HEADACHE/NAUSEOUS

II. EHR Documentation (Subjective Data): Document the history of present illness (HPI) and focused review of systems (ROS) including subjective data only Documentation must be:
I. accurate
II. detailed
III. written using professional terminology
IV. pertinent to the chief complaint

III. EHR Documentation (Objective Data): Document physical exam findings including objective findings only, Documentation must be:
I. accurate
II. detailed
III. written using professional terminology
IV. pertinent to the chief complaint

IV. Key Findings/Most Significant Active Problem: Document key findings from the history and physical exam in the Assessment tab of the case.
i. Identify the most significant active problem (MSAP) and the relation of other key findings to the MSAP

V. Problem Statement: Document a brief, accurate problem statement using professional language. Include the following components:
I. name or initials, age
II. chief complaint
III. positive and negative subjective findings
IV. positive and negative objective findings

VI. Management Plan: create a pertinent comprehensive evidence-based management plan. If a specific component of the management plan is not warranted (i.e., no referrals are appropriate for the virtual patient) document that no intervention is warranted. Include the following components:
I. diagnostic tests
II. medications: type a specific prescription for each medication, including over-the-counter medications
III. suggested consults/referrals
IV. client education
V. follow-up, including time interval and specific symptomatology to prompt a sooner return
VI. at least one relevant scholarly source and provide rationale for interventions as defined by program expectations

VII. Reflection: Address the following question: What are the “red flags” in this case? Based on your pertinent key findings, what is “the worst-case scenario”? What lessons did you learn from this case that you can apply to your future professional practice? Include the following components:
I. type 150-300 words in a Microsoft Word document
II. demonstrate clinical judgment appropriate to the virtual patient scenario
III. cite at least one relevant scholarly source as defined by program expectations
IV. communicate with minimal errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation
CHIEF COMPLAINS
 Patient alert and oriented x4
 Temp 37.0(98.6F oral)
 Pulse 80bpm regular normal
 B/P 124/82 normotensive, Norma RIGHT AND LEFT
 Respiration 14 regular unlabored
 SPO2 97%
 Patient is 22-year-old female
 Height 5, 7(67cm)
 Weight 118.0 LB (53.6kg)
 BMI 18.4
 Throbbing Headaches start yesterday- 1 day
 Have has this current attack for more than a day/ for 30 hours
 Felt it deep inside, precisely temporal and radiate all over r
 Patient is getting it more often that usually lately every 4 to 6 weeks and it’s getting progressively worst
 Rating 8/10 and happens more often
 Start gradually and get progressively worst
 Had same issue last year with an aura seeing flashes of light 20 minutes prior the attack
 Patient currently had problem seeing certain direction due to this headache
 No aura notices with this current attack
 Patient taking 2 Tylenol q 4 hour for headache with no significant effect
 Patient feels nauseated and loud noise bother her
 Caffeine makes it worst
 Has past history of headache stomach unsettled patient cannot eat
 No trauma to head
 Patient on birth control pill
 Patient Tylenol and multivitamin
 Flu shot every year up to date and tetanus shot 5 years ago
 Just feel stress and wish to have more sleep
 Usually 2 types of headaches, one minor that goes away with Tylenol and another major that is resistant to Tylenol
 Patient is experiencing major currently staying in the dark quite room helps
 Sister and mother have had headache but most often and severe is sister
 Father 50years with high blood pressure issues
 Mother 49
 Sister 20 with frequent headache
 Brother 15 is fine
 Usually, to take alcohol 1 or 2 drink on weekend night or bar drink
 Struggles with college weight gain due to junk food and lack of exercise
 Childhood illness of chicken pox and mono resolved
 Patient anxious to get better to write school work paper for final exam
 Patient just broke up with boyfriend
 She admitted been stress

Sample Solution

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you are experiencing a headache and nausea, it is important to consult your doctor as soon as possible. It could be symptoms of an underlying medical condition or a side effect from medication. Depending on the severity of the symptoms, your doctor may recommend rest, over-the-counter medications to relieve pain and nausea, or other treatments such as fluids and electrolytes to help your body rehydrate if you are dehydrated.

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly, Vittola discusses one of the just causes of war, most importantly, is when harm is inflicted but he does mention the harm does not lead to war, it depends on the extent or proportionality, another condition to jus ad bellum (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314). Frowe, however, argues the idea of “just cause” based on “Sovereignty” which refers to the protection of political and territorial rights, along with human rights. In contemporary view, this view is more complicated to answer, given the rise of globalisation. Similarly, it is difficult to measure proportionality, particularly in war, because not only that there is an epistemic problem in calculating, but again today’s world has developed (Frowe (2011), Page 54-6).
Furthermore, Vittola argues war is necessary, not only for defensive purposes, ‘since it is lawful to resist force with force,’ but also to fight against the unjust, an offensive war, nations which are not punished for acting unjustly towards its own people or have unjustly taken land from the home nation (Begby et al (2006b), Page 310&313); to “teach its enemies a lesson,” but mainly to achieve the aim of war. This validates Aristotle’s argument: ‘there must be war for the sake of peace (Aristotle (1996), Page 187). However, Frowe argues “self-defence” has a plurality of descriptions, seen in Chapter 1, showing that self-defence cannot always justify one’s actions. Even more problematic, is the case of self-defence in war, where two conflicting views are established: The Collectivists, a whole new theory and the Individualists, the continuation of the domestic theory of self-defence (Frowe (2011), Page 9& 29-34). More importantly, Frowe refutes Vittola’s view on vengeance because firstly it empowers the punisher’s authority, but also today’s world prevents this action between countries through legal bodies like the UN, since we have modernised into a relatively peaceful society (Frowe (2011), Page 80-1). Most importantly, Frowe further refutes Vittola through his claim that ‘right intention cannot be used as an excuse to wage war in response to anticipated wrong,’ suggesting we cannot just harm another just because they have done something unjust. Other factors need to be considered, for example, Proportionality.
Thirdly, Vittola argues that war should be avoided (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332) and that we should proceed circumstances diplomatically. This is supported by the “last resort” stance in Frowe, where war should not be permitted unless all measures to seek diplomacy fails (Frowe (2011), Page 62). This means war shouldn’t be declared until one party has no choice but to declare war, in order to protect its territory and rights, the aim of war. However, we can also argue that the war can never be the last resort, given there is always a way to try to avoid it, like sanctions or appeasement, showing Vittola’s theory is flawed.
Fourthly, Vittola questions upon whose authority can demand a declaration of war, where he implies any commonwealth can go to war, but more importantly, “the prince” where he has “the natural order” according to Augustine, and all authority is given to him. This is further supported by Aristotle’s Politics ((1996), Page 28): ‘a king is the natural superior of his subjects.’ However, he does later emphasise to put all faith in the prince is wrong and has consequences; a thorough examination of the cause of war is required along with the willingness to negotiate rival party (Begby et al (2006b), Page 312& 318). This is supported by the actions

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.