Assignment: decision tree for neurological and musculoskeletal | NURS 6521 – Advanced Pharmacology | Walden University

PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AS INDICATED BELOW

1). ZERO (0) PLAGIARISM

2). ATLEAST 5 REFERENCES, NO MORE THAN 5 YEARS

3).  PLEASE SEE  ATTACHED RUBRIC DETAILS AND RECOMMENDED COURSE WRITING TEMPLATE AND APA 7 STYLE

4). Please review and follow the grading rubric details, and include each component in the assignment as required. Also, follow the APA writing rules and style, Title page, summary, Purpose statement, Conclusion. 

For your Assignment, your Instructor will assign you one of the decision tree interactive media pieces provided in the Resources. As you examine the patient case studies in this module’s Resources, consider how you might assess and treat patients presenting symptoms of neurological and musculoskeletal disorders. 

To Prepare

• Review the interactive media piece assigned. 
• Reflect on the patient’s symptoms and aspects of the disorder presented in the interactive media piece.
• Consider how you might assess and treat patients presenting with the symptoms of the patient case study you were assigned.
• You will be asked to make three decisions concerning the diagnosis and treatment for this patient. Reflect on potential co-morbid physical as well as patient factors that might impact the patient’s diagnosis and treatment.

Write a 1- to 2-page summary paper that addresses the following:

• Briefly summarize the patient case study you were assigned, including each of the three decisions you took for the patient presented.
• Based on the decisions you recommended for the patient case study, explain whether you believe the decisions provided were supported by the evidence-based literature. Be specific and provide examples. Be sure to support your response with evidence and references from outside resources.
• What were you hoping to achieve with the decisions you recommended for the patient case study you were assigned? Support your response with evidence and references from outside resources.
• Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with each of the decisions and the results of the decision in the exercise. Describe whether they were different. Be specific and provide examples.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Akkad is a 76 year old Iranian male who is brought to your office by his eldest son for “strange behavior.” Mr. Akkad was seen by his family physician who ruled out any organic basis for Mr. Akkad’s behavior. All laboratory and diagnostic imaging tests (including CT-scan of the head) were normal.

According to his son, he has been demonstrating some strange thoughts and behaviors for the past two years, but things seem to be getting worse. Per the client’s son, the family noticed that Mr. Akkad’s personality began to change a few years ago. He began to lose interest in religious activities with the family and became more “critical” of everyone. They also noticed that things he used to take seriously had become a source of “amusement” and “ridicule.”

Over the course of the past two years, the family has noticed that Mr. Akkad has been forgetting things. His son also reports that sometimes he has difficult “finding the right words” in a conversation and then will shift to an entirely different line of conversation.

SUBJECTIVE

During the clinical interview, Mr. Akkad is pleasant, cooperative and seems to enjoy speaking with you. You notice some confabulation during various aspects of memory testing, so you perform a Mini-Mental State Exam. Mr. Akkad scores 18 out of 30 with primary deficits in orientation, registration, attention & calculation, and recall. The score suggests moderate dementia.

MENTAL STATUS EXAM

Mr. Akkad is 76 year old Iranian male who is cooperative with today’s clinical interview. His eye contact is poor. Speech is clear, coherent, but tangential at times. He makes no unusual motor movements and demonstrates no tic. Self-reported mood is euthymic. Affect however is restricted. He denies visual or auditory hallucinations. No delusional or paranoid thought processes noted. He is alert and oriented to person, partially oriented to place, but is disoriented to time and event [he reports that he thought he was coming to lunch but “wound up here”- referring to your office, at which point he begins to laugh]. Insight and judgment are impaired. Impulse control is also impaired as evidenced by Mr. Akkad’s standing up during the clinical interview and walking towards the door. When you asked where he was going, he stated that he did not know. Mr. Akkad denies suicidal or homicidal ideation.

Diagnosis: Major neurocognitive disorder due to Alzheimer’s disease (presumptive)

RESOURCES

§ Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (2002). Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

 Decision Point One

Select what you should do:

 Decision Point One

Begin Exelon (rivastigmine) 1.5 mg orally BID with an increase to 3 mg orally BID in 2 weeks

RESULTS OF DECISION POINT ONE

• Client returns to clinic in four weeks
• The client is accompanied by his son who reports that his father is “no better” from this medication. He reports that his father is still disinterested in attending religious services/activities, and continues to exhibit disinhibited behaviors
• You continue to note confabulation and decide to administer the MMSE again. Mr. Akkad again scores 18 out of 30 with primary deficits in orientation, registration, attention & calculation, and recall

 Decision Point One

: Begin Aricept (donepezil) 5 mg orally at BEDTIME

RESULTS OF DECISION POINT ONE

• Client returns to clinic in four weeks
• The client is accompanied by his son who reports that his father is “no better” from this medication
• He reports that his father is still disinterested in attending religious services/activities, and continues to exhibit disinhibited behaviors
• You continue to note confabulation and decide to administer the MMSE again. Mr. Akkad again scores 18 out of 30 with primary deficits in orientation, registration, attention & calculation, and recall

Decision Point One

Begin Razadyne (galantamine) 4 mg orally BID

RESULTS OF DECISION POINT ONE

• Client returns to clinic in four weeks
• The client is accompanied by his son who reports that his father is “no better” from this medication
• He reports that his father is still disinterested in attending religious services/activities, and continues to exhibit disinhibited behaviors
• You continue to note confabulation and decide to administer the MMSE again. Mr. Akkad again scores 18 out of 30 with primary deficits in orientation, registration, attention & calculation, and recall

