Nursing Case Study
There is a case study that I completed my choices for and now it must be in summary answering the questions provided to you.
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.
Needs to be in APA format with title page and reference page
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE !!
Case Study Summary
Following the previous doctor’s reports, there are chances that the patient claims these pains to receive narcotics to get high, but based on how the case is, the patient is indeed experiencing pain. Based on the patient’s interview, it is evident that he has developed RPD in that the clamping of the nerve appeared during the interview, which clearly shows the pain the patient is going through.
The decisions made were to continue with medication and increase the dose to 125 milligrams, Elavil dose should be reduced to 75mg, and reduce amitriptyline dose to 75mg during bedtime since he does not like the results of using the drugs. It would help since the patient might be affected mentally during the day with the outcomes of the drugs. The second decision was to continue with the medication and increase all the doses to 125mg during bedtime to reduce the pain in his body, which will prompt a checkup after four weeks. Since it affects his weight, he states that he has increased weight since using the medication. The last decision is to continue with the Elavil dose of 125mg and see a life coach doctor in that he has issues proving to society and his wife based on his condition, and he might have issues to do with the diet, which escalates his weight increase.
The decisions made have a greater probability of working in that the nature of the patient depicts that there is trouble in his subconscious mind. However, many doctors said he needed a psychiatrist, but for the wrong reasons. The patient is in true pain, but what escalates it is the mental health that he has developed. Most of the patients diagnosed with RPD develop PTSD in that they had a better life before the tragedy, and they find it difficult to cope with the new life and concentrate on their medication. Many studies reveal that the process of medication gives the patient a belief that life has changed (Yao et al., 2019). For instance, the patient criticizes using a wheelchair, which there is no issue with, but the patient might be escalating the pain himself with the need to show society that he is okay. The medication prescription would help in that the patient does not want medication due to the side effects. The best recommendation that I believe would work is to see a life coach doctor advise him best on how to accept is his situation.
Achievements from the Decisions
The medication given through the decision is hope that the patient will heal and eventually return to his life if he sets his mind on medication and leaves out the societal pressure. The medication best serves him, and the only thing that stops him from getting better is the life that he lives. He was left by his wife, which means that he is stressed by the condition of his life, making him force the medication to take place effectively. According to research, many patients assigned Elavil and amitriptyline experienced several challenges. These include drowsiness, dry mouth, dizziness, blurred vision, and constipation, making the patient lose interest in the medication (Kasa et al., 2020). The main purpose of managing these issues is to control the dosage and the time to take the medication to relieve the patient from the effects. Based on this perspective, it was necessary to reduce amitriptyline and Elavil and be taken in large amounts during the night since the body is less active (Luan et al., 2018). Through this acquisition, the patient will experience fewer effects if the amount of milligrams needed to be taken in a day is satisfied.
Each decision has a reason and a goal to achieve, whereas the first decision was to reduce the intake of amitriptyline and Elavil due to the side effects experienced by the patient. Based on this perspective, the patient claims several dizziness issues after taking the medication. Decision two was to increase all the medication during bedtime since the patient will experience fewer effects from the drugs. It is because the patient needs to get fit at a high pace without any changes in his body. The last decision was to ensure that his mental health is considered to accept his situation and concentrate on the medication. It is because the patient has been suffering for seven years, which the probability of experiencing PTSD is very high.
Kasa, A. S., Workineh, Y., Ayalew, E., & Temesgen, W. A. (2020). Low back pain among nurses working in clinical settings of Africa: systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 years of studies. BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 21, 1-11.
Luan, H. D., Hai, N. T., Xanh, P. T., Giang, H. T., Van Thuc, P., Hong, N. M., & Khue, P. M. (2018). Musculoskeletal disorders: prevalence and associated factors among district hospital nurses in Haiphong, Vietnam. BioMed research international, 2018.
Yao, Y., Zhao, S., An, Z., Wang, S., Li, H., Lu, L., & Yao, S. (2019). The associations of work style and physical exercise with the risk of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in nurses. International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health, 32(1), 15-24.