Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common complication of deep vein thrombosis (DVT)

 

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common complication of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or atrial fibrillation and is associated with many sudden deaths (Morrone & Morrone, 2018). In the United States, PE accounts for 200 to 300 thousand each year (Morrone & Morrone, 2018). The risk factors of PE include obesity, tobacco abuse, trauma, contraceptives, etc. (Morrone & Morrone, 2018). The clinical presentation of PE varies on many occasions because cases may present asymptomatic and, in most cases, may seek medical attention with obvious symptoms (Morrone & Morrone, 2018).

The Darrin Lancaster case presented medical attention with a sudden onset of shortness of breath. However, the patient denies any possible symptoms that suggest infections and trauma. The diagnostic tool used to support the final clinical impression was chest CT with contrast. In this clinical case scenario, the patient presented with sudden onset of pain consistent with pleuritic chest pain at the medical practice. The differential diagnosis in this case scenario can vary from acute coronary syndromes, pleuritic chest pain from an infectious process, and spontaneous pneumothorax (Morrone & Morrone, 2018; Yamamoto, 2018).

In most cases, diagnosing is straightforward and does not require complex and unnecessary testing (Konstantinides et al., 2020). Therefore, the key element in the prompt and accurate diagnosis of PE should be lifted from the patient’s history of present illness (Konstantinides et al., 2020). Therefore, the assessment process should follow a stepwise procedure and order diagnostic biomarkers to both support and rule out PE (Konstantinides et al., 2020). In addition, risk stratification from a validated scoring system to assist the clinical decision to either consider or rule out PE is also an important yet inexpensive approach to providing high-quality care (Simon et al., 2021; Konstantinides et al., 2020).

 

Sample Solution

how the group are functioning, allowing them to implement policies to change this if performance is unsatisfactory (Pettinger, 2007). Within organisations, the theory can be loosely applied to creating teams by grouping familiar individuals with the aim that they will reach the norming and performing stage of the model quicker. For short and simple tasks this is an extremely effective way of organising groups, due to the increased short term productivity. However there are significant issues with grouping individuals in this manner, particularly when tasks become more complex, and ultimately the model should mainly be used for monitoring the progress of groups (Pettinger, 2007). Figure 3: Belbin’s Team Roles (PrePearl Training Development, 2019) A more functional approach of grouping individuals is to utilise Belbin’s Team Theory (Belbin, 2017). Belbin identifies 9 key roles that must be fulfilled within a group to ensure success, the roles are summarised in Figure 3. The roles cover a wide spectrum of skills that need to be present within a group to ensure success, and becomes essential when tasks are lengthy and complex. Organisations can find the Belbin roles each individual fits through a questionnaire, and thus balanced groups can be formed covering all the roles. However, like with Fiedler’s contingency model, the theory when translated to practice can often become very impractical for organisations to implement regularly. This is largely because the organisation is constrained by the personalities of their employees, their may be an abundance of one personality type and an absence of another, the only solution is to hire externally to fill the missing roles within teams. This can result in an extensive payroll for an organisation and huge financial implications as they cannot legally dismiss employee’s if they have too many of one personality type. The importance of Belbin roles in a team became apparent for Group 1 on the first day of the outdoor management course, the group had 5 people who filled the completer finisher and implementor roles, however had no-one filling the resource investigator or monitor evaluator role, the group ran out of time and did not complete the task successfully. Obviously running out of time was not the sole cause of the groups failure, however if someone had been monitoring time and performance then the

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.