The practice of health care providers at all levels brings you into contact with people from a variety of faiths. This calls for knowledge and acceptance of a diversity of faith expressions.

The purpose of this paper is to complete a comparative ethical analysis of George’s situation and decision from the perspective of two worldviews or religions: Christianity and a second religion of your choosing. For the second faith, choose a faith that is unfamiliar to you. Examples of faiths to choose from include Sikh, Baha’i, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc.

In your comparative analysis, address all of the worldview questions in detail for Christianity and your selected faith. Refer to Chapter 2 of Called to Care for the list of questions. Once you have outlined the worldview of each religion, begin your ethical analysis from each perspective.

In a minimum of 1,500-2,000 words, provide an ethical analysis based upon the different belief systems, reinforcing major themes with insights gained from your research, and answering the following questions based on the research:

1. How would each religion interpret the nature of George’s malady and suffering? Is there a “why” to his disease and suffering? (i.e., is there a reason for why George is ill, beyond the reality of physical malady?)
2. In George’s analysis of his own life, how would each religion think about the value of his life as a person, and value of his life with ALS?
3. What sorts of values and considerations would each religion focus on in deliberating about whether or not George should opt for euthanasia?
4. Given the above, what options would be morally justified under each religion for George and why?
5. Finally, present and defend your own view.

Support your position by referencing at least three academic resources (preferably from the GCU Library) in addition to the course readings, lectures, the Bible, and the textbooks for each religion. Each religion must have a primary source included. A total of six references are required according to the specifications listed above. Incorporate the research into your writing in an appropriate, scholarly manner.

Use the empty outline and fill in each section with the information for your author’s claim. You will need at least 3 support points. In the Intro you need to write a solid author’s claim (thesis). You do not need to write complete sentences except for the author’s claim. This is an outline of sorts. You should find at least two articles to use as reference that could be used to substantiate your support. In the end you should have an empty outline filled and the citation for two articles that will add support to your author’s claim.

  

Humanities Test-Out 02 – Visual Art

Competency
Develop a vocabulary for criticizing, evaluating, and describing works of art.

For this assessment task, you are asked to act as an art critic and analyze a series of works. When art critics discuss art, they describe art works in terms of style and medium. Art critics interpret meanings of art and make judgements of a work’s validity to the importance of a piece in the larger context of art history and culture. Art critics also evaluate art in the context of aesthetics.

Please watch the presentation below as a refresher on this deliverable’s content. The presentation will not tell you everything you need to know to pass this test-out, but it should serve as a refresher.

Assessment 2 PPT (See attachment)

Competency

Develop a vocabulary for criticizing, evaluating, and describing works of art.

Instructions

For this competency, you will assume the role of a critic. View each piece of work listed below and analyze it as a piece of art, identifying key elements of the work and using terminology common to the discipline. Using a few concise paragraphs for each piece, your analysis should discuss each work as a critic would and include, using the proper vocabulary, what you think the work is about.

Grading Rubric (for each response)

0

1

2

3

4

Category

Not Submitted

No pass

Competence

Proficiency

Mastery

Elements

Not Submitted-0

Does not identify key elements of the piece of art-1

Identifies the key elements of that piece of art.-2

Identifies the key elements of that piece of art and explains them.-3

Identifies the key elements of that piece of art and explains them, referencing other works of art.-4

Vocabulary

Not Submitted-0

Does not use the vocabulary common to that field of art.-1

Uses the common vocabulary of that field of art.-2

Uses the common vocabulary of that field of art with explanation.-3

Uses the common vocabulary of that field of art with a detailed explanation.-4

Subject/Movement

Not Submitted-0

Does not offer an explanation as to what the piece is about or the movement the piece represents.-1

Explains what the piece is about or the movement the piece represents.-2

Explains what the piece is about or the movement the piece represents in detail.-3

Explains what the piece is about or the movement the piece represents in detail, referencing other works of art.-4

