Would you mind reading Human Disease 5th edition 530-182-13162-22?
We can do Ovarian Cancer
Clinical Case Study #2
No unread replies.No replies.
Purpose
It is important for coders to be able to understand various disease processes, including how they present, are diagnosed and are treated. The case studies for this course, will provide opportunities to learn about the clinical aspects of a wide range of common conditions.
Target Outcomes
EXAMINE common disorders and diseases of the urinary system
EXAMINE diseases of the male and female reproductive systems
CLS B. CRITICAL THINKING/PROBLEM SOLVING- students demonstrate critical thinking skills to analyze situations and solve problems.
Instructions
Go to the Case Study #2 Sign-Up Wiki
Review the list of conditions,
Select a condition not already taken;
Claim your topic by adding your name to the sign-up wiki
Make sure you have claimed your topic BEFORE you complete your research.
No two individuals may select the same condition unless otherwise indicated; if two individuals select the same condition then the individual who posted first may proceed and any others will be required to select a new topic.
Research your condition and prepare your case study
Obtain the Case Study PowerPoint template Download Case Study PowerPoint template
Save the template where you are able to find it using the naming convention:
Case_#_YourLastName_Your First Name
You are invited to customize the look of the PowerPoint, however you should retain the overall content prompts
Complete all of the prompts for the case study
Post your case study to share it with the class
Reply to the main discussion
Type your Name and the Condition you will be presenting
Attach your PowerPoint Case Study
Submit the Post
Read and discuss each others’ cases
Discussion should be meaningful and directly relate to the conditions, diagnostics, treatments etc.;
Please do not critique or discuss the quality of the cases or the PowerPoint design, however if you find a case study particularly engaging or interesting, you are welcome to give it a like
The discussion will remain open for one week following the due date for the case posting
SAMPLE COMPLETED CASE STUDY Download SAMPLE COMPLETED CASE STUDY
The discussion portion of this assignment will be graded based on the content of your postings as well as the level of quality and participation in the interactive discussion. Each subsequent posting should include an open‐ended thought provoking question in order to promote further in-depth and meaningful discussion
Interactive discussion participation requirements are as follows:
Minimum Participation Expectation – full participation includes interactive discussion on a minimum of THREE (3) different CLINICAL TOPICS in addition to responding to postings for your topic.
Participation is interactive – there is evidence of reading and responding appropriately to peers in a conversational manner (i.e. there is a give and take exchange of information and ideas with conversations have a clear line of thought), postings take place early and often and occur on a minimum of 3 different days
Postings are value added – postings serve to contribute to learning and advance the discussion by posing thought provoking questions or positions, adding insight to the conversation, injecting personal opinion of topic being discussed, challenge status quo etc. Postings such as “interesting” and “nice job”, do not meet this requirement and will be excluded when grading level of participation. Postings that violate WCTC civility guidelines will be excluded from grading and could result in disciplinary action.
Grading Rationale:
You must meet or exceed all criteria to earn the given score:
100 points: All criteria is rated as Proficient with or without minor recommendations for improvement WHERE
Discussion Participation is rated as Exceptional AND
Professionalism is rated as Proficient
95 points: All criteria is rated as Proficient with or without minor recommendations for improvement WHERE
Discussion Participation is rated as Satisfactory AND
Professionalism is rated as Proficient
85 points: All criteria is rated as Satisfactory or Higher WHERE
Discussion Participation is rated as Minimal AND
Professionalism is rated as Satisfactory
75 points: All criteria are rated as Satisfactory or Higher WHERE
Discussion Participation is rated as Insufficient AND/OR
Professionalism is rated as Novice
0 points: One or more Criterion is rated as Insufficient AND/OR
Professionalism is rated below standards (maybe returned ungraded for revisions)
