NURS6501 Week 1 Discussion: Alterations in Cellular Processes

NURS6501 Week 1 Discussion: Alterations in Cellular Processes NURS6501 Week 1 Discussion: Alterations in Cellular Processes Discussion – Week 1/ Case Scenario: Cystic Fibrosis Example Paper Scenario: A mother brings her 6-month-old daughter to the HCP for evaluation of possible colic. The mother says the baby has had many episodes of crying after eating and, despite having a good appetite, is not gaining weight. The mother says the baby’s belly “gets all swollen sometimes.” The mother says the baby tastes “salty” when the mother kisses the baby. Further work up reveals a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis. The mother relates that her 23-month-old son has had multiple episodes of “chest congestion” and was hospitalized once for pneumonia. The mother wants to know what cystic fibrosis is and she also wants to know if she should have any more children. COLLAPSE Case Scenario: Cystic Fibrosis Cystic fibrosis is a hereditary ailment that progressively causes persistent respiratory and digestive systems, which limits the patient’s ability to breathe (Cutting, 2015). With this infection, the patient experiences a buildup of sticky mucus on the walls of the intestines, lungs, liver, and pancreas. This paper seeks to examine Cystic Fibrosis disease further, using the given case scenario to understand certain variables regarding the ailment. NURS6501 Week 1 Discussion: Alterations in Cellular Processes. ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS The disease attacks cells that produce mucus, digestive enzymes, and sweat. The progressive shortening of telomeres is a factor of multiple cell-intrinsic and cell-extrinsic pressures, that may encompass epigenetic alterations, and chronic mitogenic, signaling oxidative stresses, and the loss of tumor suppressors, among others (McCance, Huether, Brashers, & Rote, 2019). Patients affected by cystic fibrosis produce thick mucus that clogs tubes, passageways, and ducts, leading to life-threatening issues such as malnutrition, respiratory failure, and infections. A defective gene from both parents causes cystic fibrosis in their children (Horsley, Cunningham, & Innes, 2015). Proper nutrition and steps to limit thin mucus secretion and enhance its expectoration can help reduce the adverse effects of cystic fibrosis. As of the above description, the 6-month daughter suffers from cystic fibrosis that is responsible for salty-testing skin, shortness in breath, persistent coughing, reduced weight amidst growing appetite and wheezing. There is also the production of sticky mucus that blocks the pores that allow air exchange between the lung’s membrane and the blood. In the digestive system, the mucus inhibits the pancreas and the intestines from releasing enzymes, making it a challenge to absorb nutrients (Heltshe, et al., 2018). Despite the disease being prevalent across all ethnic groups, Caucasians from Northern Europe as well as those from families with a history of cystic fibrosis are at an increased risk. The patient in this case study should be screened for cystic fibrosis through genetic or blood tests, which helps to detect whether the child has a defective CFTR gene. With a blood test, it will be possible to determine whether the pancreas and liver of the child are optimally working. Furthermore, an immunoreactive Trypsinogen test is a screening process that determines the levels of IRT protein (Zemanick, et al., 2019). High levels of such protein are predictive of Cystic fibrosis. Conclusively, Cystic Fibrosis is a fatal disease largely influenced by genetic factors. The disease is largely characterized by a buildup of sticky mucus on the walls of the intestines, lungs, liver, and pancreas; giving the patients a salty taste. Although there is no cure, patients can benefit from the available treatment options that seek to alleviate the symptoms. References Cutting, G. R. (2015). Cystic fibrosis genetics: from molecular understanding to clinical application. Nature Reviews Genetics, 16(1), 45-56. Heltshe, S., Khan, U., Beckett, V., Baines, A., Emerson, J., Sanders, D., … Rosenfeld, M. (2018). Longitudinal development of initial, chronic and mucoid Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in young children with cystic fibrosis. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, 17(3), 341–347. doi: 10.1016/j.jcf.2017.10.008 Horsley, A., Cunningham, S., & Innes, J. A. (2015). Cystic fibrosis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McCance, K. L., Huether, S. E., Brashers, V. L., & Rote, N. S. (2019). Pathophysiology: the biologic basis for disease in adults and children. St. Louis: Elsevier. Zemanick, E., Burgel, P. R., Taccetti, G., Holmes, A., Ratjen, F., Byrnes, C. A., … Flume, P. A. (2019). Antimicrobial resistance in cystic fibrosis: A Delphi approach to defining best practices. