Human Systems & Pathophysiology 2

HSP202_Assessment_3_Brief_IntegratedCaseStudy_Module Due 5.2 Page 1 of 6
Context
For this assignment, you will be provided a case study to analyse with key points to consider. The
clinical reasoning skills required will prepare you for case analysis during and after a health
consultation.
You will use clinical deduction skills to analyse the signs and symptoms of the case study
presentation. The task of this assignment will involve using correct terminology to discuss the
disease condition, along with critically appraising relevant literature for the condition presentation.
This is an opportunity to apply your specific knowledge of Pathophysiology of the body systems to
begin considering differential diagnosis and a working diagnosis for the case scenario. This
assignment will prepare you for future subjects in your course where you will be required to
recommend (with clear justifications to the indications) laboratory findings, linking them to the
condition presented.

ASSESSMENT 3 BRIEF
Subject Code and Title	HSP202 Human Systems & Pathophysiology 2
Assessment	Integrated Case Study
Individual/Group	Individual
Length	1000 words (+/- 10%)
Learning Outcomes	The Subject Learning Outcomes demonstrated by successful completion of the task below are listed at the end of this document.
Submission	Due by 11:55pm AEST Sunday end of Module 5.2 (week 10).
Weighting	35%
Total Marks	100 marks

HSP202_Assessment_3_Brief_IntegratedCaseStudy_Module Due 5.2 Page 2 of 6
Instructions
1. Begin by reading the provided case scenario and instruction guide for Assessment 3 found in
the Assessment area.
Task: To complete the assessment:
2. Collect relevant information for the case study provided and write answers to the following
sections below. Recommend using the following headings in the order given:
a. Case history outline
b. Case history Discussion
c. Review of examination findings (provided)
d. Interpretation of investigation findings
e. Identification of Red Flags
f. Possible differential diagnoses (identify two (2) excluding the working diagnosis in a
table outlining evidence for and against)
g. Summary on the impact of disease (including the pathophysiology)
h. Reference List
3. Write concisely and adhere to the word count. Any content over 1150 words may not be
graded.
4. Any tables incorporated are included in the word count.
5. In-text references are included in the word count.
6. The reference list is not included in the word count.
7. Students should also refer to the marking rubric for this assessment for further guidance.
Referencing
It is essential that you use appropriate APA style for citing and referencing research. Please see more
information on referencing here http://library.laureate.net.au/research_skills/referencing
Submission Instructions
Submit final information sheet under Assessment 3 link via Assessment in main navigation menu in
the Blackboard subject site. The Learning Facilitator will grade your submission and results can be
found under My Grades.
 File information: Use the finale name (surname _ initial of first name_ Subject code_
Assessment number. In Microsoft word format)
 File formatting: make sure you have a case study cover page including subject name and
code, assessment number, your name, student ID, word count and case number.
 The document should be in Arial or Times new roman font (size 12, double spacing).
HSP202_Assessment_3_Brief_IntegratedCaseStudy_Module Due 5.2 Page 3 of 6
Assessment sections checklist.

Refer to Assessment 3 Instruction Guide for expected content for each section.	Yes/No
1	Section I: Case History Outline Y History presentation is outlined in orderly, clear and concise manner
2	Section II: Case History Discussion Y History findings are discussed in a logical way drawing together the important symptoms of the case.
3	Section III: Review of Examination Findings Y Examination findings are reviewed and considered in a logical way, drawing together the important signs of the case.
4	Section IV: Interpretation of investigations Y The meaning of investigations for the case are made clear and implications outlined.
5	Section V: Identification of Red Flags Y Point out Red flags pertinent to the case and describe relevance clearly and concisely.
6	Section VI: Possible Differential Diagnoses Y Outline possible differential diagnosis (x2) with a short description of main points, with evidence for and against presented for each.
7	Section VII: Summary of Impact of disease Y Final summary discussed and impact on the patient considered.
8	Section XI: Format, Grammar & Referencing Y Overall coherence, quality of work & genuine effort to tie elements of the case together is evident.
Cover page attached

HSP202_Assessment_3_Brief_Integrated Case Study_ Module Due 5.2 Page 4 of 6
Assessment Rubric: Integrated Case Study

