Discussion question Discussion: Cardiovascular Alterations At least once a year, the media report on a seemingly healthy teenage athlete collapsing during a sports game and dying of heart complications. These incidents continue to outline the importance of physical exams and health screenings for teenagers, especially those who play sports. During these health screenings, examiners check for cardiovascular alterations such as heart murmurs because they can be a sign of an underlying heart disorder. Since many heart alterations rarely have symptoms, they are easy to miss if health professionals are not specifically looking for them. Once cardiovascular alterations are identified in patients, it is important to refer them to specialists who can further investigate the cause. Consider the following scenario: A 16-year-old male presents for a sports participation examination. He has no significant medical history and no family history suggestive of risk for premature cardiac death. The patient is examined while sitting slightly recumbent on the exam table and the advanced practice nurse appreciates a grade II/VI systolic murmur heard loudest at the apex of the heart. Other physical findings are within normal limits, the patient denies any cardiovascular symptoms, and a neuromuscular examination is within normal limits. He is cleared with no activity restriction. Later in the season he collapses on the field and dies. To Prepare · Review the scenario provided, as well as Chapter 25 in the Huether and McCance text. Consider how you would diagnose and prescribe treatment for the patient. · Select one of the following patient factors: genetics, ethnicity, or behavior. Reflect on how the factor you selected might impact diagnosis and prescription of treatment for the patient in the scenario. By Day 3 Post a description of how you would diagnose and prescribe treatment for the patient in the scenario. Then explain how the factor you selected might impact the diagnosis and prescription of treatment for that patient. Rubric to follow Outstanding Performance Excellent Performance Competent Performance Proficient Performance Room for Improvement Main Posting: Response to the discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. 44 (44%) - 44 (44%) Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s) is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. supported by at least 3 current, credible sources 40 (40%) - 43 (43%) Responds to the discussion question(s) is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth supported by at least 3 credible references 35 (35%) - 39 (39%) Responds to most of the discussion questi ...

1. Discussion question
Discussion: Cardiovascular Alterations
At least once a year, the media report on a seemingly healthy
teenage athlete collapsing during a sports game and dying of
heart complications. These incidents continue to outline the
importance of physical exams and health screenings for
teenagers, especially those who play sports. During these health
screenings, examiners check for cardiovascular alterations such
as heart murmurs because they can be a sign of an underlying
heart disorder. Since many heart alterations rarely have
symptoms, they are easy to miss if health professionals are not
specifically looking for them. Once cardiovascular alterations
are identified in patients, it is important to refer them to
specialists who can further investigate the cause.
Consider the following scenario:
A 16-year-old male presents for a sports participation
examination. He has no significant medical history and no
family history suggestive of risk for premature cardiac death.
The patient is examined while sitting slightly recumbent on the
exam table and the advanced practice nurse appreciates a grade
II/VI systolic murmur heard loudest at the apex of the heart.
Other physical findings are within normal limits, the patient
denies any cardiovascular symptoms, and a neuromuscular
examination is within normal limits. He is cleared with no
activity restriction. Later in the season he collapses on the field
and dies.
To Prepare
· Review the scenario provided, as well as Chapter 25 in the
Huether and McCance text. Consider how you would diagnose
and prescribe treatment for the patient.
· Select one of the following patient factors: genetics, ethnicity,
or behavior. Reflect on how the factor you selected might
impact diagnosis and prescription of treatment for the patient in
the scenario.

2. By Day 3
Post a description of how you would diagnose and prescribe
treatment for the patient in the scenario. Then explain how the
factor you selected might impact the diagnosis and prescription
of treatment for that patient.
Rubric to follow
Outstanding Performance
Excellent Performance
Competent Performance
Proficient Performance
Room for Improvement
Main Posting:
Response to the discussion question is reflective with critical
analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from
the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
44 (44%) - 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s)
is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative
of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module
and current credible sources.
supported by at least 3 current, credible sources
40 (40%) - 43 (43%)
Responds to the discussion question(s)
is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative
of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth
supported by at least 3 credible references
35 (35%) - 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the discussion question(s)

