NURS 6512 Assignment 1 Week 6: Lab Assignment: Assessing the Abdomen
Walden University NURS 6512 Assignment 1 Week 6: Lab Assignment: Assessing the Abdomen-Step-By-Step Guide
This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Walden University NURS 6512 Assignment 1 Week 6: Lab Assignment: Assessing the Abdomen assignment based on general principles of academic writing. Here, we will show you the A, B, Cs of completing an academic paper, irrespective of the instructions. After guiding you through what to do, the guide will leave one or two sample essays at the end to highlight the various sections discussed below.
How to Research and Prepare for NURS 6512 Assignment 1 Week 6: Lab Assignment: Assessing the Abdomen
Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Walden University NURS 6512 Assignment 1 Week 6: Lab Assignment: Assessing the Abdomen depends on the preparation done beforehand. The first thing to do once you receive an assignment is to quickly skim through the requirements. Once that is done, start going through the instructions one by one to clearly understand what the instructor wants. The most important thing here is to understand the required format—whether it is APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.
After understanding the requirements of the paper, the next phase is to gather relevant materials. The first place to start the research process is the weekly resources. Go through the resources provided in the instructions to determine which ones fit the assignment. After reviewing the provided resources, use the university library to search for additional resources. After gathering sufficient and necessary resources, you are now ready to start drafting your paper.
How to Write the Introduction for NURS 6512 Assignment 1 Week 6: Lab Assignment: Assessing the Abdomen
The introduction for the Walden University NURS 6512 Assignment 1 Week 6: Lab Assignment: Assessing the Abdomen is where you tell the instructor what your paper will encompass. In three to four statements, highlight the important points that will form the basis of your paper. Here, you can include statistics to show the importance of the topic you will be discussing. At the end of the introduction, write a clear purpose statement outlining what exactly will be contained in the paper. This statement will start with “The purpose of this paper…” and then proceed to outline the various sections of the instructions.
Struggling to Meet Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on NURS 6512 Assignment 1 Week 6: Lab Assignment: Assessing the Abdomen done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!
How to Write the Body for NURS 6512 Assignment 1 Week 6: Lab Assignment: Assessing the Abdomen
After the introduction, move into the main part of the NURS 6512 Assignment 1 Week 6: Lab Assignment: Assessing the Abdomen assignment, which is the body. Given that the paper you will be writing is not experimental, the way you organize the headings and subheadings of your paper is critically important. In some cases, you might have to use more subheadings to properly organize the assignment. The organization will depend on the rubric provided. Carefully examine the rubric, as it will contain all the detailed requirements of the assignment. Sometimes, the rubric will have information that the normal instructions lack.
Another important factor to consider at this point is how to do citations. In-text citations are fundamental as they support the arguments and points you make in the paper. At this point, the resources gathered at the beginning will come in handy. Integrating the ideas of the authors with your own will ensure that you produce a comprehensive paper. Also, follow the given citation format. In most cases, APA 7 is the preferred format for nursing assignments.
How to Write the Conclusion for NURS 6512 Assignment 1 Week 6: Lab Assignment: Assessing the Abdomen
After completing the main sections, write the conclusion of your paper. The conclusion is a summary of the main points you made in your paper. However, you need to rewrite the points and not simply copy and paste them. By restating the points from each subheading, you will provide a nuanced overview of the assignment to the reader.
How to Format the References List for NURS 6512 Assignment 1 Week 6: Lab Assignment: Assessing the Abdomen
The very last part of your paper involves listing the sources used in your paper. These sources should be listed in alphabetical order and double-spaced. Additionally, use a hanging indent for each source that appears in this list. Lastly, only the sources cited within the body of the paper should appear here.
Stuck? Let Us Help You
Completing assignments can sometimes be overwhelming, especially with the multitude of academic and personal responsibilities you may have. If you find yourself stuck or unsure at any point in the process, don’t hesitate to reach out for professional assistance. Our assignment writing services are designed to help you achieve your academic goals with ease.
Our team of experienced writers is well-versed in academic writing and familiar with the specific requirements of the NURS 6512 Assignment 1 Week 6: Lab Assignment: Assessing the Abdomen assignment. We can provide you with personalized support, ensuring your assignment is well-researched, properly formatted, and thoroughly edited. Get a feel of the quality we guarantee – ORDER NOW.
NURS 6512 Assignment 1 Week 6: Lab Assignment: Assessing the Abdomen
NURS 6512 Assignment 1 Week 6 Lab Assignment Assessing the Abdomen
The SOAP note’s 65-year-old Black American male patient arrives at the emergency room complaining of sporadic epigastric stomach ache that radiates to his back. When he went to the neighboring urgent care facility, PPIs were provided to him without providing any relief. The patient reported that the pain had been worse over the preceding few hours and he had vomited the afternoon when he finally went to the emergency department. He hasn’t had a fever, diarrhea, or any other signs often associated with stomach discomfort. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how to evaluate the offered subjective and objective data to determine the patient’s primary and differential diagnoses.
Subjective Portion
According to the OLDCARTS technique, the HPI lacks information on the kind, intensity, and aggravating and alleviating elements of the pain. In addition, there is no information on the color or consistency of vomit (Ball et al., 2019).The date of the HTN diagnosis and if the illness has been treated are missing from the PMH. This section ID also lacks information on previous hospitalizations and surgical histories. The dosage and frequency of metoprolol are not listed in the medication section. The allergy section does not address allergies to food, the environment, or latex. A family history should include information on all first-degree relatives, including parents, grandparents, siblings, and their children. Add details on the person’s age, whether they’re living or deceased, and how they’re feeling. Any dead relatives’ age and method of death should also be mentioned. Age and any ailments should be mentioned if the person is still alive. It should also include a list of mental health issues including depression, addiction, and substance misuse.