Coverage

No pieces discussed.-0

Pieces discussed, but not enough detail provided.-1

Pieces discussed, and details provided.-2

Pieces thoroughly discussed, and insightful details provided.-3

Pieces thoroughly discussed, and insightful details provided, making reference to additional works.-4

TITLE: NASAL FRACTURE

EXAMPLE: SOAP NOTE

  

Soap Note # Main Diagnosis ( Exp: H&P Note #3 DX: Hypertension)

Student Name

Miami Regional University

Date of Encounter:

Preceptor/Clinical Site:

Clinical Instructor: Dr. Rafael Camejo

  

Soap Note # Main Diagnosis ( Exp: Soap Note #3 DX: Hypertension)

PATIENT INFORMATION

Name: Mr. DT

Age: 68-year-old

Gender at Birth: Male

Gender Identity: Male

Source: Patient

Allergies: PCN, Iodine

Current Medications: 

· Atorvastatin tab 20 mg, 1-tab PO at bedtime

· ASA 81mg po daily

· Multi-Vitamin Centrum Silver

PMH: Hypercholesterolemia

Immunizations: Influenza last 2018-year, tetanus, and hepatitis A and B 4 years ago.

Preventive Care: Coloscopy 5 years ago (Negative) 

Surgical History: Appendectomy 47 years ago.

Family History: Father- died 81 does not report information

 Mother-alive, 88 years old, Diabetes Mellitus, HTN

Daughter-alive, 34 years old, healthy

Social History: No smoking history or illicit drug use, occasional alcoholic beverage consumption on social celebrations. Retired, widow, he lives alone.

Sexual Orientation: Straight

Nutrition History: Diets off and on, Does not each seafood 

Subjective Data:

Chief Complaint: “headaches” that started two weeks ago

Symptom analysis/HPI:

The patient is 65 years old male who complaining of episodes of headaches and on 3 different occasions blood pressure was measured, which was high (159/100, 158/98 and 160/100 respectively). Patient noticed the problem started two weeks ago and sometimes it is accompanied by dizziness. He states that he has been under stress in his workplace for the last month. Patient denies chest pain, palpitation, shortness of breath, nausea or vomiting.

Review of Systems (ROS)

CONSTITUTIONAL: Denies fever or chills. Denies weakness or weight loss. NEUROLOGIC: Headache and dizziness as describe above. Denies changes in LOC. Denies history of tremors or seizures. 

HEENT: HEAD: Denies any head injury, or change in LOC. Eyes: Denies any changes in vision, diplopia or blurred vision. Ear: Denies pain in the ears. Denies loss of hearing or drainage. Nose: Denies nasal drainage, congestion. THROAT: Denies throat or neck pain, hoarseness, difficulty swallowing.

RESPIRATORY: Patient denies shortness of breath, cough or hemoptysis.

CARDIOVASCULAR: No chest pain, tachycardia. No orthopnea or paroxysmal nocturnal

dyspnea.

GASTROINTESTINAL: Denies abdominal pain or discomfort. Denies flatulence, nausea, vomiting or

diarrhea.

GENITOURINARY: Denies hematuria, dysuria or change in urinary frequency. Denies difficulty starting/stopping stream of urine or incontinence.

MUSCULOSKELETAL: Denies falls or pain. Denies hearing a clicking or snapping sound.

SKIN: No change of coloration such as cyanosis or jaundice, no rashes or pruritus.

Objective Data:

VITAL SIGNS: Temperature: 98.5 °F, Pulse: 87, BP: 159/92 mmhg, RR 20, PO2-98% on room air, Ht- 6’4”, Wt 200 lb, BMI 25. Report pain 2/10.

GENERAL APPREARANCE: The patient is alert and oriented x 3. No acute distress noted. NEUROLOGIC: Alert, CNII-XII grossly intact, oriented to person, place, and time. Sensation intact to bilateral upper and lower extremities. Bilateral UE/LE strength 5/5.