3. is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis
representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for
the module.
50% of post has exceptional depth and breadth
supported by at least 3 credible references
31 (31%) - 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s)
one to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially
addressed
is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and
synthesis
somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course
readings for the module.
post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references
0 (0%) - 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s)
lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria
lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis
does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings
for the module.
contains only 1 or no credible references
Main Posting:
Writing
6 (6%) - 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely

4. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors
Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
5.5 (5.5%) - 5.5 (5.5%)
Written clearly and concisely
May contain one or no grammatical or spelling error
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Written concisely
May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
4.5 (4.5%) - 4.5 (4.5%)
Written somewhat concisely
May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors
Contains some APA formatting errors
0 (0%) - 4 (4%)
Not written clearly or concisely
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style
Main Posting:
Timely and full participation
10 (10%) - 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely and full participation
posts main discussion by due date
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA

5. 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participation
First Response:
Post to colleague's main post that is reflective and justified with
credible sources.
9 (9%) - 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice
settings
responds to questions posed by faculty
the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates
synthesis and understanding of learning objectives
8.5 (8.5%) - 8.5 (8.5%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice
settings
7.5 (7.5%) - 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or
application to practice setting
6.5 (6.5%) - 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth
0 (0%) - 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth
First Response:
Writing
6 (6%) - 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues
Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by

6. two or more credible sources
Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English
5.5 (5.5%) - 5.5 (5.5%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues
Response to faculty questions are answered if posed
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by
two or more credible sources
Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to
colleagues
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible
sources
Response is written in Standard Edited English
4.5 (4.5%) - 4.5 (4.5%)
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective
professional communication
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed
Few or no credible sources are cited
0 (0%) - 4 (4%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective
Response to faculty questions are missing
No credible sources are cited
First Response:

7. Timely and full participation
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely and full participation
posts by due date
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participation
Second Response:
Post to colleague's main post that is reflective and justified with
credible sources.
9 (9%) - 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice
settings * responds to questions posed by faculty
the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates
synthesis and understanding of learning objectives
8.5 (8.5%) - 8.5 (8.5%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice
settings
7.5 (7.5%) - 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or
application to practice setting
6.5 (6.5%) - 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth
0 (0%) - 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth
Second Response:
Writing
6 (6%) - 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

8. Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by
two or more credible sources
Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English
5.5 (5.5%) - 5.5 (5.5%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues
Response to faculty questions are answered if posed
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by
two or more credible sources
Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to
colleagues
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible
sources
Response is written in Standard Edited English
4.5 (4.5%) - 4.5 (4.5%)
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective
professional communication
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed
Few or no credible sources are cited
0 (0%) - 4 (4%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective

9. Response to faculty questions are missing
No credible sources are cited
Second Response:
Timely and full participation
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely and full participation
Posts by due date
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participation
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6501_Week5_Discussion1_Rubric
Required reading
Huether, S. E., & McCance, K. L. (2017). Understanding
pathophysiology (6th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
· Chapter 23, “Structure and Function of the Cardiovascular and
Lymphatic Systems”
This chapter examines the circulatory system, heart, systemic
circulation, and lymphatic system to establish a foundation for
normal cardiovascular function. It focuses on the structure and
function of various parts of the circulatory system to illustrate
normal blood flow.
· Chapter 24, “Alterations of Cardiovascular Function”

10. This chapter presents the pathophysiology, clinical
manifestations, evaluation, and treatment of various
cardiovascular disorders. It focuses on diseases of the veins and
arteries, disorders of the heart wall, heart disease, and shock.
· Chapter 25, “Alterations of Cardiovascular Function in
Children”
This chapter examines cardiovascular disorders that affect
children. It distinguishes congenital heart diseases from
acquired cardiovascular disorders.
Hammer, G. D., & McPhee, S. J. (2019). Pathophysiology of
disease: An introduction to clinical medicine (8th ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
· Chapter 10, “Cardiovascular Disorders: Heart Disease”
This chapter begins by exploring the normal structure and
function of the heart. It then examines the etiology,
pathophysiology, and clinical manifestations of five heart
disorders: arrhythmias, congestive heart failure, valvular heart
disease, coronary artery disease, and pericardial disease.
Jacobsen, R. C., & Gratton, M. C. (2011). A case of
unrecognized prehospital anaphylactic shock.Prehospital
Emergency Care, 15(1), 61–66.
A Case of Unrecognized Prehospital Anaphylactic Shock by
Jacobsen, R. C., & Gratton, M. C., in Prehospital Emergency
Care, Vol. 15/Issue 1. Copyright 2011 by Taylor & Francis Inc.
Reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis Inc. via the
Copyright Clearance Center.
This article provides information relating to the diagnosis and
management of anaphylactic shock. It also explores difficulties
encountered when diagnosing uncommon clinical presentations

