ihuman week 2

This course will require you to complete a series of case studies using the i-Human software application. The i-Human Patients (IHP) Case Player enables you to interact with virtual patients for the purpose of learning patient-assessment and diagnostic-reasoning skills. With IHP, you will be able to independently interview, examine, diagnose, and treat virtual patients and receive expert feedback on your performance.

The integumentary system is susceptible to a variety of diseases, conditions, and injuries, ranging from the bothersome but relatively innocuous bacterial or fungal infections that are categorized as disorders to skin cancer and severe burns, which can be life-threatening.

For this Case Study Assignment, you will examine your first case study and work with a patient with an integumentary condition. You will formulate a differential diagnosis, evaluate treatment options, and then create an appropriate treatment plan for the patient.

Resources

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

To prepare:

• Review this weeks Learning Resources to understand the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of integumentary conditions.

Assignment Requirements:

• Access i-Human from this weeks Learning Resources and review the assigned case study.
• Please note: You will complete i-Human cases in case review mode. This may differ from your previous course experience.
• Analyze the provided patient history, physical exam findings, and diagnostic test results to support clinical decision-making.
• Complete the assigned case study. For guidance on using i-Human, refer to the i-Human Graduate Programs Help link within the i-Human platform.
• You must follow the Management Plan Template (located in this weeks Learning Resources) when writing your treatment plan. Be sure to follow all directions and include each required section.
• Carefully review the grading rubric to understand how your assignment will be evaluated.
• Please note: You will not receive a score within the i-Human platform. This is different from some previous courses. All grading will occur in the Canvas classroom based on your submitted work and the rubric.
• Ensure that all responses are clear, evidence-based, and align with the rubric expectations. Submit the completed assignment in the required format and refer to the Management Plan Template for structure and guidance.

By Day 7

• Submit the written case study assignment as a Word document

submission information

Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.

1. To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK2Assgn+last name+first initial
2. Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
3. Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.

Rubric

NRNP_6531_Week2_iHuman_Assignment_Rubric

NRNP_6531_Week2_iHuman_Assignment_Rubric

CriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Problem Statement: Includes a clearly written problem statement that integrates subjective and objective data, effectively supporting the identified diagnosis.

10 to >6.0 pts

Proficient

The problem statement is clearly written in paragraph format and includes relevant subjective and objective data (e.g., history, vital signs, labs, physical exam) supporting the diagnosis. Demonstrates clear clinical reasoning, as would be presented to a preceptor.

6 to >2.0 pts

Competent

key components (e.g., objective data, exam findings, or rationale), limiting clarity or thoroughness.

2 to >0 pts

Novice

The problem statement is poorly written or incomplete; key clinical details and rationale are lacking.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Diagnoses: Correctly identify the primary diagnosis with its corresponding ICD-10 code and list 35 differential diagnoses, each with their own ICD-10 code. Describe the key clinical presentations that led to your selection of these differentials. Explain your diagnostic reasoning by detailing how each differential was considered and subsequently ruled out to arrive at the final diagnosis.

15 to >9.0 pts

Proficient

Correct primary diagnosis and ICD-10 code are identified. A comprehensive paragraph is provided including definition, causes, and symptoms of the diagnosis with clear rationale supported by patient-specific findings. Lists 35 differential diagnoses with ICD-10 codes, definitions, and typical presentations. Each is ruled out with appropriate reasoning. References are included and cited

9 to >3.0 pts

Competent

Primary diagnosis is correct and includes ICD-10 code. Differential diagnoses are listed (at least 2) but missing ICD-10 codes or include minimal explanation. Some rationale or prioritization may be unclear. Most codes are accurate but with minor errors or omissions.

3 to >0 pts

Novice

Primary diagnosis is incorrect or lacks an ICD-10 code. Differential list is too brief (fewer than 2) or missing ICD-10 codes. Rationales are lacking or incorrect. Few or no references cited. Diagnostic reasoning is unclear or unsupported. Codes are incorrect.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Identification and Application of Clinical Practice Guidelines: Identify the clinical practice guideline(s) used in diagnosing the primary condition. Explain how the guideline(s) informed your diagnostic decision-making, including key criteria for diagnosis and recommended assessments. Justify your approach by referencing specific guideline recommendations. Include any CPT codes associated with diagnostic testing used to support the diagnosis.

15 to >9.0 pts

Proficient

Clearly identifies appropriate, up-to-date clinical guidelines (with year and organization) and explains how they informed diagnostic decision-making, including key criteria and recommended assessments. CPT codes for relevant diagnostic procedures are included and appropriate. In-text citations are used.

