrointestinal Complaint – Reflux Symptoms

 

This simulation assignment allows you to demonstrate advanced clinical reasoning by conducting a comprehensive health history and physical examination followed by the development of an accurate assessment that includes differential and final diagnoses. You will apply a systematic approach to identify normal and abnormal findings, support diagnostic reasoning with evidence-based guidelines, and document clearly using professional standards.  

 

Level 1: No AI Permitted

  • AI tools may not be used at any stage
  • Common for clinical documentation or performance‑based work

Resources

 

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this assessment.

Required Resources

To prepare:

The Assignment (Template) 

This assignment requires you to document: 

  1. Comprehensive health history (subjective data)
  2. Focused physical examination (objective data)
  3. Development of at least three differential diagnoses
  4. Identification of one primary diagnosis
  5. Diagnostic reasoning with rationale
  6. A final synthesized problem statement

PART I: Comprehensive Health History (Subjective Data Only)

PART II: Focused Physical Examination (Objective Data Only)

PART III: Assessment and Diagnostic Reasoning

Part IV: Reflection (1–2 pages in Template)

By Sunday of Week 7

Submit the Assignment.

Submission Information

Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area. 

  1. To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as MD3Assgn2_LastName_FirstInitial
  2. Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
  3. Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.

 

NURS_6512_Module3_Assignment2_Rubric

NURS_6512_Module3_Assignment2_Rubric

CriteriaRatingsPts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart I: Comprehensive Health History (Subjective Data Only)… Demonstrates accurate and complete documentation of patient comprehensive health history (subjective data only, including review of systems).

15to >13.41 ptsExcellentProvides accurate and complete documentation of patient comprehensive health history (subjective data only, including patient-reported symptoms).

13.41to >11.91 ptsGoodProvides a mostly accurate and complete patient comprehensive health history (subjective data only, including patient-reported symptoms); may contain some minor errors.

11.91to >0 ptsPoorDoes not provide documentation of patient health history (subjective data only, including patient-reported symptoms); documentation is inaccurate and/or incomplete.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart II: Focused Physical Examination (Objective Data Only)… Demonstrates accurate and complete documentation of patient focused physical examination (objective data only).

15to >13.41 ptsExcellentProvides accurate and complete documentation of patient focused physical examination (objective data only).

13.41to >11.91 ptsGoodProvides a complete, mostly accurate documentation of patient focused physical examination (objective data only); may contain some minor errors.

11.91to >0 ptsPoorDoes not provide documentation of patient focused physical examination (objective data only); data provided is inaccurate and/or incomplete.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart III: Assessment and Diagnostic Reasoning… Part III, Section 1: Three Differential Diagnoses… For each differential diagnosis, provide pathophysiologic explanation, identify pertinent positives, identify pertinent negatives, explain why it is ruled in or ruled out.

15to >13.41 ptsExcellentProvides three fully developed and accurate differential diagnoses.

13.41to >11.91 ptsGoodProvides three adequately developed and accurate differential diagnoses.

11.91to >0 ptsPoorDoes not provide three differential diagnoses; the diagnoses provided are inaccurate or incomplete.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart III: Assessment and Diagnostic Reasoning… Part III, Section 2: One Primary Diagnosis… Indicate your final diagnosis (ONE ONLY). Include your diagnostic reasoning with rationale: provide clear clinical justification, correlate subjective and objective findings, and explain why competing diagnoses are less likely.

10to >8.94 ptsExcellentProvides correct primary diagnoses including a fully developed diagnostic reasoning with rationale.

8.94to >7.94 ptsGoodProvides correct primary diagnoses including an adequately developed diagnostic reasoning with rationale.

7.94to >0 ptsPoorDoes not provide correct primary diagnosis; diagnostic reasoning is incorrect, incomplete, or inaccurate.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart III: Assessment and Diagnostic Reasoning… Part III, Section 3: Final Problem Statement… Write a final, synthesized problem statement.

10to >8.94 ptsExcellentProvides one fully developed and accurate final problem statement.

8.94to >7.94 ptsGoodProvides an adequately developed and mostly accurate final problem statement.

7.94to >0 ptsPoorDoes not provide a final problem statement; final problem statement is incomplete or inaccurate.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart IV: Reflection… Part IV, Section 1: Subjective vs. Objective Distinction… Identify one example in your documentation where it was challenging to separate subjective and objective data; Explain how you ensured patient-reported symptoms remained in the history/ROS and observable findings remained in the physical exam. Briefly explain why this distinction is important for diagnostic accuracy.

10to >8.94 ptsExcellentProvides a fully developed reflection that identifies one example in their documentation where it was challenging to separate subjective and objective data, explains how they ensured patient-reported symptoms remained in the history/ROS and observable findings remained in the physical exam, and briefly explains why this distinction is important for diagnostic accuracy.

8.94to >7.94 ptsGoodProvides an adequately developed reflection that identifies one example in their documentation where it was challenging to separate subjective and objective data, explains how they ensured patient-reported symptoms remained in the history/ROS and observable findings remained in the physical exam, and briefly explains why this distinction is important for diagnostic accuracy.

7.94to >0 ptsPoorDoes not provide a reflection on subjective vs. objective data distinction; reflection is unclear or incomplete.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart IV: Reflection… Part IV, Section 2: Diagnostic Reasoning…Identify one differential diagnosis you strongly considered but ultimately ruled out; List two key findings (pertinent positives or negatives) that helped you rule it out; State what finding most strongly supported your final diagnosis.

10to >8.94 ptsExcellentProvides a fully developed reflection that identifies one differential diagnosis they strongly considered but ultimately ruled out, lists two key findings (pertinent positives or negatives) that helped them rule it out, and states what finding most strongly supported their final diagnosis.

8.94to >7.94 ptsGoodProvides an adequately developed reflection that identifies one differential diagnosis they strongly considered but ultimately ruled out, lists two key findings (pertinent positives or negatives) that helped them rule it out, and states what finding most strongly supported their final diagnosis.

7.94to >0 ptsPoorDoes not provide a reflection on diagnostic reasoning; reflection is unclear or incomplete.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeUses at least 3 scholarly resources that are less than 5 years old.

5to >4.46 ptsExcellentUses 3 peer-reviewed scholarly sources published within the last 5 years.

4.46to >3.96 ptsGoodUses 2 peer-reviewed scholarly sources published within the last 5 years.

3.96to >3.46 ptsFairUses 1 peer-reviewed scholarly source published within the last 5 years.

3.46to >0 ptsPoorDoes not use peer-reviewed scholarly sources or sources used are older than 5 years.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSource Attribution and APA Formatting

5to >4.46 ptsExcellentAll sources are cited in APA format without any errors.

4.46to >3.96 ptsGoodAll sources are cited in APA format with some minor errors.

3.96to >3.46 ptsFairAll sources are cited with frequent APA formatting errors.

3.46to >0 ptsPoorMissing source citations and/or minimal adherence to APA formatting rules.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar, Mechanics, and Punctuation

5to >4.46 ptsExcellentCorrect grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

4.46to >3.96 ptsGoodCorrect grammar, spelling, and punctuation with few errors.

3.96to >3.46 ptsFairCorrect grammar, spelling, and punctuation with frequent errors.

3.46to >0 ptsPoorFrequent errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation that interfere with comprehension.

5 pts

Total Points: 100

4 Attachments  â€¢  Scanned by Gmail

 
Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code “Newclient” for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

Buy Custom Nursing Papers