Owing to the patient’s digestive issues, a comprehensive series of subjective GI system questions should be made, including Has the digestive illness continued for a considerable amount of time? Burning in the substernal area or the chest? Does your tummy hurt? struggling to swallow? Does swallowing hurt? Is it vomiting or nausea? abdominal bloating or distention? Have yellow skin (jaundice)? vomiting that is hemorrhagic (hematemesis)? stool that is dark or tarry? Scratched stools? Constipation? diarrhea or other alterations to bowel habits (Weledji, 2020). Patients do not receive Hepatitis A or B vaccines.
Objective Portion
The general assessment of the patient is not standardized. The vital signs section does not include the patient’s oxygen saturation or BMI. Every recent journey should be taken into account to assess GI problems related to travel. The physical exam of the skin should cover any skin changes, notably any yellowing that would suggest jaundice from cholestasis (Ball et al., 2019). Since changes in urine color can be an indication of cholestasis, a disorder in which the kidneys eliminate direct bilirubin from the serum, this topic belongs under the genitourinary area.
When a patient complains of stomach pain, nausea, and/or vomiting, the Gastrointestinal system should be thoroughly evaluated. The four quadrants of the abdomen should be evaluated using sonography, percussion, and palpation, as well as objective data from examining and assessing the abdomen for shape, scars, pigmentation, symmetry, and abnormal protrusions. Because cholestasis may be associated with pale-colored feces, stools should be inspected for color. Blood in the stool is investigated to rule out GI hemorrhage (Gallaher & Charles, 2022). Variations in appetite, nutrition, or food consumption must be taken into consideration in this assessment. For evaluating organ performance, it is essential to get the missing laboratory results.
Assessment Supported
A history of alcohol consumption supports the diagnosis of pancreatitis in the context of symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and epigastric pain that radiates to the back (Hamm, 2021). Other tests to support pancreatitis diagnosis include elevated amylase and/or lipase levels that are 3 times higher than the upper limit of normal. Moreover, the CT ought to back up this diagnosis.
This diagnosis of AAA is unsupported because the patient in this case seems stable and lacks several of the crucial presenting symptoms. This diagnosis necessitates figuring out whether or not the AAA is raptured based on the symptoms that are now present. The majority of cases with AAA are undiagnosed and asymptomatic (Weledji, 2020). The initial imaging procedure necessary for this diagnosis, if the patient is not allergic to contrast or pregnant, is a CT scan with contrast.
A perforated ulcer is not supported by either subjective or objective facts. A burst peptic ulcer is identified by the classic trifecta of sudden onset of abdominal rigidity, tachycardia, and stomach distress. Both the patient’s heart rate and the abdomen are not tachycardic (Ball et al., 2019). A history of smoking is the only risk factor for PUD; the patient does not use any NSAIDS or steroids.
Diagnostic Tests
Many medical conditions can cause abdominal discomfort, and numerous tests may be necessary to identify the reason. In addition to a health history and physical exam, laboratory tests for blood, urine, stool, and enzymes may be utilized to aid in diagnosis. Abdominal abnormalities can also be found with imaging tests (Ball et al., 2019). Diagnostic tests will include an Electrocardiogram, which would disclose any aberrant cardiac findings and exclude ischemia due to the patient’s specific presentation of stomach discomfort.
Blood tests including the Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP), Complete Blood Count (CBC), and stool samples for magnesium and phosphorus are examples. To completely rule out an infection, they are crucial (Weledji, 2020). As the patient complains of frequently having diarrhea, the CMP would provide a current health status of the kidneys, liver, and electrolytes. Test for Liver Enzymes and Hepatic Function These examinations reveal how well the liver is working. This examination will demonstrate if the liver is successfully removing the body’s toxins, which may result in severe stomach discomfort. This is crucial because a portion of the liver can be found in the epigastric region 4.
Rejection or Acceptance
Unless more testing is done, I would not accept the diagnosis of AAA. While this patient complains of sporadic discomfort, his vital signs are stable, and even though individuals with AAA frequently arrive with tearing or ripping chest pain, this patient does not characterize his pain in such terms(Hafeez et al., 2018).
The major diagnosis is acute pancreatitis, which I accept. Hafeez et al. (2018) claim that acute pancreatitis may be diagnosed initially without the use of imaging and that the presence of stomach discomfort together with high lipase or amylase levels can help to confirm this diagnosis. Also, the patient has a known etiology such as alcoholism and hyperlipidemia (Grigorian et al., 2019).
Possible Conditions
Gastritis may be the cause of the abrupt onset of epigastric discomfort, nausea, and vomiting (Weledji, 2020). It could be brought on by elements like smoking and drinking, which LZ’s past demonstrates. The patient might additionally have gastritis as a result of stress, such as losing his job.
Ulcer perforation: For two days, the patient’s condition, such as stomach pain, grew worse. This is how ulcer perforation presents. From modest stomach aches to severe agony and tachycardia, it goes through many stages (Yamamoto et al., 2018). H. pylori infection or regular use of NSAIDs, which can damage the stomach lining, maybe the cause of this.
Cholecystitis causes the gallbladder to swell up. With nausea, purging, and fever as their accompanying symptoms, biliary colic is an increasing pain in the right upper quadrant that may progress to the back (Gallaher & Charles, 2022). Jaundice is evident depending on the degree of gallbladder neck obstruction. The attack typically happens after a large, fatty meal. The pain eventually develops into a little upper-right stomach discomfort or a nagging ache. Abdominal ultrasound can identify calcified gallstones, and elevated white blood cell counts in the test findings can help to make the diagnosis.