9 to >3.0 pts

Competent

Guideline(s) are identified and applied, but explanation lacks depth or clarity. Missing CPT codes or not clearly connected to assessments. Citations are incomplete or inconsistent.

3 to >0 pts

Novice

Clinical guidelines are missing or poorly applied. CPT codes are not included or are incorrect. Explanation does not support diagnostic decision-making. Citations are missing.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Plan: Include appropriate, evidence-based medications (including over-the-counter options), written as complete prescriptions Address any current prescription medications the patient is taking. Additionally, necessary ancillary testing (labs/procedures/imaging) and appropriate referrals are clearly outlined and relevant to the patients condition. Include Office Visit code and associated CPT codes where necessary.

25 to >19.0 pts

Proficient

The management plan includes appropriate, evidence-based new and continued medications written as full prescriptions with purpose, dose, and frequency. Includes OTC medications if applicable. Outlines ancillary testing (labs/procedures), referrals, and codes (CPT, visit code) for today’s visit. All elements are evidence-based and well explained.

19 to >9.0 pts

Competent

Prescribed medications are appropriate but lack full evidence-based justification. One or two elements of the prescription such as dosage, frequency, or purpose are missing or unclear. Ancillary testing and referrals are included but incomplete or lacking detail. Patient education is present but missing key information or rationale.

9 to >0 pts

Novice

Prescribed medications are inappropriate or not supported by evidence. Three or more essential prescription elements such as medication name, dosage, frequency, or purpose are missing. Dosing is incorrect. Patient education is either inaccurate or missing critical information. The overall management plan is unclear, incomplete, or not relevant to the patients condition.

25 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

SDOH, Risks & Health Promotion: Address all aspects of Social Determinants of Health (SDOH); health promotion and risk factors related to the primary diagnosis for the patient.

10 to >6.0 pts

Proficient

Thoroughly addresses SDOH using defined categories (e.g., education, employment, access to care), includes a clear SDOH plan. Lists relevant patient-specific risk factors with citations. Includes age- and risk-based health promotion screenings with USPSTF citations.

6 to >2.0 pts

Competent

Addresses most SDOH elements and risk factors but missing one or more categories or supporting details.

2 to >0 pts

Novice

Multiple SDOH domains and risk factors are missing or insufficiently addressed. Screenings omitted or unsupported.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Education: Provide clear, evidence-based patient education on the diagnosis, treatment plan, medication use, lifestyle modifications, and symptom management. Ensure the information is patient-centered, culturally appropriate, and addresses health literacy to support adherence and self-management.

15 to >9.0 pts

Proficient

Provides comprehensive, patient-directed education using clear and empathetic language. Explains the primary diagnosis, treatment, medication instructions, lifestyle recommendations, and red flags. Written as if speaking directly to the patient.

9 to >3.0 pts

Competent

Education is provided but lacks personalization or misses key content areas (e.g., side effects, lifestyle advice).

3 to >0 pts

Novice

Education is overly general, missing essential components, or not appropriate for patient understanding.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Follow Up Instructions: Provide clear, detailed, and patient-centered follow-up instructions tailored to the diagnosis and treatment plan. Specify timing for follow-up visits, including when the patient should return for reassessment or ongoing management. Include red flag symptoms that require immediate medical attention and guidance on when to seek urgent or emergency care.

5 to >3.0 pts

Excellent

Follow-up instructions are thorough and detailed including who to follow up with, timeframe, referral details, and specific symptoms to prompt a return visit sooner. Includes red flag symptoms with instructions. Written clearly and specifically.

3 to >1.0 pts

Good

Follow-up instructions are mostly clear but missing specific details about red flags or timing.

1 to >0 pts

Poor

Follow up instructions are vague, incomplete, or missing red flag guidance.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Scholarly References: Includes a minimum of 3 scholarly, peer-reviewed references that are not older than 5 years. Include the most recent clinical practice guidelines if applicable. In-text citations present in APA format to support your work.

5 to >3.0 pts

Excellent

Includes at least 3 scholarly, peer-reviewed references published within 5 years. All are properly cited in-text and in APA format. Clinical practice guidelines are clearly cited if

3 to >1.0 pts

Good

Includes 2 scholarly references with citations. Missing guideline or minor citation issues.

1 to >0 pts

Poor

Fewer than 2 scholarly sources or missing citations. Guidelines are not cited if applicable.

5 pts

Total Points: 100

template is below will provide password when accept assignment