This is a paper for a group presentation. my part (the part to be completed by you) is the BACKGROUND AND PATIENT FROM THE RUBRIC.
A picture of the case study is attached. the patient is a female bisexual whom is diagnosed with cervical cancer.
our part:
Background detail the background of the associated injury or condition (cervical cancer), explain why LGBTQ communities struggle in the health care system. this patient was not diagnosed before because she wasn\’t screened because no one asked her her sexual orientation and assumed she was not sexually active because she said she was not married her with a male person.
Patient “ provide patient demographics, the chief complaint, and mechanism of diagnosis.
PLEASE COVER ALL THE POINTS IN THE ABOVE EXPLANATION
REFERENCES MUST NOT BE OLDER THAN 2 YEARS.
NO COVER PAGE.
Case Study Rubric
Please following the guidelines to receive a full grade for the case studies
| Categories | SCALES |
|
Background: (briefly summarizes the condition of interest that the case is focused on) |
3=provides adequate introduction to the case study’s topic condition along with relevant information that orients the reader specific to the topic of interest.
2= provides non-specific background information that does not tie in well to the case study’s topic. 1= provides a very generic background. 0= provides an inappropriate background and/or was very difficult to read and/or understand |
|
Patient: (age, sex, sport of individual, primary complaint and pertinent aspects of his/her medical history) |
3= thorough, relevant, and understandable patient demographics, chief complaint, and any pertinent medical history; mentions no previous medical history, if relevant.
2= generic patient data provided, provides chief complaint, may or may not discuss medical history. 1= some patient data missing or unclear; very wordy and does not communicate effectively the exact primary complaint and/or medical history. 0= no relevant information provided concerning this patient, injury or patient/client was identified, and/or was very difficult to read and understand. |
| Findings:
(Swelling, point tenderness, ROM and muscle function, special tests performed, referrals and subsequent diagnostic tests) |
3= provides a stepwise temporal outline that details the objective findings.
2= provides incomplete but orderly objective findings. 1= provides a few random objective findings. 0= very difficult to read or understand basic objective findings |
| Differential Diagnoses:
(Differential diagnosis and/or diagnosis, severity of disease, a concise summary of the physical findings) |
3= provides a concise set of potential diagnoses that are relevant to the information provided in the patient and findings sections.
2= provides a general list of diagnoses that are not specific to the information provided in the patient and findings sections. 1= lists the diagnosis rather than a set of differential diagnoses 0= very difficult to read and understand basic premise. |
|
Treatment or intervention: (treatment: surgical, modalities, physical rehabilitation, etc.) |
3= provides a final diagnosis along with a chronological and detailed list of interventions.
2= provides a minimum amount of information specific to interventions or does not list interventions in a precise, chronological order. 1= provides a generic, non-detailed summary of treatments provided 0= provides no real interventions nor a legitimate timeline. |
|
Uniqueness: (Expected results from intervention) |
3= provides a strong case as to why this particular condition is unique from other related events.
2= provides a weak case as to why this condition is unique, or fails to make a compelling case as to why this condition is unique. 1= fails to provide evidence as to why this case is unique from others, or claims that the uniqueness is due to the condition or event being ‘rare’. 0= does not expound upon why the case is unique. |
|
Conclusion: (a brief description of what makes this case unique) |
3= provides a clear and concise summary of the facts of the case study as well as what medicine can learn from this case.
2= provides a wordy or overly-summarized summary of the case. 1= provides information that does not adequately summarize the case 0= fails to provide a real conclusion to the case study. |
| Formatting | 3= Thoroughly follows formatting guidelines as outlined for case study
2= Generally follows formatting guidelines with minimal errors 1= Submits case study with several significant formatting errors 0= Fails to adhere to general formatting requirements |
| Grammar | 3= No grammatical/spelling errors
2= Minimal grammatical/spelling errors (e.g., < five errors) 1= Several significant grammatical/spelling errors (e.g., > five errors) 0= Case study is difficult to read due to the level of grammatical/spelling errors |
| Professional Writing | 3= Uses clear and coherent writing style consistent with professional writing standards: sentences can stand alone, solid flow, professional terminology
2= Generally clear writing with minimal deviation from professional writing standards 1= Several significant deviations from professional writing standards 0= Often incomprehensible writing style due to significant deviation from professional writing standards |
Formatting a Clinical Case Study:
The clinical case study will be evaluated for content using the above qualifications, along with formatting requirements as follows:
Prepare the case study in accordance with the following requirements (failure to follow the formatting requirements will likely result in an automatic disqualification of the case study):
- The case study must be typed in Microsoft
- Top, bottom, right, and left margins of the body of the case study should be set at 1″ using the standard 5″ x 11″ format.
Use either Arial or Times New Roman 11 or 12pt. font with single spacing.