Conclusion
The 65-year-old Black American male patient is likely suffering from gastritis. This may be the cause of the abrupt onset of epigastric discomfort, nausea, and vomiting.In addition to the pertinent lab testing to rule out the differential diagnosis, additional findings that might assist corroborate this diagnosis have been noted above. Correct diagnosis is essential for fostering the creation of the most efficient care strategy.
References
Ball, J. W., Dains, J. E., Flynn, J. A., Solomon, B. S., & Stewart, R. W. (2019). Seidel’s guide to physical examination: An interprofessional approach (9th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.ISBN: 9780323545389
Gallaher, J. R., & Charles, A. (2022). Acute Cholecystitis: A Review. JAMA, 327(10), 965–975. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.2350
Grigorian, A., Lin, M. Y., & de Virgilio, C. (2019). Severe epigastric pain with nausea and vomiting. Surgery, 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05387-1_20
Hafeez, A., Karmo, D., Mercado-Alamo, A., & Halalau, A. (2018). Aortic dissection presenting as acute pancreatitis: Suspecting the unexpected. Case Reports in Cardiology, 2018, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4791610
Hamm, R. G. (2021). Acute Pancreatitis: Causation, Diagnosis, and Classification Using Computed Tomography. Radiologic Technology, 93(2), 197CT219CT. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34728586/
Weledji, E. P. (2020). An Overview of Gastroduodenal Perforation. Frontiers in Surgery, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2020.573901
Yamamoto, K., Takahashi, O., Arioka, H., & Kobayashi, D. (2018). Evaluation of risk factors for perforated peptic ulcer. BMC Gastroenterology, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-018-0756-4
Subjective Portion
The SOAP note’s HPI describes the abdominal pain, including the onset, location, associated symptoms, and severity of pain. Nevertheless, the HPI should have given an additional description of the abdominal pain, particularly the duration of the abdominal pain, timing (before, during, or after meals), and frequency. In addition, the characteristics of the abdominal pain should be included describing if the pain is sharp, crampy, dull, colicky, diffuses, constant, or radiating (Sokic-Milutinovic et al., 2022). In addition, the HPI should have included the exacerbating and alleviating factors for the abdominal pain and to what level the alleviating factors relieve the pain. Furthermore, the HPI has described only the abdominal pain leaving out diarrhea. It should describe diarrhea, including the onset, timing, frequency, characteristics of the stools (watery, mucoid, bloody, greasy, or malodorous), and relieving and aggravating factors.
The subjective part should have included the patient’s immunization status with a focus on the last Tdap, Influenza, and COVID shots and surgical history. The social history has scanty information and should have included the patient’s education level, occupation, current living status, hobbies, exercise and sleep patterns, dietary habits, and health promotion interventions (Gossman et al., 2020). Lastly, a review of systems (ROS) is mandatory for a SOAP note. Thus, the SOAP note should have a ROS that indicates the pertinent positive and negative symptoms in each body system, which helps identify other symptoms the patient has not reported in the HPI.
Objective Portion
The objective part misses critical information like the findings from the general assessment of the patient, which should include the client’s general appearance, personal hygiene, grooming, dressing, speech, body language, and attitude towards the clinician. In addition, findings from a detailed abdominal exam should have been provided. For instance, it should have inspection findings, including the abdomen’s pigmentation, respiratory movements, symmetry, contour, and presence of scars. Additional auscultation findings that should be indicated include the presence of friction ribs, vascular sounds, and venous hum. It should also have exam findings from palpation and percussion, including abdominal tenderness, masses, organomegaly, guarding, or rebound tenderness (Sokic-Milutinovic et al., 2022). Besides, the liver span and spleen position should be indicated.
Assessment
The assessment findings identified in the SOAP note are Left lower quadrant (LLQ) pain and gastroenteritis (GE). LLQ pain is supported by subjective findings of abdominal pain and LLQ tenderness on exam. GE is consistent with subjective data of diarrhea, abdominal pain, and nausea and objective data of low-grade fever of 99.8 and hyperactive bowel sounds, which are classic symptoms.
Diagnostic Tests
The appropriate diagnostic tests for this patient are stool culture, complete blood count (CBC), and abdominal ultrasound. A stool culture is crucial to look for ova and cyst, which will help establish the causative agent for diarrhea and guide the treatment plan. Based on the WBC count, the CBC will establish if the patient has an infection and if the infection is bacterial or viral (Sokic-Milutinovic et al., 2022). The abdominal ultrasound will be used to visualize abdominal organs and identify if there is inflammation that could be contributing to the patient’s GI symptoms.
Differential Diagnoses
I would accept the GE diagnosis because it is consistent with the patient’s clinical features of diarrhea, generalized abdominal pain, nausea, low-grade fever, hyperactive bowel sounds, and abdominal tenderness. Nevertheless, I would reject LLQ pain as a diagnosis because it is a physical exam finding and does not fit the description of a medical diagnosis. The likely diagnoses for this case are:
Acute Viral Gastroenteritis
Viral GE is an acute, self-limiting diarrheal disease caused by viruses. The common causative viruses are rotavirus, norovirus, enteric adenovirus, and astroviruses. Clinical manifestations include anorexia, nausea, vomiting, watery diarrhea, abdominal pain/tenderness (mild to moderate), low-grade fever, dehydration, and hyperactive bowel sounds (Orenstein, 2020). Acute Viral GE is a presumptive diagnosis due to the patient’s clinical manifestations of nausea, diarrhea, abdominal pain, mild fever, abdominal tenderness on palpation, and hyperactive bowel sounds.
Ulcerative Colitis (UC)
UC is a chronic inflammatory and ulcerative GI disorder that occurs in the colonic mucosa and is characterized by bloody diarrhea. Clinical symptoms include mild lower abdominal pain, bloody diarrhea, and bloody mucoid stools. Systemic manifestations include anorexia, nausea, fever, malaise, anemia, and weight loss (Porter et al., 2020). The patient’s positive findings of nausea, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and mild fever, as well as a history of GI bleeding, makes UC a likely diagnosis.
