NURS 6512 Assignment Assessing the Genitalia and Rectum

NURS 6512 Assignment Assessing the Genitalia and Rectum

Assessment of the genitalia and rectum is vital in depicting genitourinary and gastrointestinal abnormalities respectively. A rectal examination is necessary to complete an abdominal exam. Meanwhile, assessment of the genitalia is usually sensitive and must be done in the presence of a chaperone. The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential history, physical exam, and differential diagnosis based on a case scenario of T.S. a 32-year-old woman who presents with dysuria, frequency, and urgency for two days. She is sexually active and has had a new partner for the past three months.

Subjective

A triad of urgency, frequency, and dysuria characterizes a pathology that is most likely in the urinary tract. Consequently, it is essential to inquire about associated symptoms such as hematuria, fever, and malaise. Association with malaise and fever is common in urinary tract infections. Similarly, it is important to inquire about the presence of any abnormal vaginal discharge, and burning sensation during urination since she is sexually active and a sexually transmitted infection might be the cause of her symptoms. Likewise, changes in the smell and color of the urine must be elicited as well as associated suprapubic pain. Related to sexually transmitted infections, it is crucial to inquire about the number of sexual partners if similar symptoms have manifested in her partner or the use of protection during intercourse (Garcia & Wray, 2022).

Similarly, her last menstrual period must be known to determine if pregnant as this will impact the management (Bono et al., 2022). Additionally, a history of medication use, alcohol, smoking, and use of illicit drugs must be elicited. A history of contact with an individual with a chronic cough or TB prior to the occurrence of the previous symptoms must be elicited as urogenital TB may present similarly. Finally, it is crucial to inquire about any history of trauma or recent urethral catheterization as these are common risk factors for urinary tract infections.

Objective

The vital signs are mandatory in this patient as it is a pelvic exam. In the general exam, the mental and nutrition status of the patient must be noted. Additionally, a complete abdominal exam must be conducted as the patient has flank pain and suprapubic tenderness. Palpation of the abdomen for any masses and percussion of the flank for costovertebral angle tenderness must be done (Bono et al., 2022). Similarly, complete respiratory and cardiovascular exams must be conducted as a routine during the assessment of any patient. Finally, a digital rectal examination must be performed to exclude associated rectal abnormalities.

Assessment

In addition to urinalysis, STI, and pap smear testing, a complete blood count and urine culture must be conducted as the patient presents with signs of infection. Similarly, a pregnancy test must be conducted as this may complicate urinary tract infections. Additionally, she has no appetite and therefore a random blood sugar must be done to exclude hypoglycemia. Similarly, urea, creatinine, and electrolyte must be conducted to check the renal function as the patient has flank pain. Finally, Inflammatory markers such as ESR and CRP as well as blood cultures must be done as the patient has flank pain which may indicate pyelonephritis (Bono et al., 2022). Imaging tests are not necessary for the diagnosis of lower UTI. However, the patient has flank pain, and therefore, a CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis with or without IV contrast as well as an ultrasound of the kidneys and bladder must be done to identify any pathologies and outline the architecture of the kidney and bladder (Belyayeva & Jeong, 2022)

The possible diagnoses include a urinary tract infection and a sexually-transmitted infection. Urinary tract infections refer to the infection of the bladder, urethra, ureters, or kidneys (Bono et al., 2022). UTIs are more common in women, a consequence of a short urethra and proximity of the anal and genital regions (Bono et al., 2022). A triad of frequency, dysuria, and urgency collectively defines the irritative lower urinary tract symptoms (Bono et al., 2022). Similarly, suprapubic tenderness is a key feature of lower urinary tract infections. However, the patient is also feverish and has flank pain which also denotes the potential for involvement of the upper urinary tract (Bono et al., 2022). T.S is also sexually active, a risk factor for urinary tract infection.

A sexually transmitted infection is another possible diagnosis. T.S is sexually active and she has had her new partner for the last three months which is a key risk factor for this condition (Garcia & Wray, 2022). Most STIs present with suprapubic pain. Most STIs are asymptomatic and if symptomatic manifests with urethral discharge, vaginal discharge, pruritus, and pain (Garcia & Wray, 2022). T.S was negative for the aforementioned features.

