Assignment: Decision Tree for Neurological and Musculoskeletal Disorders NURS 6521
Assignment: Decision Tree for Neurological and Musculoskeletal Disorders NURS 6521
Assignment: Decision Tree for Neurological and Musculoskeletal Disorders NURS 6521
The case study depicts a 43-year-old white male who presents with a complaint of pain. He uses a set of clutches when ambulating. The patient reports that he has been referred for psychiatric assessment by his family doctor since the doctor perceived that he had psychological pain (Laureate Education, 2016). The pain began seven years ago after sustaining a fall and landed on the right hip. Four years ago, it was revealed that the cartilage around the right hip joint had a 75% tear. However, no surgeon was willing to perform a total hip replacement since they believed that there would be tissue repair over time (Laureate Education, 2016). He reports having severe cramping of the right extremity. A neurologist diagnosed him with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). He states that he gets low moods at times but denies being depressed. He had been prescribed with Hydrocone but used it in low doses due to drowsiness and constipation, and the drug does not manage pain effectively (Laureate Education, 2016). The mental status exam is unremarkable.
Decision Point One: Savella 12.5 mg orally once daily on Day 1, followed by 12.5 mg BD on Day 2 and 3, then 25 mg BD on days 4-7 and then 50 mg BD after that.
Reason: Savella is a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor that has NMDA antagonist activity, which brings analgesia at the nerve endings (Cording et al., 2015). It is indicated for fibromyalgia and thus effective for this client (Cording et al., 2015). I prescribed Savella to help in pain management and improve the overall mood.

Struggling to Meet Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on Assignment: Decision Tree for Neurological and Musculoskeletal Disorders NURS 6521 done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!
Expected Result: I anticipated that Savella would lower the degree of pain. However, it was expected that the client would experience adverse effects such as nausea, constipation, headache, hot flushes, and insomnia.
Expected Vs. Actual Results: The client returned to the clinic after for weeks without using crutches but with a bit of limping. He states that the pain has been more manageable. The pain is severe in the morning but improves throughout the day (Laureate Education, 2016). On a scale of 1-10, the client rates the pain at four and states that he gets to a point on most days where he does not need crutches. Nevertheless, he reported having increased sweating, sleeping difficulties, nausea, and palpitations (Laureate Education, 2016). His BP was 147/92, and the pulse at 110. He denied having suicidal ideations and was still future-oriented.
Decision Point 2: Continue with Savella but lower dose to 25 mg twice a day.
Reason: I selected this decision to lower the severity of the adverse effects of Savella, which include nausea, constipation, headache, hot flushes, and insomnia (Cording et al., 2015).
Expected Result: Reduction in the dose of Savella would help control the side effects but lower the degree of pain control.
Expected Vs. Actual Results: The client returned to the clinic in four weeks using crutches and rates his current pain at 7/10. He reports that his condition has declined since the previous month (Laureate Education, 2016). He states that he sleeps at night but frequently wakes up due to pain in the right leg and foot. The BP is at 124/87 and pulse at 87. He denies having palpitations and suicidal ideations but is discouraged by the slip in pain management and seems sad.
Decision Point 3: Change Savella to 25 mg in the morning and 50 mg at Bedtime.
I reduced the dosage in the morning since the pain is mostly under control and increased the dose at Bedtime when there is less control (Resmini et al., 2015).
Expected Result: By lowering the morning dose and increasing the bedtime dose, I expected that the client’s pain symptom would improve while at the same time controlling the side effects of Savella (Resmini et al., 2015).
Expected Vs. Actual Results: The client reported an improvement in the pain with a rate of 3/10 denied having any side effects from the drug.
References
Cording, M., Derry, S., Phillips, T., Moore, R. A., & Wiffen, P. J. (2015). Milnacipran for pain in fibromyalgia in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (10).
Laureate Education. (2016). Case Study: A Caucasian man with hip pain. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Resmini, G., Ratti, C., Canton, G., Murena, L., Moretti, A., & Iolascon, G. (2015). Treatment of complex regional pain syndrome. Clinical cases in mineral and bone metabolism: the official journal of the Italian Society of Osteoporosis, Mineral Metabolism, and Skeletal Diseases, 12(Suppl 1), 26–30. https://doi.org/10.11138/ccmbm/2015.12.3s.026
INSTRUCTIONS
For your Assignment, your Instructor will assign you one of the decision tree interactive media pieces provided in the Resources. As you examine the patient case studies in this module’s Resources, consider how you might assess and treat patients presenting symptoms of neurological and musculoskeletal disorders.

