Human Pathophysiology and Pharmacology

The rationale for this case-based assignment is to allow you to demonstrate your clinical reasoning skills developed in the course thus far, demonstrating your capacity to differentiate normal from abnormal and to identify appropriate (evidence based) investigations and treatment modalities associated with the assigned case-study. The purpose of this assessment is for you to determine how the risk factors and mechanisms of cell injury/adaptation/repair relate to the diagnosis within an assigned case-study scenario from one of the studied systems (nervous, immune or musculoskeletal). You will also apply your understanding of the pathophysiology for the diagnosed disease with its clinical manifestations, and identify appropriate (evidence based) diagnostic tests/physical assessments, and treatment modalities for this case; skills which are necessary in everyday practice.

 

Choice 1: Individual, Written Assignment, concept map Total Marks: 30 Weighting: 30%

Length: 1 PowerPoint slide + 500 word explanation

Task description:

For this task you need to create a single (1) slide (using PowerPoint) concept map and 500 word explanation, demonstrating analysis of the case study emailed to you in week 1. A PowerPoint template file will be made available for you to customised based on your assigned case scenario.

In your concept map you must:

1) Interpret the patient’s risk factors (from the case-study scenario) and determine how these risk factors may lead to cell pathology (based on the patient’s diagnosis); 2) Explain the links between cellular pathology and the pathophysiology of the diagnosed disease; 3) Describe how the pathophysiology of the disease accounts for the patient’s clinical manifestations (described in the case-study scenario); and 4) Analyse and interpret evidence based research to suggest appropriate diagnostic assessments and treatment modalities for the patient’s diagnosis.

 

 

In your 500 word written explanation you must: 1) Explain the links between the risk factors and aetiology to account for the disease’s

pathophysiology. 2) Describe how the disease’s pathophysiology manifests through the patient’s signs and

symptoms.

Due Date:

Submission via Turnitin within the course Learning@Griffith site by Tuesday week 7, 18th April 2017, 5pm.

Other elements:

The concept map should be a maximum of 1 PowerPoint slide in length and 1 page (500 words) written explanation (excluding reference list);

You will be presented with a case study electronically (via email) by Friday 3rd March (week 1); Use APA 6th edition for in-text referencing and in the reference list; Reference list should be on a separate slide following the concept map; Ensure that your references have been published within the last 10 years; Marking, moderation, and student feedback will be provided electronically based on the marking

rubric, which is in accordance with University assessment policy; 10% late penalties apply for each working day after submission date; Always refer to the marking rubric as this will assist you to determine the depth of response for each

section; An exemplar concept map will be created in the week 1 tutorials.

 

Refer to the Health Writing and Referencing guide for more information (click here)

 

 

 

 

Marking Rubric*: Assessment Task 2 – Individual, Written Assignment. Good (11. 5+) Satisfactory (7.5 – 11. 4) Unsatisfactory (0-7.4)

Presentation, written communication

(15 marks)

Concept map and written explanation has a logical structure, and is concise and focused. No spelling or grammatical errors. Concept map is

colour coded with a respective key. Separate page/s for references.

Concept map and written explanation was generally well-structured. Some minor spelling or grammatical errors.

Many spelling or grammatical errors. Poor structure.

Excellent (16+) Good (13 – 15.9) Satisfactory (10– 12.9) Unsatisfactory (0-9.9) Identify and explain the underlying cellular mechanisms that contribute to patient’s disease. Identification and explanation includes: 1. Risk factors in case study 2. Aetiology of cellular injury 3. Patient’s risk factors linked to cell

injury (20 marks)

Detailed description of the cellular pathology. Extensive knowledge of the 3 descriptive factors as evidence by their connections within the concept map and written explanation The link between cellular pathology and disease is analysed thoroughly.

Broad description of the cellular pathology. Sound knowledge of the 3 descriptive factors as evidence by their connections within the concept map and written explanation. The link between cellular pathology and disease is clear but lacks depth.

Limited description of the cellular pathology. Superficial knowledge of the 3 descriptive factors as evidence by their connections within the concept map and written explanation. The link between cellular pathology and disease is made but it is mainly descriptive.

Little information given about the type of cellular injury No description of how risk factors lead to cell injury. Link between cellular pathology and disease state is confused and/or absent.

Excellent (40+) Good (32.5-39.9) Satisfactory (25-32.4) Unsatisfactory (0-24.9)

Analysis of the pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of the assigned disease. Analysis includes: 1. How the pathophysiology causes

the patient’s clinical manifestations (in the case study).

2. Evidence based research to suggest the appropriate diagnostic assessments and where they link to the disease state.

3. Evidence based research to suggest the appropriate treatment modalities and where they link to the disease state. (50 marks)

Detailed analysis of the pathophysiological cause for the patient’s clinical manifestations (S&S). Diagnostic assessment tests and treatment modalities for patient’s disease listed/linked, and broadly substantiated with current literature. Link between patient’s disease pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis and treatment is extensively addressed.

Some analysis of the pathophysiological cause for the patient’s clinical manifestations (S&S). Diagnostic assessments and treatment modalities for patient’s disease listed, and superficially substantiated with current literature. Link between patient’s disease pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis and treatment is addressed.

Little analysis of the pathophysiological cause for the patient’s clinical manifestations (S&S). Diagnostic assessments and treatment modalities for patient’s disease listed, but not substantiated with literature and/or literature outdated. Link between patient’s disease pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis and treatment minimally addressed.

No analysis given about pathophysiological cause for the patient’s clinical manifestations (S&S). Explanation of diagnostic assessments and treatment modalities for patient’s disease inconsistent/incorrect. Link between patient’s disease pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis and treatment is confused and/or absent.

Excellent (12+) Good (9.75 –11.9) Satisfactory (7.5– 9.74) Unsatisfactory (0-7.4) Use of references

 

(15 marks)

Written explanation includes many appropriate and current references, and APA guide is followed throughout (in-text and in reference list). No fewer than 10 sources used.

Written explanation supported by some references. References are generally appropriate and up to date. APA guide is generally followed. Less than 10 sources used.

Limited references used and/or may have occasional inappropriate or outdated references that do not follow APA 6th edition guide.

No references to the literature or many errors in the references used.