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis. doi: 10.1016/j.jcf.2019.10.006. NURS6501 Week 1 Discussion: Alterations in Cellular Processes. Week 1—First Reply to D. L. Dalida, Thank you for your thorough explanation of the pathological processes involved in cystic fibrosis. One area that could be added to your explanation would be some additional details regarding the genetics of the condition. McCance and Huether (2019) provide information indicating that since cystic fibrosis is a recessive genetic condition, both parents would need to be carriers of the gene in order for their child to develop the illness. Bieth, Nectoux, Girardet, Gruchy, Mittre, Laurans, Guenet, Brouard, and Gerard (2020) provide a breakdown of the risk for two carriers to produce a child with cystic fibrosis indicating that there is a 25% risk of a child born to these parents having the condition. With any genetic condition, providing parents with this important information can assist in making decisions regarding family planning. References Bieth, E., Nectoux, J., Girardet, A., Gruchy, N., Mittre, H., Laurans, M., Guenet, D., Brouard, J., & Gerard, M. (2020). Genetic counseling for cystic fibrosis: A basic model with new challenges. Archives de Pédiatrie, 27(Supplement 1), S30–S34. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1016/S0929-693X(20)30048-8 McCance, K. L. & Huether, S. E. (2019). Pathophysiology: The biologic basis for disease in adults and children (8th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby/Elsevier. The Discussion Assignment – NURS6501 Week 1 Discussion: Alterations in Cellular Processes Photo Credit: Getty Images At its core, pathology is the study of disease. Diseases occur for many reasons. But some, such as cystic fibrosis and Parkinson’s Disease, occur because of alterations that prevent cells from functioning normally. Understanding of signals and symptoms of alterations in cellular processes is a critical step in diagnosis and treatment of many diseases. For the Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN), this understanding can also help educate patients and guide them through their treatment plans. For this Discussion, you examine a case study and explain the disease that is suggested. You examine the symptoms reported and explain the cells that are involved and potential alterations and impacts. To prepare: By Day 1 of this week, you will be assigned to a specific scenario for this Discussion. Please see the “Course Announcements” section of the classroom for your assignment from your Instructor. By Day 3 of Week 1 Post an explanation of the disease highlighted in the scenario you were provided. Include the following in your explanation: The role genetics plays in the disease. Why the patient is presenting with the specific symptoms described. The physiologic response to the stimulus presented in the scenario and why you think this response occurred. The cells that are involved in this process. How another characteristic (e.g., gender, genetics) would change your response. Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses. By Day 6 of Week 1 Respond to at least two of your colleagues on 2 different days and respectfully agree or disagree with your colleague’s assessment and explain your reasoning. In your explanation, include why their explanations make physiological sense or why they do not Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit! Submission and Grading Information Grading Criteria To access your rubric: Week 1 Discussion Rubric Post by Day 3 of Week 1 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 1 To Participate in this Discussion: Week 1 Discussion ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS NURS_6501_Discussion_Rubric Grid View List View Excellent Good Fair Poor Main Posting 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the Discussion question(s) with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Supported by at least three current, credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. NURS6501 Week 1 Discussion: Alterations in Cellular Processes 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the Discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One or 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 two credible sources. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the Discussion question(s) adequately. 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 one or no credible sources. 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 Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by Day 3. 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post main post by Day 3. First Response 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses 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. 13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. NURS6501 Week 1 Discussion: Alterations in Cellular Processes 0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses 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. 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. Total Points: 100 Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10