Discussion: Musculoskeletal system
Discussion: Musculoskeletal System
This assignment is intended to help you learn to analyze and explain the impact of
musculoskeletal events, and the associated pathological phenomena and details
compared to normal physiology.
Overview
Your Patient, Mrs. Julia Oliver
You are working at the local outpatient clinic. Mrs. Julia Oliver is there on a follow-up
visit for a new diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. She states that she still feels tired, and
still has stiffness, pain, and swelling in both her hands. You note the results of the
bilateral hand x-rays indicated soft tissue swelling and bone demineralization. No
erosions are noted.
Action Items
1. Briefly (in 2 paragraphs), answer the following questions based upon the case
scenario described in the overview section. Give your rationale and substantiate it
with references, including your textbook and a minimum of 3 other credible,
scholarly sources.
a. What do the results of the hand x-rays mean regarding the progression of
the disease?
b. What causes the limited joint movement in the early stages of the disease?
c. What causes the limited joint movement in the later stages of the disease?
d. What non-pharmaceutical therapies could help at this point?
2. Read your classmates’ posts. Return to your original post. Would you add
anything to your original post? If so, what? Are you satisfied with your response? If
so, why?
Submission Instructions
•
•
By the due date indicated, complete Action Item 1.
By Sunday, post your response to Action Item 2.
Reminder: You will not see others’ posts until you make your initial post.
Book:
Dlugasch, L., & Story, L. (2023). Applied Pathophysiology for the Advanced Practice
Nurse (2nd ed.). Jones & Bartlett.
RUBRIC
Discussion: Musculoskeletal System
Discussion: Musculoskeletal System
Criteria
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
OutcomeCase
Analysis –
Answers and
References
Ratings
15 to >13.0 pts
Fulfills
Very clearly
explained the results
of the hand x-rays and
causes of the limited
joint movement in the
early and later stages
of the disease. Very
clearly explained
what nonpharmaceutical
therapies could help
at this point. Gave
credible rationale for
their response. Drew
on very pertinent
information from the
textbook in support of
the answers given.
Used three or more
other very credible
and scholarly
references in
supporting their work.
13 to >11.0 pts
Approaching
Explained the results
of the hand x-rays and
causes of the limited
joint movement in the
early and later stages
of the disease.
Explained what nonpharmaceutical
therapies could help
at this point. Gave
some credible
rationale for their
response. Drew on
fairly pertinent
information from the
textbook in support of
the answers given.
Used a minimum
three credible and
scholarly references
in supporting their
work.
Pts
11 to >0 pts
Deficient
Did not explain very
well about the results
of the hand x-rays and
causes of the limited
joint movement in the
early and/or later
stages of the disease.
Did not explain well
what nonpharmaceutical
therapies could help
at this point. Gave
little to no credible
rationale for his/her
response. Drew on
weak or irrelevant
information from the
textbook in support of
the answers given.
Used fewer than three
references or the
references used were
from popular rather
than scholarly sources
or were otherwise less
than credible.
15 pts
Discussion: Musculoskeletal System
Criteria
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
OutcomeCase
Analysis –
Reflection on
Own Work
Ratings
10 to >8.0 pts
Fulfills
Returned to their own
posting and made a
reply to their original
work. In the reply,
very clearly explained
what they learned
from reading the
work of peers.
Explained what they
would alter in their
original work, and
why. The rationale
given was very strong
and persuasive. If
they would not
change anything, the
student justified their
decision with very
strong and persuasive
rationale.
8 to >7.0 pts
Approaching
Returned to their own
posting and made a
reply to their original
work. In the reply,
explained what they
learned from reading
the work of peers.
Explained what they
would alter in their
original work, and
why. If they would
not change anything,
the student justified
their decision.
Pts
7 to >0 pts
Deficient
Did not return to their
own posting to make a
reply to their original
work. Or, in the reply,
did not explain very
well what they learned
from reading the work
of peers. Did not
explain what they
would alter in their
original work or tell
why, or else their
reasoning lacked
clarity or persuasion.
Or if they would not
change anything, the
student did not justify
their decision or else
the justification was
very weak.