Photo Credit: KATERYNA KON/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY / Science Photo Library / Getty Images
To Prepare
- Review the interactive media piece assigned by your Instructor.
- Reflect on the patient’s symptoms and aspects of the disorder presented in the interactive media piece.
- Consider how you might assess and treat patients presenting with the symptoms of the patient case study you were assigned.
- You will be asked to make three decisions concerning the diagnosis and treatment for this patient. Reflect on potential co-morbid physical as well as patient factors that might impact the patient’s diagnosis and treatment.
By Day 7 of Week 8
Write a 1- to 2-page summary paper that addresses the following:
Briefly summarize the patient case study you were assigned, including each of the three decisions you took for the patient presented.
Based on the decisions you recommended for the patient case study, explain whether you believe the decisions provided were supported by the evidence-based literature. Be specific and provide examples. Be sure to support your response with evidence and references from outside resources.
What were you hoping to achieve with the decisions you recommended for the patient case study you were assigned? Support your response with evidence and references from outside resources.
Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with each of the decisions and the results of the decision in the exercise. Describe whether they were different. Be specific and provide examples.
Assignment: Decision Tree for Neurological and Musculoskeletal Disorders
The case study is about a 76-year-old Iranian male accompanied to the office by his son after exhibiting odd behavior. The patient scored 18 out of 30 in the Mini-Mental State Exam. He is diagnosed with Major neurocognitive disorder secondary to Alzheimer’s disease. This paper provides a summary of the treatment decisions taken, what I was hoping to achieve, and compare the difference between the expected and actual results.
Decision One
In the first decision, I initiated the patient on Rivastigmine 1.5 mg PO BID with an increase to 3 mg orally BID in two weeks. The decision is supported by evidence-based literature since Rivastigmine is an irreversible inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase and its therapeutic effect includes improving cholinergic function. It improves cognitive symptoms by modifying acetylcholine transmitters (Khoury et al., 2018). Rivastigmine is indicated in treating mild to moderate AD dementia, as in the case of this patient. I hoped that initiating Rivastigmine would delay cognitive decline in the patient and enhance his performance of ADLs. I also hoped that Rivastigmine would improve the patient’s social behavior. The expected and actual outcomes were different since the patient still displayed odd social behaviors after four weeks of treatment. The MMSE score remained at 18, and the patient had deficits in registration, orientation, attention, recall, and calculation.
Decision Two
In decision two, I increased Rivastigmine to 4.5 mg orally BD. The dose was increased since the initial dose did not have a positive impact. Khoury et al. (2018) explain that Rivastigmine should be gradually increased to allow the clinician to monitor adverse effects. The study further explains that Rivastigmine can take months to show improvement in neurocognitive symptoms, thus increasing the dose is important to show improvement over time. Therefore, the decision is based on evidence-based literature. I hoped that increasing the dose might result in a positive outcome in alleviating the patient’s cognitive and behavioral symptoms. The actual and expected outcomes were similar to some degree since the son reported that the father had started attending religious services with the family. However, the son reported that the father had not improved and was amused by serious things.
Decision Three
In decision three, I increased Rivastigmine to 6 mg orally BD to improve the patient’s cognitive symptoms. Besides, the patient did not report any side effects with the drug, and thus increasing the dose was appropriate. Folch et al. (2018) assert that Rivastigmine should be increased to the maximum dose before changing or augmenting the treatment. I hoped that increasing the dose would improve the client’s social behavior to a greater degree, and the son would report an improvement in the father’s condition. Besides, I hoped that increasing the dose would improve the patient’s cognitive symptoms and the MMSE score. The expected and actual results were similar to some extent since the patient exhibited improved social interactions and engaged in family activities. Besides, the odd behaviors had decreased as the patient rarely got amused by serious things.
Conclusion
The patient was initiated with Rivastigmine 1.5 mg BD to improve the cognitive and behavioral symptoms. However, the initial dose did not achieve the desired effect, which resulted in increasing the dose to 4.5 BD. Increasing the dose led to some improvement in social interactions, but no cognitive improvement was noted. Rivastigmine was then increased to 6 mg BD to improve the cognitive and behavioral symptoms.