Colonic Diverticulitis
Diverticulitis presents with inflammation of a diverticulum with the presence or absence of infection. Abdominal pain is the primary symptom of colonic diverticulitis. Patients present with LLQ abdominal pain and tenderness, which can sometimes be suprapubic and often have a palpable sigmoid. The abdominal pain is usually accompanied by fever, nausea, vomiting, and occasionally urinary symptoms (Swanson & Strate, 2018). Peritoneal signs like rebound and guarding can occur, especially with abscess or perforation. Colonic diverticulitis is a probable diagnosis based on nausea, mild fever, and LLQ pain findings.
Conclusion
The HPI in the objective portion should have described the characteristics of the abdominal pain and stated the onset, frequency, characteristics, and timing of diarrhea. A ROS should also be included with the patient’s positive and negative symptoms. The objective part should have detailed physical exam findings from a detailed abdominal exam. Diagnostic tests should include stool culture, CBC, and abdominal U/S. The likely diagnoses are Vital GE, Ulcerative colitis, and colonic diverticulitis.
References
Gossman, W., Lew, V., & Ghassemzadeh, S. (2020). SOAP Notes. In StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing.
Orenstein, R. (2020). Gastroenteritis, Viral. Encyclopedia of Gastroenterology, 652–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801238-3.65973-1
Porter, R. J., Kalla, R., & Ho, G. T. (2020). Ulcerative colitis: Recent advances in the understanding of disease pathogenesis. F1000Research, 9, F1000 Faculty Rev-294. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.20805.1
Sokic-Milutinovic, A., Pavlovic-Markovic, A., Tomasevic, R. S., & Lukic, S. (2022). Diarrhea as a Clinical Challenge: General Practitioner Approach. Digestive Diseases, 40(3), 282-289. https://doi.org/10.1159/000517111
Swanson, S. M., & Strate, L. L. (2018). Acute Colonic Diverticulitis. Annals of Internal Medicine, 168(9), ITC65–ITC80. https://doi.org/10.7326/AITC201805010
Assessing the abdominal region through utilizing available objective and subjective data should be conducted in a thorough manner by health professionals. It is important that the information should be properly scrutinized in order to get accurate results. Therefore this paper aims to examine details from the SOAP note of a 65 year old male presenting with intermittent epigastric abdominal pain for 2 days that radiates to his back. The subjective and objective information provided will be viewed and additional data provided to make it more comprehensive. Additionally appropriated diagnostics test will be indicated and provided. Then later further differential diagnosis will be included (Dains & Scheibel, 2019).
Analysis of Subjective Data
When obtaining subjective information on a patient with epigastric abdominal pain a set of information is required to ensure one has fully captured the required details that will aid in narrowing down the various differentials to one. The first one being the history of presenting illness (HPI) starting with the chief complaint it being “My stomach has been hurting for the past two days” was well captured. Then later the HPI should include the timing which was stated to be 2 days ago and then the characteristics of the pain such as if it is radiating which from the provided history it was stated it radiates to the back (Dains & Scheibel, 2019).
The location of the pain should also be provided which from the given details it was identified to be on the epigastric region. The location can be identified through analysis of review of systems that would focus on the abdominal region to identify. This would then reveal it’s the epigastric region and the pain is radiating to the back. Frequency of the pain should part of the details which was indicated to be intermittent. Information regarding whether the patient sought treatment together with the interventions done should be available which as was stated the patient went to the hospital and was given PPI’s with no relief. It should be identified if the patient has experienced other symptoms which was indicated that he vomited (Dains & Scheibel, 2019).
- Other information such as the patient’s pain scale should also be identified to rate it. The impact to the patient’s activities of daily living should be known (Dains & Scheibel, 2019).
- Also if the patient tried to manage it by himself at home such information should be made available (Dains & Scheibel, 2019).
- Since the stomach is the one that has the issue information regarding the patient’s diet such the last meal, salt intake, appetite changes and what his diet is composed of should be obtained. (Dains & Scheibel, 2019).
- As part of review of systems the gastrointestinal system should be considered and information such as bowel movement changes should be identified (Dains & Scheibel, 2019).
- Social history aside from what was provided should also include use of illicit drugs, caffeine and presence of stressors. His accessibility to healthcare should also be found out. Also if he uses any medication at home, the frequency, dosage and efficacy together with presence of other prescription medicines and vitamins use (Dains & Scheibel, 2019).
- Patient should state if any lifestyle changes were made due to his HTN diagnosis and if he monitors his pressure. Information such as previous hospitalizations should also be provided (Dains & Scheibel, 2019).
Past medical history should also be put into consideration such as hypertension (HTN) was stated as a previous diagnosis and the medication he is taking for it which was given as metoprolol. Presence of allergies should be known which was provided and stated to be none and also if patient has kept up with current vaccinations should also be established. Family history information should be available which was identified to be HTN, GERD and hyperlipidemia (Dains & Scheibel, 2019).
A male went to the emergency room for severe midepigastric abdominal pain. He was diagnosed with AAA ; however, as a precaution, the doctor ordered a CTA scan.
Because of a high potential for misdiagnosis, determining the precise cause of abdominal pain can be time consuming and challenging. By analyzing case studies of abnormal abdominal findings, nurses can prepare themselves to better diagnose conditions in the abdomen.
In this Lab Assignment, you will analyze an Episodic note case study that describes abnormal findings in patients seen in a clinical setting. You will consider what history should be collected from the patients as well as which physical exams and diagnostic tests should be conducted. You will also formulate a differential diagnosis with several possible conditions.