11. of anaphylactic shock.
Required Media
http://evolve.elsevier.com/huether
Optional Resources
American Heart Association. (2012). Retrieved
from http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/
Million Hearts. (2012). Retrieved
from http://millionhearts.hhs.gov/index.html
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. (2012). Retrieved
from http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/
Rubric for patho discussion question
Outstanding Performance
Excellent Performance
Competent Performance
Proficient Performance
Room for Improvement
Main Posting:
Response to the discussion question is reflective with critical
analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from
the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
44 (44%) - 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s)
is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative
of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module
and current credible sources.
supported by at least 3 current, credible sources

12. 40 (40%) - 43 (43%)
Responds to the discussion question(s)
is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative
of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth
supported by at least 3 credible references
35 (35%) - 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the discussion question(s)
is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis
representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for
the module.
50% of post has exceptional depth and breadth
supported by at least 3 credible references
31 (31%) - 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s)
one to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially
addressed
is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and
synthesis
somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course
readings for the module.
post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references
0 (0%) - 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s)
lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria

13. lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis
does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings
for the module.
contains only 1 or no credible references
Main Posting:
Writing
6 (6%) - 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely
Contains no grammatical or spelling errors
Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
5.5 (5.5%) - 5.5 (5.5%)
Written clearly and concisely
May contain one or no grammatical or spelling error
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Written concisely
May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
4.5 (4.5%) - 4.5 (4.5%)
Written somewhat concisely
May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors
Contains some APA formatting errors
0 (0%) - 4 (4%)
Not written clearly or concisely

14. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style
Main Posting:
Timely and full participation
10 (10%) - 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely and full participation
posts main discussion by due date
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participation
First Response:
Post to colleague's main post that is reflective and justified with
credible sources.
9 (9%) - 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice
settings
responds to questions posed by faculty
the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates
synthesis and understanding of learning objectives
8.5 (8.5%) - 8.5 (8.5%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice
settings
7.5 (7.5%) - 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or
application to practice setting
6.5 (6.5%) - 7 (7%)

15. Response is on topic, may have some depth
0 (0%) - 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth
First Response:
Writing
6 (6%) - 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues
Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by
two or more credible sources
Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English
5.5 (5.5%) - 5.5 (5.5%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues
Response to faculty questions are answered if posed
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by
two or more credible sources
Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to
colleagues
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible
sources
Response is written in Standard Edited English
4.5 (4.5%) - 4.5 (4.5%)
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective
professional communication

16. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed
Few or no credible sources are cited
0 (0%) - 4 (4%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective
Response to faculty questions are missing
No credible sources are cited
First Response:
Timely and full participation
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely and full participation
posts by due date
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participation
Second Response:
Post to colleague's main post that is reflective and justified with
credible sources.
9 (9%) - 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice
settings * responds to questions posed by faculty
the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates
synthesis and understanding of learning objectives
8.5 (8.5%) - 8.5 (8.5%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice
settings

17. 7.5 (7.5%) - 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or
application to practice setting
6.5 (6.5%) - 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth
0 (0%) - 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth
Second Response:
Writing
6 (6%) - 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues
Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by
two or more credible sources
Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English
5.5 (5.5%) - 5.5 (5.5%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues
Response to faculty questions are answered if posed
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by
two or more credible sources
Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to
colleagues
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible
sources

18. Response is written in Standard Edited English
4.5 (4.5%) - 4.5 (4.5%)
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective
professional communication
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed
Few or no credible sources are cited
0 (0%) - 4 (4%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective
Response to faculty questions are missing
No credible sources are cited
Second Response:
Timely and full participation
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely and full participation
Posts by due date
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participation
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6501_Week5_Discussion1_Rubric