Samantha Chanel De Vera

 

Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) refers to severe acquired dysfunction of at least two organ systems lasting at least 24 to 48 hours in sepsis, trauma, burns, or severe inflammatory conditions so that homeostasis cannot be maintained without intervention(Neviere, 2022). For instance, a patient came in for severe encephalopathy. He was hypotensive on admission. When labs were drawn, the patient was on severe metabolic acidosis with acute renal failure and thrombocytopenia. The provider ordered multiple labs to rule out many conditions that may have caused his renal failure. Based on this case, patients’ differential diagnoses are adrenal insufficiency, cardiogenic shock, hypovolemic shock, and obstructive shock. The provider eventually consulted nephrology, and this patient was immediately started with hemodialysis. In less than 24 hours, the patient’s urine culture was positive, and his blood cultures showed bacteremia. Hence, the patient was diagnosed with severe sepsis. The severity of sepsis is graded according to the associated organ dysfunction and hemodynamic compromise. Severe sepsis is the presence of sepsis and one or more organ dysfunctions(Felner & Smith, 2017). Organ dysfunction may be defined as hypotension, acute lung injury including acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), thrombocytopenia, altered mental status, mottled skin, capillary refill greater than 3 seconds, renal dysfunction, hepatic dysfunction, cardiac dysfunction based on echocardiography or measurement of cardiac index, or lactic acidosis indicating hypoperfusion(Felner & Smith, 2017). Treatment initiated on admission was the two bundles of care, including blood culture, antibiotics, lactic acid level, IVF, and vasopressor. He also received some blood products and eventually deescalated antibiotics based on susceptibility.

References

Felner, K., & Smith, R. L. (2017). Sepsis and shock. In S. C. McKean, J. J. Ross, D. D. Dressler, & D. B. Scheurer (Eds.), Principles and practice of hospital medicine (2nd ed., pp. 2542–2566). McGraw-Hill.

Neviere, R. (2022, March 27). Sepsis syndromes in adults: Epidemiology, definitions, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and prognosis. UpToDate. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/sepsis-syndromes-in-adults-epidemiology-definitions-clinical-presentation-diagnosis-and-prognosis?search=mods&source=search_result&selectedTitle=1~8&usage_type=default&display_rank=1#H10

 

 

Sample Solution

While a set of frameworks complement and build on each other, the delineation of the concept focuses heavily on vertical versus horizontal dimensions in a time-sliced fashion. That is, time dimension in accountability has not been of primary importance. However, it is worth noting that the time dimension is closely interrelated with a series of conceptual distinctions made in previous literature, and it may cover complementary aspects of the question concerning two sequential lines represented by administrative responsibility versus political accountability. First, the positioning of accountability actors depends on the time dimension. Civil servants usually have longer terms to serve the public interest over the long term. At the same time, they are responsible to the elected representatives of the public who tend to have “a limited time horizon” and “prefer policies that yield tangible benefits for constituents in the near term” (Posner, 2004: 137). For this reason, the priorities expressed by elected officials may be far more related to short-term issues and temporal problems instead of long-term solutions, whereas the long-lasting forms of civil service personnel would prioritize sustainable solutions to secure a long-term perspective of the citizens, both current and in the future. Second, the time frame is essential to distinguishing between two main streams of accountability. Accountability mechanisms focus predominantly on retroactive accountability for the past outcomes, while accountability as a virtue takes a proactive approach to ensuring ethical behaviors in the future. The timeline is also useful to distinguishing between ex ante accountability of the decision-making process leading up to the decision and ex post accountability where the results available from the decision already taken or where questions of compliance are identified and addressed. In other words, ex ante accountability refers to being accountable for the decision before an administrator act, while ex post accountability is suggestive of situations where administrators are accountable for the outcome of their decisions. For example, the focus of traditional bureaucratic administration is very much

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.