Treatment of COPD

Scenario: You are seeing an 89-year-old male who has a history of smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day for 69 years.
He quit smoking cold turkey when he was 78 years old.
He is in your office for a general health evaluation. He reports ongoing challenges with ‘belching’ but other than that he conveys that he is feeling pretty good.
He is on no routine medications.
During your interview with the patient you note that he utilizes pursed lip breathing. At times you note a faint ‘whistling’ sound associated with his respiratory effort.
In conducting your review of systems he reports a cough, particularly in the mornings, productive for thick clear to white sputum.
When queried about shortness of breath he does indicate that he gets SOB more easily than he used to.
His breath sounds are course and diminished in the lower lobes bilaterally.
Develop a discussion that responds to each of the following prompts

Utilize the information provided in the scenario to create your discussion post.
Construct your response as an abbreviated SOAP note (Subjective Objective Assessment Plan).
Structure your ‘P’ in the following format: [NOTE: if any of the 3 categories is not applicable to your plan please use the ‘heading’ and after the ‘:’ input N/A]
Therapeutics: pharmacologic interventions, if any – new or revisions to existing; include considerations for OTC agents (pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic/alternative); [optional – any other therapies in lieu of pharmacologic intervention]
Educational: health information clients need in order to address their presenting problem(s); health information in support of any of the ‘therapeutics’
identified above; information about follow-up care where appropriate; provision of anticipatory guidance and counseling during the context of the office visit
Consultation/Collaboration: if appropriate – collaborative ‘Advanced Care Planning’ with the patient/patient’s care giver; if appropriate -placing the patient in a
Transitional Care Model for appropriate pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic care; if appropriate – consult with or referral to another provider while the
patient is still in the office; Identification of any future referral you would consider making
Support the interventions outlined in your ‘P’ with scholarly resource

 

Sample Solution

pieces are ‘recoded’ and allocated to lumps.

Consequently the ends that can be drawn from Miller’s unique work is that, while there is an acknowledged breaking point to the quantity of pieces of data that can be put away in prompt (present moment) memory, how much data inside every one of those lumps can be very high, without unfavorably influencing the review of similar number of lumps. The cutting edge perspective on momentary memory limit Millers sorcery number 7+2 has been all the more as of late reclassified to the enchanted number 4+1 (Cowan, 2001). The test has come from results, for example, those from Chen and Cowan, in which the anticipated outcomes from a trial were that prompt sequential review of outright quantities of singleton words would be equivalent to the quantity of pieces of learned pair words. Anyway truth be told it was found that a similar number of pre-uncovered singleton words was reviewed as the quantity of words inside educated matches – eg 8 words (introduced as 8 singletons or 4 learned sets). Anyway 6 learned matches could be reviewed as effectively as 6 pre-uncovered singleton words (Chen and Cowan, 2005). This recommended an alternate system for review contingent upon the conditions. Cowan alludes to the greatest number of lumps that can be reviewed as the memory stockpiling limit (Cowan, 2001). It is noticed that the quantity of pieces can be impacted by long haul memory data, as demonstrated by Miller regarding recoding – with extra data to empower this recoding coming from long haul memory.

 

Factors influencing clear transient memory

Practice

The penchant to utilize practice and memory helps is a serious complexity in precisely estimating the limit of transient memory. To be sure a significant number of the investigations pompously estimating momentary memory limit have been contended to be really estimating the capacity to practice and access long haul memory stores (Cowan, 2001). Considering that recoding includes practice and the utilization of long haul memory arrangement, whatever forestalls or impacts these will clearly influence the capacity to recode effectively (Cowan, 2001).

 

Data over-burden

Momentary memory limit might be restricted when data over-burden blocks recoding (Cowan, 2001). For example, on the off chance that consideration is coordinated away from the objective boost during show a lot of data is being handled to go to appropriately to the objective upgrade. Accordingly less things would be recognized as they would have been supplanted by data from this substitute course. Likewise, yet really recognized very conclusively by Cowan, are strategies, for example, the necessity to rehash a different word during the objective boost show, which acts to forestall practice.

 

Modifying improvement recurrence and configuration

It has been viewed that as, assuming a word list contains expressions of long and short length words, review is better for the length that happens least habitually, subsequently is all the more separately particular (Chen and Cowan, 2005). Likewise the word length impact shows that memory range is higher for words with a more limited spoken span; syllable length differing as long as the expressed term remains moderately consistent (Parkin, 1996). This is like Miller’s lumping of data, if one somehow happened to expect that the expressed span was a piece of data and the syllable length was the piece of data.

Consequently the ends that can be drawn from Miller’s unique piece is that, while there is an acknowledged cutoff to the quantity of lumps of data that can be put away in quick (present moment) memory, how much data inside every one of those lumps can be very high, without unfavorably influencing the review of similar number of pieces. The cutting edge perspective on momentary memory limit Millers wizardry number 7+2 has been all the more as of late re-imagined to the enchanted number 4+1 (Cowan, 2001). The test has come from results, for example, those from Chen and Cowan, in which the anticipated outcomes from a trial were

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.