To Prepare
Review the Episodic note case study your instructor provides you for this week’s Assignment. Please see the “Course Announcements” section of the classroom for your Episodic note case study.
- With regard to the Episodic note case study provided:
- Review this week’s Learning Resources, and consider the insights they provide about the case study.
- Consider what history would be necessary to collect from the patient in the case study.
- Consider what physical exams and diagnostic tests would be appropriate to gather more information about the patient’s condition. How would the results be used to make a diagnosis?
- Identify at least five possible conditions that may be considered in a differential diagnosis for the patient.
The Assignment
- Analyze the subjective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation.
- Analyze the objective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation.
- Is the assessment supported by the subjective and objective information? Why or why not?
- What diagnostic tests would be appropriate for this case, and how would the results be used to make a diagnosis?
- Would you reject/accept the current diagnosis? Why or why not? Identify three possible conditions that may be considered as a differential diagnosis for this patient. Explain your reasoning using at least three different references from current evidence-based literature.
By Day 7 of Week 6
Submit your Lab Assignment.
Submission and Grading Information
To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:
- Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK6Assgn1+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
- Click the Week 6 Assignment 1 Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
- Click the Week 6 Assignment 1 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 “WK6Assgn1+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 6 Assignment 1 Rubric
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 6512 Assignment 1 Week 6: Lab Assignment: Assessing the Abdomen
Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity
To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:
Submit your Week 6 Assignment 1 draft and review the originality report.
The SOAP note concerns a 47-year-old white man with chief complaints of abdominal pain and diarrhea. He has had generalized abdominal pain for three days but has not taken any meds to relieve the pain. He reports that the pain was initially at 9/10 but has reduced to 5/10, and he cannot eat due to ensuing nausea. His medical history is positive for
hypertension, DM, and GI bleeding. GI exam findings include a soft abdomen, hyperactive bowel sounds, and LLQ pain. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the SOAP note, identify appropriate diagnostic tests, and discuss likely diagnoses.
Subjective Portion
The SOAP note’s HPI describes the abdominal pain, including the onset, location, associated symptoms, and severity of pain. Nevertheless, the HPI should have given an additional description of the abdominal pain, particularly the duration of the abdominal pain, timing (before, during, or after meals), and frequency. In addition, the characteristics of the abdominal pain should be included describing if the pain is sharp, crampy, dull, colicky, diffuses, constant, or radiating (Sokic-Milutinovic et al., 2022).
In addition, the HPI should have included the exacerbating and alleviating factors for the abdominal pain and to what level the alleviating factors relieve the pain. Furthermore, the HPI has described only the abdominal pain leaving out diarrhea. It should describe diarrhea, including the onset, timing, frequency, characteristics of the stools (watery, mucoid, bloody, greasy, or malodorous), and relieving and aggravating factors.
The subjective part should have included the patient’s immunization status with a focus on the last Tdap, Influenza, and COVID shots and surgical history. The social history has scanty information and should have included the patient’s education level, occupation, current living status, hobbies, exercise and sleep patterns, dietary habits, and health promotion interventions (Gossman et al., 2020). Lastly, a review of systems (ROS) is mandatory for a SOAP note. Thus, the SOAP note should have a ROS that indicates the pertinent positive and negative symptoms in each body system, which helps identify other symptoms the patient has not reported in the HPI.
Objective Portion
The objective part misses critical information like the findings from the general assessment of the patient, which should include the client’s general appearance, personal hygiene, grooming, dressing, speech, body language, and attitude towards the clinician. In addition, findings from a detailed abdominal exam should have been provided. For instance, it should have inspection findings, including the abdomen’s pigmentation, respiratory movements, symmetry, contour, and presence of scars. Additional auscultation findings that should be indicated include the presence of friction ribs, vascular sounds, and venous hum. It should also have exam findings from palpation and percussion, including abdominal tenderness, masses, organomegaly, guarding, or rebound tenderness (Sokic-Milutinovic et al., 2022). Besides, the liver span and spleen position should be indicated.
Assessment
The assessment findings identified in the SOAP note are Left lower quadrant (LLQ) pain and gastroenteritis (GE). LLQ pain is supported by subjective findings of abdominal pain and LLQ tenderness on exam. GE is consistent with subjective data of diarrhea, abdominal pain, and nausea and objective data of low-grade fever of 99.8 and hyperactive bowel sounds, which are classic symptoms.
Diagnostic Tests
The appropriate diagnostic tests for this patient are stool culture, complete blood count (CBC), and abdominal ultrasound. A stool culture is crucial to look for ova and cyst, which will help establish the causative agent for diarrhea and guide the treatment plan. Based on the WBC count, the CBC will establish if the patient has an infection and if the infection is bacterial or viral (Sokic-Milutinovic et al., 2022). The abdominal ultrasound will be used to visualize abdominal organs and identify if there is inflammation that could be contributing to the patient’s GI symptoms.
Differential Diagnoses
I would accept the GE diagnosis because it is consistent with the patient’s clinical features of diarrhea, generalized abdominal pain, nausea, low-grade fever, hyperactive bowel sounds, and abdominal tenderness. Nevertheless, I would reject LLQ pain as a diagnosis because it is a physical exam finding and does not fit the description of a medical diagnosis. The likely diagnoses for this case are:
Acute Viral Gastroenteritis
Viral GE is an acute, self-limiting diarrheal disease caused by viruses. The common causative viruses are rotavirus, norovirus, enteric adenovirus, and astroviruses. Clinical manifestations include anorexia, nausea, vomiting, watery diarrhea, abdominal pain/tenderness (mild to moderate), low-grade fever, dehydration, and hyperactive bowel sounds (Orenstein, 2020). Acute Viral GE is a presumptive diagnosis due to the patient’s clinical manifestations of nausea, diarrhea, abdominal pain, mild fever, abdominal tenderness on palpation, and hyperactive bowel sounds.