References
Folch, J., Busquets, O., Ettcheto, M., Sánchez-López, E., Castro-Torres, R. D., Verdaguer, E., Garcia, M. L., Olloquequi, J., Casadesús, G., Beas-Zarate, C., Pelegri, C., Vilaplana, J., Auladell, C., & Camins, A. (2018). Memantine for the Treatment of Dementia: A Review on its Current and Future Applications. Journal of Alzheimer’s disease: JAD, 62(3), 1223–1240. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-170672
Khoury, R., Rajamanickam, J., & Grossberg, G. T. (2018). An update on the safety of current therapies for Alzheimer’s disease: focus on rivastigmine. Therapeutic advances in drug safety, 9(3), 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042098617750555
You will submit this Assignment in Week 8.
Submission and Grading Information
To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:
Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK8Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
Click the Week 8 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
Click the Week 8 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK8Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 8 Assignment Rubric
Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity
To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:
Submit your Week 8 Assignment draft and review the originality report.
Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 8
To participate in this Assignment:
Week 8 Assignment
What’s Coming Up in Week 7?

Photo Credit: [BrianAJackson]/[iStock / Getty Images Plus]/Getty Images
Next week, you will continue working on your Assignment started in Week 6, and you will complete your Midterm Exam.
Next Week
To go to the next week:
Week 6: Neurologic and Musculoskeletal Disorders
Sabrina is a 26 year old female who has just been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. She has scheduled an appointment for a follow up with her physician but has several questions about her diagnosis and is calling the Nurse Helpline for her hospital network. As she talks with the advanced practice nurse, she learns that her diagnosis also impacts her neurologic and musculoskeletal systems. Although multiple sclerosis is an autoimmune disorder, both the neurologic and musculoskeletal systems will be affected by adverse symptoms that Sabrina needs to be aware of and for which specific drug therapy plans and other treatment options need to be decided on.
As an advanced practice nurse, what types of drugs will best address potential neurologic and musculoskeletal symptoms Sabrina might experience?
This week, you will evaluate patients for the treatment of neurologic and musculoskeletal disorders by focusing on specific patient case studies through a decision tree exercise. You will analyze the decisions you will make in the decision tree exercise and reflect on your experiences in proposing the recommended actions to address the health needs in the patient case study. Assignment: Decision Tree for Neurological and Musculoskeletal Disorders NURS 6521
Learning Objectives
Students will:
- Evaluate patients for treatment of neurologic and musculoskeletal disorders
- Analyze decisions made throughout the diagnosis and treatment of patients with neurologic and musculoskeletal disorders
- Justify decisions made throughout the diagnosis and treatment of patients with neurologic and musculoskeletal disorders
Learning Resources
The case study concerns a 43-year-old man with a history of chronic pain for several years after sustaining a fall and now ambulates with crutches. He has been referred for a psychiatric evaluation by his family physician after suspecting his pain is psychological, and he has been exaggerating the pain to get a narcotic prescription to get high. He complains of cooling and intense cramping in the right leg. He has been diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). The purpose of this paper is to explain the interventions for each decision and if they are backed by evidence-based literature.
Decisions Recommended For the Patient Case Study
The first decision was to start Amitriptyline 25 mg PO QHS and increase it by 25 mg every week to a maximum of 200 mg daily. The decision is supported by the study by Shim et al. (2019), which found that Amitriptyline is an effective evidence-based treatment for neuropathic pain disorder and peripheral diabetic neuropathic pain. In decision two, I maintained Amitriptyline and increased the dose to 125 mg with a maximum target of 200 mg. The patient was to take the medication an hour earlier than usual. Increasing the dose is supported by the article by Eldufani et al. (2020), which recommends slow titration of the Amitriptyline dose if a patient exhibits a positive response to the initial dose. It also recommends taking the bedtime dose an hour earlier to minimize morning sleepiness.
In decision three, I continued Amitriptyline at 125 mg and referred the patient to a life coach for counseling on nutrition and exercise. Weight gain is a documented side effect of Amitriptyline. Brueckle (2020) backs this intervention by asserting that patients on medications associated with weight gain should be counseled on lifestyle modification in diet and exercise for a healthy weight.