- Provide a title page formatted only with individual double-spaced lines that include the following (in this order): Title of the case study (limited to 20 words), your full name and your faculty sponsor’s full name (use “and” between your respective names), your university, and the date of the case study
- On the next page, format an abstract that includes each of the following headings and is no more than 400 words from the word “Background” to the number representing the word count. Begin entering the body of the abstract flush left in a single paragraph with no indentions. Use no patient identifiers, no first-person terminology (e.g. “I’, “we”, “me”) and no specific dates (e.g. January 13th, 2017). The text of the abstract body must be structured with headings as follows:
- Background – detail the background of the associated injury or condition
- Patient – provide patient demographics, the chief complaint, and mechanism
- Findings – report on special tests, ROM/MMT findings, and other measures
- Differential Diagnosis – list those conditions most likely to exist based on the patient and findings sections
- Treatment – detail the actual diagnosis as well as the treatment plan and expected or achieved outcomes
- Uniqueness – explain what makes this case study different from all other previously reported cases
- Conclusion – sum up the case study and then discuss what medicine can learn from the case
- Same headings as required for the abstract and same formatting guidelines listed above. There is no minimum or maximum length; rather, it is expected that the case study is of adequate length to include all relevant material
- Citations must be included in the body of the case study only (not the abstract). On the first new page after the body of the case study, format a bibliography page using APA 7th edition
- When complete, save the case study as “(Last Name) Case study – # 1,2, or 3
- Submit the case study using the directions listed above
- Cite references for the findings.
Grading of the Clinical Case Studies- Each designated case study is worth 10% of the designated grade. Follow the Rubric to receive a full grade.
Background
Charlotte M. is a cisgender, bisexual woman aged 63 years. She has reported to the clinic complaining of pelvic pain. The associated injury or condition is cervical cancer. The healthcare professional has conducted a Pap smear to establish the cause of her pelvic pain. Pap smear results indicate that Charlotte has cervical cancer. Screening is usually the best way to establish a person’s risk of developing cervical cancer. The doctor is charged with the responsibility of evaluating patients and recommending screening for those at risk of developing cervical cancer. However, Charlotte’s doctor has never advised her to have a Pap smear despite the fact that she was at risk of developing cervical cancer. The doctor failed to advise Charlotte correctly due to the assumption that she was not married and thus was not sexually active.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) communities struggle in the health care system because they are not able to access timely, safe, and quality care like other groups of people who do not belong to the cultural group. A recent study by Saunders et al. (2021) found that bisexual women have an increased risk of developing cervical cancer due to late screening. According to the researchers, there is a need to increase cervical cancer screening among bisexuals to facilitate early interventions and prevent them from developing cervical cancer and experiencing negative health outcomes. The patient described in the cases study is a victim of discrimination as she has suffered the negative impacts of health inequalities directed toward LGBTQ communities. The fact that she does not have a husband does not mean that she is not at risk of developing cervical cancer.
Patient
Understanding patient demographics and the chief complaint helps the healthcare professional to gather relevant information that can inform decision-making regarding the primary diagnosis. Charlotte M. is a 63-year-old elderly woman. She belongs to the LGBTQ community by being a cisgender and bisexual. Her chief complaint is pelvic pain.
Since the Pap smear has revealed that Charlotte M. has cervical cancer, it is highly imperative that the healthcare professional conducts diagnosis tests that will confirm the current diagnosis and rule out the possibility of other medical conditions. According to Bhavsar et al. (2020), both reproductive and non-reproductive illnesses can cause pelvic pain in women. Therefore, it is important to conduct diagnostic exams that help to identify the associated condition with maximum accuracy. One of the mechanisms of diagnosis to consider in Charlotte’s case is the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) DNA test. HPV has been associated with cervical cancer in women. Therefore, performing an HPV DNA test can help to detect the types of HPV that might be associated with the cancerous cells observed during the Pap smear. The doctor can also obtain a piece of tissue (biopsy) from the cervix and perform laboratory testing. The tissue can be obtained through a punch biopsy (pinching a small sample from the cervical tissue) or endocervical curettage (using a spoon-shaped tool to scrape a sample of tissue from the cervix (Mayo Clinic, 2022). The doctor should initiate treatment only after confirming with maximum precision that the only cause of Charlotte’s cervical pain is cervical cancer.
References
Bhavsar, A. K., Gelner, E. J., & Shorma, T. (2020). Common questions about the evaluation of acute pelvic pain. American Family Physician, 93(1), 41-8. PMID: 26760839.
Mayo Clinic. (2022). Cervical cancer: Diagnosis. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cervical-cancer/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20352506
Saunders, C. L., Massou, E., Waller, J., Meads, C., Marlow, L. A., & Usher-Smith, J. A. (2021). Cervical screening attendance and cervical cancer risk among women who have sex with women. Journal of Medical Screening, 28(3), 349–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413209