Assessment Attributes	Fail (Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0-49%	Pass (Functional) 50-64%	Credit (Proficient) 65-74%	Distinction (Advanced) 75-84%	High Distinction (Exceptional) 85-100%
Identification Knowledge and understanding Outline and discussion of a case history. Percentage for this criterion = 40%	Did not attempt to present history in an orderly, clear and concise manner. Did not attempt discuss information presented in history or analysis of information not relevant.	Minimal attempt to present history, but presentation lacking in one or two of the following: orderliness, clarity, conciseness or the information presented is lacking relevance. Minimal attempt to discuss symptoms. Information is presented for case history, however demonstrates lack of clinical understanding and relevance.	The information in the presented history is relevant. Discussion and analysis of history is relevant but limited in scope, orderliness, clarity or conciseness	Coherent history is outlined for the case study and demonstrates very good clinical understanding. Discussion of history demonstrates thorough clinical understanding for the case study.	Excellent standard of demonstrating clear understanding and clinical judgment. Breadth and scope of discussion and analysis of history is expertly delivered.
Analysis and application with synthesis of new knowledge Review of examination findings and interpretation of red flags for a case scenario. Percentage for this criterion = 30%	Did not attempt to review findings or consider relevant red flags for the case scenario. Investigations were not mentioned.	Minimal attempt to review findings. Information presented on physical examination and red flags but limited in clinical understanding and relevance. Attempt made to summarise investigations but limited in rationale to demonstrate clinical judgment.	Review of physical examination is relevant but limited in scope. Interpretation of red flags is relevant for the case study. Good attempt to clinically consider signs & symptoms for the case study. Good attempt to summarise investigations and clinical judgment demonstrated. Further options may still have been explored.	Very good review of physical examination demonstrating thorough clinical understanding for the case study. Red flags for the case study are interpreted with very clinical evaluation of the scope of signs and symptoms for the case study. Very good summarisation of investigations with clearly explained rationale demonstrating breadth of clinical judgment.	Excellent review of physical examination demonstrating expert clinical understanding and clinical judgment. Clear interpretation of red flags, demonstrating excellent clinical understanding and evaluation of the scope of signs and symptoms for the case. Excellent summarisation of investigations.

HSP202_Assessment_3_Brief_Integrated Case Study_ Module Due 5.2 Page 5 of 6

Evaluation of disease condition for a case scenario. Identification of possible differential diagnoses and impact of disease for a case scenario. Percentage for this criterion = 20%	Lack of understanding of underlying general pathological and physiological principles as they relate to impact of disease. No possible diagnosis listed or impact on patient discussed. No explanation given for inclusion or exclusion of specific conditions.	Resembles a recall or summary of underlying general pathological and physiological principles as they relate to impact of disease. Possible diagnosis presented and adequate attempt to discuss the impact on the patient’s life. Some differential diagnostic considerations not explained fully and limited explanation given for inclusion or exclusion of some diagnostics.	Information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials for underlying general pathological and physiological principles as they relate to impact of disease. Possible differential diagnosis mostly draws upon relevant information presented in the case study with good rationale for the listed differential diagnostics considered. More relevant options may still have been explored.	Information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading to the underlying general pathological and physiological principles as they relate to impact of disease. Possible differential diagnosis identified and is relevant to the case scenario. Very good attempt to discuss the impact on the patient’s life demonstrating breadth of clinical judgment. Concise and clear summary of relevant rationale for inclusion and exclusion of differential diagnosis considerations outlined.	Information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading regarding the underlying general pathological and physiological principles as they relate to impact of disease. Possible differential diagnosis identified and the impact on the patient’s life. Concisely demonstrates relevant clinical judgment. Rationale is written well and draws together relevant points for inclusion and exclusion of diagnostic considerations.
Referencing Correct citation of key resources and evidence	Inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas.	Demonstrates use of credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed.	Demonstrates use of high quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas.	Demonstrates use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and statements.	Demonstrates use of high quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and position statements.

HSP202_Assessment_3_Brief_Integrated Case Study_ Module Due 5.2 Page 6 of 6

Percentage for this criterion =10%

Limited/no correct citation of key resources and evidence with substantial errors.

Mostly correct citation of key resources and evidence with some major errors.

Correct citation of key resources and evidence with minor errors.

Shows evidence of wide scope within the organisation for sourcing evidence. Correct citation of key resources and evidence.

Shows evidence of wide scope within and outside the organisation for sourcing evidence. Correct citation of key resources and evidence.

 

The following Subject Learning Outcomes are addressed in this assessment
SLO a)	Define and integrate the classifications, terminology and apply general pathological principles in relation to the development of human disease across body systems.
SLO b)	Describe and explain the pathophysiology, aetiology, risk factors and clinical manifestations of the main health disorders, and apply this knowledge to disorders of the musculoskeletal, integumentary, haematologic, respiratory, endocrine, renal and reproductive systems.
SLO c)	Apply the underlying general pathological and physiological principles as they relate to degeneration and aging of the human body systems.
SLO d)	Identify general diagnostic approaches in conjunction with the interpretation of health information and laboratory findings, including the development of differential diagnosis.

 

Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts

(USA, AUS, UK & CA Ph. D. Writers)

CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER