Sixoxan weekia

Answer the following questions in three well-developed paragraphs (450–500 words) using APA formatting, integrating two evidence-based resources to include clinical practice guidelines as well as the course textbook.

RR is 48-year-old Hispanic woman who comes to see you at the V. A. homeless clinic. The major complaint is a six-day history of worsening cough, productive of green sputum. There have been fever and chills with complaints of pain in the right mid-back with deep breathing or coughing. Further history reveals a history of tobacco use of one pack of cigarettes a day for 30 years. There is an incontainent health history as a result of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and homelessness. On examination, the skin is warm and clammy, pale; RR appears to not feel well; the temperature is 100.5° F; respiratory rate is 24 breaths per minute; pulse is 98 beats per minute; blood pressure is 120/75 mm Hg; and saturation of oxygen is 96 percent on room air by pulse oximetry.

Auscultation of the lungs reveals rales in the right lower-posterior lung field. The remainder of the examination is within normal limits.

1. What organism(s) do you most suspect and why?


2. What antibiotic would you recommend to treat RR with and why?


3. What is the mechanism of action of this antibiotic? Provide rationale


4. Do you have any counseling points for RR?

USE APA format atleast 2 references 

RUBRIC

iscussion Question Rubric

Note: Scholarly resources are defined as evidence-based practice, peer-reviewed journals; textbook (do not rely solely on your textbook as a reference); and National Standard Guidelines. Review assignment instructions, as this will provide any additional requirements that are not specifically listed on the rubric.

Note: The value of each of the criterion on this rubric represents a point range. (example: 17-0 points)

Discussion Question Rubric – 100 PointsCriteriaExemplary

Exceeds ExpectationsAdvanced

Meets ExpectationsIntermediate

Needs ImprovementNovice

InadequateTotal PointsQuality of Initial PostProvides clear examples supported by course content and references.

Cites three or more references, using at least one new scholarly resource that was not provided in the course materials.

All instruction requirements noted.

40 pointsComponents are accurate and thoroughly represented, with explanations and application of knowledge to include evidence-based practice, ethics, theory, and/or role. Synthesizes course content using course materials and scholarly resources to support importantpoints.

Meets all requirements within the discussion instructions.

Cites two references.

35 pointsComponents are accurate and mostly represented primarily with definitions and summarization. Ideas may be overstated, with minimal contribution to the subject matter. Minimal application to evidence-based practice, theory, or role development. Synthesis of course content is present but missing depth and/or development.

Is missing one component/requirement of the discussion instructions.

Cites one reference, or references do not clearly support content.

Most instruction requirements are noted.

31 pointsAbsent application to evidence-based practice, theory, or role development. Synthesis of course content is superficial.

Demonstrates incomplete understanding of content and/or inadequate preparation.

No references cited.

Missing several instruction requirements.

Submits post late.

27 points40Peer Response PostOffers both supportive and alternative viewpoints to the discussion, using two or more scholarly references per peer post. Post provides additional value to the conversation.

All instruction requirements noted.

40 pointsEvidence of further synthesis of course content. Provides clarification and new information or insight related to the content of the peer’s post.

Response is supported by course content and a minimum of one scholarly reference per each peer post.

All instruction requirements noted.

35 pointsLacks clarification or new information. Scholarly reference supports the content in the peer post without adding new information or insight.

Missing reference from one peer post.

Partially followed instructions regarding number of reply posts.

Most instruction requirements are noted.

31 pointsPost is primarily a summation of peer’s post without further synthesis of course content.

Demonstrates incomplete understanding of content and/or inadequate preparation.

Did not follow instructions regarding number of reply posts.

Missing reference from peer posts.

Missing several instruction requirements.

Submits post late.

27 points40Frequency of DistributionInitial post and peer post(s) made on multiple separate days.

All instruction requirements noted.

10 pointsInitial post and peer post(s) made on multiple separate days.

8 pointsMinimum of two post options (initial and/or peer) made on separate days.

7 pointsAll posts made on same day.

Submission demonstrates inadequate preparation.

No post submitted.

6 points10OrganizationWell-organized content with a clear and complex purpose statement and content argument. Writing is concise with a logical flow of ideas.

5 pointsOrganized content with an informative purpose statement, supportive content, and summary statement. Argument content is developed with minimal issues in content flow.

4 pointsPoor organization and flow of ideas distract from content. Narrative is difficult to follow and frequently causes reader to reread work.

Purpose statement is noted.

3 pointsIllogical flow of ideas. Prose rambles. Purpose statement is unclear or missing.

Demonstrates incomplete understanding of content and/or inadequate preparation.

No purpose statement.

Submits assignment late.

2 points5APA, Grammar, and SpellingCorrect APA formatting with no errors.

The writer correctly identifies reading audience, as demonstrated by appropriate language (avoids jargon and simplifies complex concepts appropriately).

Writing is concise, in active voice, and avoids awkward transitions and overuse of conjunctions.

There are no spelling, punctuation, or word-usage errors.

5 pointsCorrect and consistent APA formatting of references and cites all references used. No more than two unique APA errors.

The writer demonstrates correct usage of formal English language in sentence construction. Variation in sentence structure and word usage promotes readability.

There are minimal to no grammar, punctuation, or word-usage errors.

4 pointsThree to four unique APA formatting errors.

The writer occasionally uses awkward sentence construction or overuses/inappropriately uses complex sentence structure. Problems with word usage (evidence of incorrect use of thesaurus) and punctuation persist, often causing some difficulties with grammar. Some words, transitional phrases, and conjunctions are overused.

Multiple grammar, punctuation, or word usage errors.

3 pointsFive or more unique formatting errors or no attempt to format in APA.

The writer demonstrates limited understanding of formal written language use; writing is colloquial (conforms to spoken language).

The writer struggles with limited vocabulary and has difficulty conveying meaning such that only the broadest, most general messages are presented.

Grammar and punctuation are consistently incorrect. Spelling errors are numerous.

Submits assignment late.

2 points5Total Points100