Ulcerative Colitis (UC)
UC is a chronic inflammatory and ulcerative GI disorder that occurs in the colonic mucosa and is characterized by bloody diarrhea. Clinical symptoms include mild lower abdominal pain, bloody diarrhea, and bloody mucoid stools. Systemic manifestations include anorexia, nausea, fever, malaise, anemia, and weight loss (Porter et al., 2020). The patient’s positive findings of nausea, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and mild fever, as well as a history of GI bleeding, makes UC a likely diagnosis.
Colonic Diverticulitis
Diverticulitis presents with inflammation of a diverticulum with the presence or absence of infection. Abdominal pain is the primary symptom of colonic diverticulitis. Patients present with LLQ abdominal pain and tenderness, which can sometimes be suprapubic and often have a palpable sigmoid. The abdominal pain is usually accompanied by fever, nausea, vomiting, and occasionally urinary symptoms (Swanson & Strate, 2018). Peritoneal signs like rebound and guarding can occur, especially with abscess or perforation. Colonic diverticulitis is a probable diagnosis based on nausea, mild fever, and LLQ pain findings.
Conclusion
The HPI in the objective portion should have described the characteristics of the abdominal pain and stated the onset, frequency, characteristics, and timing of diarrhea. A ROS should also be included with the patient’s positive and negative symptoms. The objective part should have detailed physical exam findings from a detailed abdominal exam. Diagnostic tests should include stool culture, CBC, and abdominal U/S. The likely diagnoses are Vital GE, Ulcerative colitis, and colonic diverticulitis.
References
Gossman, W., Lew, V., & Ghassemzadeh, S. (2020). SOAP Notes. In StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing.
Orenstein, R. (2020). Gastroenteritis, Viral. Encyclopedia of Gastroenterology, 652–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801238-3.65973-1
Porter, R. J., Kalla, R., & Ho, G. T. (2020). Ulcerative colitis: Recent advances in the understanding of disease pathogenesis. F1000Research, 9, F1000 Faculty Rev-294. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.20805.1
Sokic-Milutinovic, A., Pavlovic-Markovic, A., Tomasevic, R. S., & Lukic, S. (2022). Diarrhea as a Clinical Challenge: General Practitioner Approach. Digestive Diseases, 40(3), 282-289. https://doi.org/10.1159/000517111
Swanson, S. M., & Strate, L. L. (2018). Acute Colonic Diverticulitis. Annals of Internal Medicine, 168(9), ITC65–ITC80. https://doi.org/10.7326/AITC201805010
Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 6
To participate in this Assignment:
Week 6 Assignment 1
NURS_6512_Week_6_Assignment_1_Rubric
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Using the SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan) note format: · Create documentation, following SOAP format, of your assignment to choose one skin condition graphic (identify by number in your Chief Complaint). · Use clinical terminologies to explain the physical characteristics featured in the graphic. |
Points Range: 30 (30%) – 35 (35%)The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly follows the SOAP format to document one skin condition graphic and accurately identifies the graphic by number in the Chief Complaint. The response clearly and thoroughly explains all physical characteristics featured in the graphic using accurate terminologies. | Points Range: 24 (24%) – 29 (29%)The response accurately follows the SOAP format to document one skin condition graphic and accurately identifies the graphic by number in the Chief Complaint. The response explains most physical characteristics featured in the graphic using accurate terminologies. | Points Range: 18 (18%) – 23 (23%)The response follows the SOAP format, with vagueness and some inaccuracy in documenting one skin condition graphic, and accurately identifies the graphic by number in the Chief Complaint. The response explains some physical characteristics featured in the graphic using mostly accurate terminologies. | Points Range: 0 (0%) – 17 (17%)The response inaccurately follows the SOAP format or is missing documentation for one skin condition graphic and is missing or inaccurately identifies the graphic by number in the Chief Complaint. The response explains some or few physical characteristics featured in the graphic using terminologies with multiple inaccuracies. | |
| · Formulate a different diagnosis of three to five possible considerations for the skin graphic. · Determine which is most likely to be the correct diagnosis, and explain your reasoning using at least three different references from current evidence-based literature. | Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)The response clearly, thoroughly, and accurately formulates a different diagnosis of five possible considerations for the skin graphic. The response determines the most likely correct diagnosis with reasoning that is explained clearly, accurately, and thoroughly using three or more different references from current evidence-based literature. | Points Range: 39 (39%) – 44 (44%)The response accurately formulates a different diagnosis of three to five possible considerations for the skin graphic. The response determines the most likely correct diagnosis with reasoning that is explained accurately using at least three different references from current evidence-based literature. | Points Range: 33 (33%) – 38 (38%)The response vaguely or with some inaccuracy formulates a different diagnosis of three possible considerations for the skin graphic. The response determines the most likely correct diagnosis with reasoning that is explained vaguely and with some inaccuracy using three different references from current evidence-based literature. | Points Range: 0 (0%) – 32 (32%)The response formulates inaccurately, incompletely, or is missing a different diagnosis of possible considerations for the skin graphic, with two or fewer possible considerations provided. The response vaguely, inaccurately, or incompletely determines the most likely correct diagnosis with reasoning that is missing or explained using two or fewer different references from current evidence-based literature. | |
| Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused–neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria. |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria. | Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet are brief and not descriptive. | Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are vague or off topic. | Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided. | |
| Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. | Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. | Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. | Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. | |
| Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running heads, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. | Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Uses correct APA format with no errors. | Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. | Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. | Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. | |
| Total Points: 100 | |||||
Name: NURS_6512_Week_6_Assignment_1_Rubric
LAB ASSIGNMENT: ASSESSING THE ABDOMEN
A male went to the emergency room for severe midepigastric abdominal pain. He was diagnosed with AAA ; however, as a precaution, the doctor ordered a CTA scan.