Decision Point Two

Select what you should do next:

 Decision Point Two

Increase Razadyne to 24 mg extended release daily

RESULTS OF DECISION POINT TWO

• Client returns to clinic in four weeks
• The client’s son accompanies the client to his appointment today. The client is in a wheelchair and is somewhat agitated
• You are informed by the son that his father has not taken his medication since he got out of the hospital. Apparently, about 7 days after starting the Galantamine extended release, the client began having seizures which resulted in a fall and fractured hip. The son reports that his father is agitated with everyone and is asking for help in treating his agitation

Decision Point Two

Discontinue Razadyne and begin Aricept (donepezil) 10 mg orally daily

RESULTS OF DECISION POINT TWO

• Client returns to clinic in four weeks
• The client is accompanied by his son for today’s appointment who informs you that he stopped giving his father the mew medication because after just a few doses, his father began experiencing appetite loss, followed by nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting

Decision Point Two

Discontinue Razadyne and begin Exelon (rivastigmine) 1.5 mg orally BID

RESULTS OF DECISION POINT TWO

• Client returns to clinic in four weeks
• Client’s son reports that the client is tolerating the medication well, but is still concerned that his father is no better
• He states that his father is still not interested in attending religious services with the family, and he is still concerned that his father is still easily amused by things he once found serious

Decision Point Three

Select what you should do next:

 Decision Point Three

Increase Exelon to 3 mg orally BID

Guidance to Student
Cholinesterase inhibitors can take months to demonstrate any stabilization in the degenerative course of Alzheimer’s disease. Since the client has had no side effects, it would be prudent to consider increasing the Exelon dose to 3 mg orally BID. Recall that the target dose of Exelon is 12 mg orally daily in divided doses, or a transdermal patch delivering 9.5 mg daily could be used. Slow titration of the drug toward a therapeutic dose will decrease the risk of side effects. These should be teaching points directed toward the client and his son.
You could maintain the current dose of Exelon and reevaluate at the next office visit, but since the client is having no side effects and the client has been on the current dose for at least 4 weeks, it would probably be advisable to increase at this time to facilitate the goal of arriving at a therapeutic dose of the medication.
It may be early to augment with Namenda. Maximization of the Exelon dose should first occur, then augmentation with an NMDA receptor antagonist would be appropriate, but Namenda should be started at 5 mg orally daily, and then titrated up to a maximum dose of 10 mg orally BID. Doses over 5 mg orally daily should be divided into two doses, or the drug can be switch to an extended release preparation.
Finally, it is important to note that changes in the MMSE should be evaluated over the course of months, not weeks. The absence of change in the MMSE after 4 weeks of treatment should not be a source of concern.

 Decision Point Three

Continue current dose of Exelon and reevaluate at next office visit

Guidance to Student
Cholinesterase inhibitors can take months to demonstrate any stabilization in the degenerative course of Alzheimer’s disease. Since the client has had no side effects, it would be prudent to consider increasing the Exelon dose to 3 mg orally BID. Recall that the target dose of Exelon is 12 mg orally daily in divided doses, or a transdermal patch delivering 9.5 mg daily could be used. Slow titration of the drug toward a therapeutic dose will decrease the risk of side effects. These should be teaching points directed toward the client and his son.
You could maintain the current dose of Exelon and reevaluate at the next office visit, but since the client is having no side effects and the client has been on the current dose for at least 4 weeks, it would probably be advisable to increase at this time to facilitate the goal of arriving at a therapeutic dose of the medication.
It may be early to augment with Namenda. Maximization of the Exelon dose should first occur, then augmentation with an NMDA receptor antagonist would be appropriate, but Namenda should be started at 5 mg orally daily, and then titrated up to a maximum dose of 10 mg orally BID. Doses over 5 mg orally daily should be divided into two doses, or the drug can be switch to an extended release preparation.
Finally, it is important to note that changes in the MMSE should be evaluated over the course of months, not weeks. The absence of change in the MMSE after 4 weeks of treatment should not be a source of concern.

 Decision Point Three

Augment with Namenda 10 mg orally at BEDTIME

Guidance to Student
Cholinesterase inhibitors can take months to demonstrate any stabilization in the degenerative course of Alzheimer’s disease. Since the client has had no side effects, it would be prudent to consider increasing the Exelon dose to 3 mg orally BID. Recall that the target dose of Exelon is 12 mg orally daily in divided doses, or a transdermal patch delivering 9.5 mg daily could be used. Slow titration of the drug toward a therapeutic dose will decrease the risk of side effects. These should be teaching points directed toward the client and his son.
You could maintain the current dose of Exelon and reevaluate at the next office visit, but since the client is having no side effects and the client has been on the current dose for at least 4 weeks, it would probably be advisable to increase at this time to facilitate the goal of arriving at a therapeutic dose of the medication.
It may be early to augment with Namenda. Maximization of the Exelon dose should first occur, then augmentation with an NMDA receptor antagonist would be appropriate, but Namenda should be started at 5 mg orally daily, and then titrated up to a maximum dose of 10 mg orally BID. Doses over 5 mg orally daily should be divided into two doses, or the drug can be switch to an extended release preparation.
Finally, it is important to note that changes in the MMSE should be evaluated over the course of months, not weeks. The absence of change in the MMSE after 4 weeks of treatment should not be a source of concern.