Other differential diagnoses include pyelonephritis, interstitial cystitis, and urethritis due to an STI. Pyelonephritis is of the renal pelvis and parenchyma (Belyayeva & Jeong, 2022). It is usually a complication of ascending bacterial infection of the bladder and manifests principally with frequency, dysuria, urgency, fever, malaise, flank pain, and suprapubic pain (Belyayeva & Jeong, 2022). Interstitial cystitis is a chronic noninfectious idiopathic cystitis associated with recurrent suprapubic pain (Daniels et al., 2018). It presents with urgency, frequency, suprapubic discomfort, and pain relieved by voiding. T.S has some of these features although the gradual onset of symptomatology and a duration of more than six weeks is required for the diagnosis of this condition (Daniels et al., 2018). Finally, urethritis secondary to an STI may present in females with only frequency, urgency, and dysuria with minimal or no vaginal discharge (Young et al., 2022).

Conclusion

Assessment of the genitalia and rectum is sensitive and may help identify abnormalities of the rectum and genitourinary tract. Most abnormalities of the genitourinary system particularly UTIs and STIs can be diagnosed clinically. Consequently, a comprehensive history and physical examination are mandatory. Most UTIs are common in females. Pregnancy must always be excluded in a patient presenting with features suggestive of a UTI.

References

Belyayeva, M., & Jeong, J. M. (2022). Acute Pyelonephritis. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30137822/

Bono, M. J., Leslie, S. W., & Reygaert, W. C. (2022). Urinary Tract Infection. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29261874/

Daniels, A. M., Schulte, A. R., & Herndon, C. M. (2018). Interstitial cystitis: An update on the disease process and treatment. Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy, 32(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/15360288.2018.1476433

Garcia, M. R., & Wray, A. A. (2022). Sexually Transmitted Infections. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32809643/

Young, A., Toncar, A., & Wray, A. A. (2022). Urethritis. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30725967/

NURS 6512 Assignment Assessing the Genitalia and Rectum

Patients are frequently uncomfortable discussing with healthcare professional’s issues that involve the genitalia and rectum; however, gathering an adequate history and properly conducting a physical exam are vital. Examining case studies of genital and rectal abnormalities can help prepare advanced practice nurses to accurately assess patients with problems in these areas.

In this Lab Assignment, you will analyze an Episodic note case study that describes abnormal findings in patients seen in a clinical setting. You will consider what history should be collected from the patients, as well as which physical exams and diagnostic tests should be conducted. You will also formulate a differential diagnosis with several possible conditions.

To Prepare

Review the Episodic note case study your instructor provides you for this week’s Assignment. Please see the “Course Announcements” section of the classroom for your Episodic note case study.

Based on the Episodic note case study:

Review this week’s Learning Resources, and consider the insights they provide about the case study. Refer to Chapter 3 of the Sullivan resource to guide you as you complete your Lab Assignment.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:NURS 6512 Assignment Assessing the Genitalia and Rectum

Search the Walden library or the Internet for evidence-based resources to support your answers to the questions provided.

Consider what history would be necessary to collect from the patient in the case study.

Consider what physical exams and diagnostic tests would be appropriate to gather more information about the patient’s condition. How would the results be used to make a diagnosis?

Identify at least five possible conditions that may be considered in a differential diagnosis for the patient.

The Lab Assignment

Using evidence-based resources from your search, answer the following questions and support your answers using current evidence from the literature.

Analyze the subjective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation.

Analyze the objective portion of the note. List additional information that should be included in the documentation.

Is the assessment supported by the subjective and objective information? Why or why not?

Would diagnostics be appropriate for this case, and how would the results be used to make a diagnosis?

Would you reject/accept the current diagnosis? Why or why not? Identify three possible conditions that may be considered as a differential diagnosis for this patient. Explain your reasoning using at least three different references from current evidence-based literature.

Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION Discussion post minimum requirements: *The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas
QUALITY OF WRITING	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.	4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	0 (0%) – 3 (10%) Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
Total Points: 30

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION

Discussion post minimum requirements:

*The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas

QUALITY OF WRITING

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.

4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

0 (0%) – 3 (10%)

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Total Points: 30