Because of a high potential for misdiagnosis, determining the precise cause of abdominal pain can be time consuming and challenging. By analyzing case studies of abnormal abdominal findings, nurses can prepare themselves to better diagnose conditions in the abdomen.
In this Lab Assignment, you will analyze an Episodic note case study that describes abnormal findings in patients seen in a clinical setting. You will consider what history should be collected from the patients as well as which physical exams and diagnostic tests should be conducted. You will also formulate a differential diagnosis with several possible
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
WEEKLY RESOURCES
TO PREPARE
Review the Episodic note case study your instructor provides you for this week’s Assignment. Please see the “Course Announcements” section of the classroom for your Episodic note case study.
- With regard to the Episodic note case study provided:
- Review this week’s Learning Resources, and consider the insights they provide about the case study.
- Consider what history would be necessary to collect from the patient in the case study.
- Consider what physical exams and diagnostic tests would be appropriate to gather more information about the patient’s condition. How would the results be used to make a diagnosis?
- Identify at least fivepossible conditions that may be considered in a differential diagnosis for the patient.
THE ASSIGNMENT
- Analyze the subjective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation.
- Analyze the objective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation.
- Is the assessment supported by the subjective and objective information? Why or why not?
- What diagnostic tests would be appropriate for this case, and how would the results be used to make a diagnosis?
- Would you reject/accept the current diagnosis? Why or why not? Identify three possible conditions that may be considered as a differential diagnosis for this patient. Explain your reasoning using at least three different references from current evidence-based literature.
BY DAY 7 OF WEEK 6
Submit your Lab 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.
- To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK6Assgn1+last name+first initial.
- Then, click on Start Assignmentnear the top of the page.
- Next, click on Upload Fileand select Submit Assignment for review.
The SOAP note’s 65-year-old Black American male patient arrives at the emergency room complaining of sporadic epigastric stomach ache that radiates to his back. When he went to the neighboring urgent care facility, PPIs were provided to him without providing any relief. The patient reported that the pain had been worse over the preceding few hours and he had vomited the afternoon when he finally went to the emergency department. He hasn’t had a fever, diarrhea, or any other signs often associated with stomach discomfort. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how to evaluate the offered subjective and objective data to determine the patient’s primary and differential diagnoses.
Subjective Portion
According to the OLDCARTS technique, the HPI lacks information on the kind, intensity, and aggravating and alleviating elements of the pain. In addition, there is no information on the color or consistency of vomit (Ball et al., 2019).The date of the HTN diagnosis and if the illness has been treated are missing from the PMH. This section ID also lacks information on previous hospitalizations and surgical histories.
The dosage and frequency of metoprolol are not listed in the medication section. The allergy section does not address allergies to food, the environment, or latex. A family history should include information on all first-degree relatives, including parents, grandparents, siblings, and their children. Add details on the person’s age, whether they’re living or deceased, and how they’re feeling. Any dead relatives’ age and method of death should also be mentioned. Age and any ailments should be mentioned if the person is still alive. It should also include a list of mental health issues including depression, addiction, and substance misuse.
Owing to the patient’s digestive issues, a comprehensive series of subjective GI system questions should be made, including Has the digestive illness continued for a considerable amount of time? Burning in the substernal area or the chest? Does your tummy hurt? struggling to swallow? Does swallowing hurt? Is it vomiting or nausea? abdominal bloating or distention? Have yellow skin (jaundice)? vomiting that is hemorrhagic (hematemesis)? stool that is dark or tarry? Scratched stools? Constipation? diarrhea or other alterations to bowel habits (Weledji, 2020). Patients do not receive Hepatitis A or B vaccines.
Objective Portion
The general assessment of the patient is not standardized. The vital signs section does not include the patient’s oxygen saturation or BMI. Every recent journey should be taken into account to assess GI problems related to travel. The physical exam of the skin should cover any skin changes, notably any yellowing that would suggest jaundice from cholestasis (Ball et al., 2019). Since changes in urine color can be an indication of cholestasis, a disorder in which the kidneys eliminate direct bilirubin from the serum, this topic belongs under the genitourinary area.
When a patient complains of stomach pain, nausea, and/or vomiting, the Gastrointestinal system should be thoroughly evaluated. The four quadrants of the abdomen should be evaluated using sonography, percussion, and palpation, as well as objective data from examining and assessing the abdomen for shape, scars, pigmentation, symmetry, and abnormal protrusions. Because cholestasis may be associated with pale-colored feces, stools should be inspected for color. Blood in the stool is investigated to rule out GI hemorrhage (Gallaher & Charles, 2022). Variations in appetite, nutrition, or food consumption must be taken into consideration in this assessment. For evaluating organ performance, it is essential to get the missing laboratory results.
Assessment Supported
A history of alcohol consumption supports the diagnosis of pancreatitis in the context of symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and epigastric pain that radiates to the back (Hamm, 2021). Other tests to support pancreatitis diagnosis include elevated amylase and/or lipase levels that are 3 times higher than the upper limit of normal. Moreover, the CT ought to back up this diagnosis.
This diagnosis of AAA is unsupported because the patient in this case seems stable and lacks several of the crucial presenting symptoms. This diagnosis necessitates figuring out whether or not the AAA is raptured based on the symptoms that are now present. The majority of cases with AAA are undiagnosed and asymptomatic (Weledji, 2020). The initial imaging procedure necessary for this diagnosis, if the patient is not allergic to contrast or pregnant, is a CT scan with contrast.