What I Was Hoping To Achieve With the Decisions I Recommended For the Patient Case Study
By initiating the patient on Amitriptyline, I hoped it would help improve the client’s mood swings, alleviate pain to 4/10, and ambulate without crutches within four weeks. Komoly (2019) established that Amitriptyline helps alleviate pain and autonomic and motor symptoms in CRPS cases. I hoped that increasing Amitriptyline to 125 mg would alleviate the limb to 3/10, and taking the drug an hour earlier would prevent morning sleepiness. Taking the medication an hour earlier decreases morning sleepiness (Rosenthal & Burchum, 2021). In decision three, I hoped that referring the client for lifestyle modification counseling would guide him in practicing a healthy lifestyle in dietary and physical exercise habits that would prevent unhealthy weight gain. Aguilar-Latorre et al. (2022) recommend counseling on lifestyle modification to enable patients on TCAs to manage their weight and avoid being overweight/obese.
Difference between What You Expected To Achieve With Each of the Decisions and the Results of the Decision in the Exercise
In the first decision, the pain decreased to a 6/10, and the patient ambulated without crutches. The pain severity was not as anticipated, probably because of the low Amitriptyline dose and duration it takes to have maximum effect. In the second decision, the patient’s pain was reduced to 4/10, comparable to the expected outcome of a pain severity of 3/10.
Conclusion
The PMHNP started the patient on an initial dose of Amitriptyline of 25 mg QHS, which was to be increased by 25 mg weekly to 200 mg. The drug led to a positive response and was increased to 125 mg QHS to improve the patient’s pain. The medication led to weight gain, and the PMHNP referred the client to a life coach for counseling on a healthy lifestyle.
.
References
Aguilar-Latorre, A., Pérez Algorta, G., Navarro-Guzmán, C., Serrano-Ripoll, M. J., & Oliván-Blázquez, B. (2022). Effectiveness of a lifestyle modification programme in the treatment of depression symptoms in primary care. Frontiers in medicine, 9, 954644. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.954644
Brueckle, M. S., Thomas, E. T., Seide, S. E., Pilz, M., Gonzalez-Gonzalez, A. I., Nguyen, T. S., … & Muth, C. (2020). Adverse drug reactions associated with Amitriptyline—protocol for a systematic multiple-indication review and meta-analysis. Systematic reviews, 9(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01296-8
Eldufani, J., Elahmer, N., & Blaise, G. (2020). A medical mystery of complex regional pain syndrome. Heliyon, 6(2), e03329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03329
Komoly, S. (2019). Treatment of complex regional pain syndrome with Amitriptyline. Ideggyogyaszati szemle, 72(7-8), 279-281. https://doi.org/10.18071/isz.72.0279
Rosenthal, L. D., & Burchum, J. R. (2021). Lehne’s pharmacotherapeutics for advanced practice nurses and physician assistants (2nd ed.) St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.
Shim, H., Rose, J., Halle, S., & Shekane, P. (2019). Complex regional pain syndrome: a narrative review for the practicing clinician. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 123(2), e424–e433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2019.03.030
I absolutely loved your response, and I found it not only incredibly informative, but succinct as well. In short, I greatly appreciate the plethora of tests you recommended for the sake of maximizing the certainty under which one might offer the patient a diagnosis. As you mentioned, not only does this “help guide the differential diagnoses with physical exam findings”; however, it also “saves the patient money”. Another thing I appreciated was your focus on trying to find a possible connection between the two ankles and their respective pains (this, I saw as evidenced chiefly through your proposed physical examination assessing and comparing the movement, tenderness, range of motion, pain, etc. of the patient’s ankles). You ask many questions at the beginning of your response, and I also want to voice how much I appreciate that as well. It is important to delve deeply and patiently into treating a patient, and if not much information is given (as was the case here), this habit of intense inquiry will serve you – and your patients – very well. Las, I would like to note how you wrote that each ankle injury assessment can be conducted fluently and swiftly, as this is also important in healthcare. Oftentimes, practitioners and patients don’t have copious amounts of time to spend on an issue, and timeliness is important. For these reasons, once again, I absolutely loved this response!
Ball, J., Dains, J. E., Flynn, J. A., Solomon, B. S., & Stewart, R. W. (2019). Seidel’s guide to physical examination: An interprofessional approach (9th ed.). Elsevier.
Larkins, L. W., Baker, R. T., & Baker, J. G. (2020). Physical examination of the ankle: A review of the original orthopedic special test description and scientific validity of common tests for ankle examination. Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 2(3), 100072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arrct.2020.100072Links to an external site.

Don’t wait until the last minute
Fill in your requirements and let our experts deliver your work asap.