HEENT: Head: Normocephalic, atraumatic, symmetric, non-tender. Maxillary sinuses no tenderness. Eyes: No conjunctival injection, no icterus, visual acuity and extraocular eye movements intact. No nystagmus noted. Ears: Bilateral canals patent without erythema, edema, or exudate. Bilateral tympanic membranes intact, pearly gray with sharp cone of light. Maxillary sinuses no tenderness. Nasal mucosa moist without bleeding. Oral mucosa moist without lesions,. Lids non-remarkable and appropriate for race.

Neck: supple without cervical lymphadenopathy, no jugular vein distention, no thyroid swelling or masses.

CARDIOVASCULAR: S1S2, regular rate and rhythm, no murmur or gallop noted. Capillary refill < 2 sec.

RESPIRATORY: No dyspnea or use of accessory muscles observed. No egophony, whispered pectoriloquy or tactile fremitus on palpation. Breath sounds presents and clear bilaterally on auscultation.

GASTROINTESTINAL: No mass or hernia observed. Upon auscultation, bowel sounds present in all four quadrants, no bruits over renal and aorta arteries. Abdomen soft non-tender, no guarding, no rebound no distention or organomegaly noted on palpation

MUSKULOSKELETAL: No pain to palpation. Active and passive ROM within normal limits, no stiffness.

INTEGUMENTARY: intact, no lesions or rashes, no cyanosis or jaundice.

ASSESSMENT:

Main Diagnosis

Essential (Primary) Hypertension (ICD10 I10): Given the symptoms and high blood pressure (156/92 mmhg), classified as stage 2. Once the organic cause of hypertension has been ruled out, such as renal, adrenal or thyroid, this diagnosis is confirmed (Codina Leik, 2015). Diagnosis is based on the clinical evaluation through history, physical examination, and routine laboratory tests to assess risk factors, reveal identifiable causes and detect target-organ damage, including evidence of cardiovascular disease (Domino et al,. 2017).

Differential diagnosis:

Ø Renal artery stenosis (ICD10 I70.1)

Ø Chronic kidney disease (ICD10 I12.9)

Ø Hyperthyroidism (ICD10 E05.90)

PLAN:

Labs and Diagnostic Test to be ordered:

· CMP

· Complete blood count (CBC)

· Lipid profile

· Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH)

· Urinalysis with Micro

· Electrocardiogram (EKG 12 lead)

Pharmacological treatment: 

· Hydrochlorothiazide tab 25 mg, Initial dose: 25 mg orally once daily. 

· Lisinopril 10mg PO Daily

Non-Pharmacologic treatment: 

· Weight loss

· Healthy diet (DASH dietary pattern): Diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat dairy products with reduced content of saturated and trans l fat

· Reduced intake of dietary sodium: <1,500 mg/d is optimal goal but at least 1,000 mg/d reduction in most adults

· Enhanced intake of dietary potassium

· Regular physical activity (Aerobic): 90–150 min/wk

· Tobacco cessation

· Measures to release stress and effective coping mechanisms.

Education

· Provide with nutrition/dietary information.

· Daily blood pressure monitoring log at home twice a day for 7 days, keep a record, bring the record on the next visit with her PCP

· Instruction about medication intake compliance. 

· Education of possible complications such as stroke, heart attack, and other problems.

· Patient was educated on course of hypertension, as well as warning signs and symptoms, which could indicate the need to attend the E.R/U.C. Answered all pt. questions/concerns. Pt verbalizes understanding to all

Follow-ups/Referrals

· Follow up appointment 1 weeks for managing blood pressure and to evaluate current hypotensive therapy.

· No referrals needed at this time.

References

Domino, F., Baldor, R., Golding, J., Stephens, M. (2017). The 5-Minute Clinical Consult 2017

(25th ed.). Print (The 5-Minute Consult Series).

Codina Leik, M. T. (2014). Family Nurse Practitioner Certification Intensive Review (2nd ed.). 

ISBN 978-0-8261-3424-0

NOTE: PLEASE APA FORMAT OF THE REFERENCE, AND ORIGINAL