A perforated ulcer is not supported by either subjective or objective facts. A burst peptic ulcer is identified by the classic trifecta of sudden onset of abdominal rigidity, tachycardia, and stomach distress. Both the patient’s heart rate and the abdomen are not tachycardic (Ball et al., 2019). A history of smoking is the only risk factor for PUD; the patient does not use any NSAIDS or steroids.
Diagnostic Tests
Many medical conditions can cause abdominal discomfort, and numerous tests may be necessary to identify the reason. In addition to a health history and physical exam, laboratory tests for blood, urine, stool, and enzymes may be utilized to aid in diagnosis. Abdominal abnormalities can also be found with imaging tests (Ball et al., 2019). Diagnostic tests will include an Electrocardiogram, which would disclose any aberrant cardiac findings and exclude ischemia due to the patient’s specific presentation of stomach discomfort.
Blood tests including the Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP), Complete Blood Count (CBC), and stool samples for magnesium and phosphorus are examples. To completely rule out an infection, they are crucial (Weledji, 2020). As the patient complains of frequently having diarrhea, the CMP would provide a current health status of the kidneys, liver, and electrolytes. Test for Liver Enzymes and Hepatic Function These examinations reveal how well the liver is working. This examination will demonstrate if the liver is successfully removing the body’s toxins, which may result in severe stomach discomfort. This is crucial because a portion of the liver can be found in the epigastric region 4.
Rejection or Acceptance
Unless more testing is done, I would not accept the diagnosis of AAA. While this patient complains of sporadic discomfort, his vital signs are stable, and even though individuals with AAA frequently arrive with tearing or ripping chest pain, this patient does not characterize his pain in such terms(Hafeez et al., 2018).
The major diagnosis is acute pancreatitis, which I accept. Hafeez et al. (2018) claim that acute pancreatitis may be diagnosed initially without the use of imaging and that the presence of stomach discomfort together with high lipase or amylase levels can help to confirm this diagnosis. Also, the patient has a known etiology such as alcoholism and hyperlipidemia (Grigorian et al., 2019).
Possible Conditions
Gastritis may be the cause of the abrupt onset of epigastric discomfort, nausea, and vomiting (Weledji, 2020). It could be brought on by elements like smoking and drinking, which LZ’s past demonstrates. The patient might additionally have gastritis as a result of stress, such as losing his job.
Ulcer perforation: For two days, the patient’s condition, such as stomach pain, grew worse. This is how ulcer perforation presents. From modest stomach aches to severe agony and tachycardia, it goes through many stages (Yamamoto et al., 2018). H. pylori infection or regular use of NSAIDs, which can damage the stomach lining, maybe the cause of this.
Cholecystitis causes the gallbladder to swell up. With nausea, purging, and fever as their accompanying symptoms, biliary colic is an increasing pain in the right upper quadrant that may progress to the back (Gallaher & Charles, 2022). Jaundice is evident depending on the degree of gallbladder neck obstruction. The attack typically happens after a large, fatty meal. The pain eventually develops into a little upper-right stomach discomfort or a nagging ache. Abdominal ultrasound can identify calcified gallstones, and elevated white blood cell counts in the test findings can help to make the diagnosis.
Conclusion
The 65-year-old Black American male patient is likely suffering from gastritis. This may be the cause of the abrupt onset of epigastric discomfort, nausea, and vomiting.In addition to the pertinent lab testing to rule out the differential diagnosis, additional findings that might assist corroborate this diagnosis have been noted above. Correct diagnosis is essential for fostering the creation of the most efficient care strategy.
References
Ball, J. W., Dains, J. E., Flynn, J. A., Solomon, B. S., & Stewart, R. W. (2019). Seidel’s guide to physical examination: An interprofessional approach (9th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.ISBN: 9780323545389
Gallaher, J. R., & Charles, A. (2022). Acute Cholecystitis: A Review. JAMA, 327(10), 965–975. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.2350
Grigorian, A., Lin, M. Y., & de Virgilio, C. (2019). Severe epigastric pain with nausea and vomiting. Surgery, 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05387-1_20
Hafeez, A., Karmo, D., Mercado-Alamo, A., & Halalau, A. (2018). Aortic dissection presenting as acute pancreatitis: Suspecting the unexpected. Case Reports in Cardiology, 2018, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4791610
Hamm, R. G. (2021). Acute Pancreatitis: Causation, Diagnosis, and Classification Using Computed Tomography. Radiologic Technology, 93(2), 197CT219CT. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34728586/
Weledji, E. P. (2020). An Overview of Gastroduodenal Perforation. Frontiers in Surgery, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2020.573901
Yamamoto, K., Takahashi, O., Arioka, H., & Kobayashi, D. (2018). Evaluation of risk factors for perforated peptic ulcer. BMC Gastroenterology, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-018-0756-4
Rubric
NURS_6512_Week_6_Assignment_1_Rubric
| NURS_6512_Week_6_Assignment_1_Rubric | ||||||
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts | ||||
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWith regard to the SOAP note case study provided, address the following:Analyze the subjective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation. |
|
12 pts | ||||
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalyze the objective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation. |
|
12 pts | ||||
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIs the assessment supported by the subjective and objective information? Why or why not? |
|
16 pts | ||||
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWhat diagnostic tests would be appropriate for this case, and how would the results be used to make a diagnosis? |
|
20 pts | ||||
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome· Would you reject or accept the current diagnosis? Why or why not?· Identify three possible conditions that may be considered as a differenial diagnosis for this patient. Explain your reasoning using at least three different references from current evidence-based literature. |
|
25 pts | ||||
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused–neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria. |
|
5 pts | ||||
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation |
|
5 pts | ||||
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running heads, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. |
|
5 pts | ||||
| Total Points: 100 | ||||||
Don’t wait until the last minute
Fill in your requirements and let our experts deliver your work asap.