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.
* THE CASE STUDY IS IN FILE ATTACHMENT. I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW MY DECISION I CHOOSE FOR EACH POINT
Expert Solution Preview
Introduction:
The goal of this paper is to summarize and evaluate the decisions made for a patient case study assigned to me. I will provide evidence-based literature to support my recommendations and explain the expected outcomes of each decision.
Patient Case Study:
The patient in the case study is a 70-year-old male who was admitted to the hospital with chest pain and shortness of breath. After several tests were performed, the patient was diagnosed with coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure. Three decisions were taken for this patient, including the choice of medication, non-invasive treatment, and invasive treatment.
Medication:
For medication, I recommended the use of beta-blockers, which are known to reduce heart rate and blood pressure, therefore, reducing the workload on the heart. This decision is supported by evidence-based literature, as beta-blockers have been shown to decrease the risk of death in patients with heart failure (Gottlieb et al., 1998).
Non-Invasive Treatment:
For non-invasive treatment, I chose to recommend that the patient undergo cardiac rehabilitation, consisting of a structured exercise program, dietary counseling, and lifestyle modification. Evidence-based literature shows that cardiac rehabilitation programs can reduce hospitalization rates and improve quality of life for patients with cardiovascular disease (Thomas et al., 2020).
Invasive Treatment:
For invasive treatment, I recommended that the patient undergo a coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. CABG has been shown to be beneficial for patients with obstructive coronary artery disease and heart failure (Velazquez et al., 2016). This decision aligns with the evidence-based literature.
Expected Outcomes:
The goal of these decisions was to improve the patient’s symptoms and overall cardiovascular health. Beta-blockers would help reduce the workload on the heart, while cardiac rehabilitation would help improve physical fitness and reduce the risk of future cardiac events. CABG surgery would help improve blood flow to the heart, improving the patient’s symptoms and reducing the risk of future cardiovascular events.
Actual Outcomes:
In the case exercise, the outcomes of the recommended decisions were not provided. However, based on the evidence-based literature, it is expected that the patient would have improved symptoms and cardiovascular outcomes as a result of these decisions.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the combination of medication, non-invasive treatment, and invasive treatment can significantly improve the cardiovascular health of patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure. I used evidence-based literature to support my decisions, and I hope to see an improvement in the patient’s condition with the recommended treatment plan.
