Homework answers / question archive / Biol 107 Case Study Assignment (Worth 60 points) In this exercise, you will be given the opportunity to solve a medical mystery

Biol 107 Case Study Assignment (Worth 60 points) In this exercise, you will be given the opportunity to solve a medical mystery

Biology

Share With

---

Biol 107 Case Study Assignment

(Worth 60 points)

In this exercise, you will be given the opportunity to solve a medical mystery.

Below are three descriptions of three different illnesses. Each illness is caused by a type of bacteria (they are NOT caused by viruses).

Choose ONE of the three cases described below. Then determine which type of bacteria caused that illness and complete the assignment by following the outlined guidelines:

A. Write a typed, well-constructed (complete sentences, proper grammar) report of not more than three double spaced page (4 points for construction of paper, grammar, and spelling). 

Answer each of the 6 questions below- make sure you devote at least one paragraph to answering each one (8 points foreach question).

1. What microorganism causes this disease? Make sure to give the name of the bacteria in proper binomial nomenclature and discuss any virulence factors or specific traits of this bacteria that influences the disease. 

2. What is your diagnosis (i.e. what is the disease), and what specific features within the case were critical to your diagnosis of this disease?

3. How is this disease transmitted?

4. How is the disease treated? Make sure to be specific on types of treatments used and timing of treatment needed. 

5. What symptoms might the patient develop if the disease is not treated?

6. What is the prognosis with treatment?

 

B. (8 points) Include a reference section with at least 4 citations including at least one published reference. Use resources such as microbiology text books, encyclopedias, HCC Library databases (e.g. Pro Quest Biology, Pro Quest Nursing) journals and online medical and government (ie CDC) sites to research these questions.

Indicate the source of information you found in APA formatting.

• Do not forget to include in-text and parenthetic citations every time you borrow someone’s idea and use information from a source, even if you paraphrased it. Be sure to include the publication date, when applicable.
  • Not having in-text or parenthetical citations is an academic honesty violation. 

• Comment on the reliability of the source (why you think this source is reliable) under each reference in a bibliography at the end of your document.

 

Submissions need to be in either .doc, .docx, or .pdf format.

 

All references must be cited, and direct quotes from the references must be indicated as such, using quotation marks. However, in science writing, direct quotes are seldom used. Instead you need to paraphrase the information in the reference, and supply the citation. Substantial use of direct quotes or quoting more than one sentence at a time will result in a reduction of points. 

In the case of plagiarism, all students involved will receive a “0” on this assignment. Thereafter, plagiarism will be handled according to the College’s Academic Honesty Policy, with possible failure of the course and suspension from the College.

 

Here are the cases for you to solve remember that you just have to choose ONE of the following cases to discuss in your Case Study. I hope that you enjoy this exercise!!

 

1. Monique leaves her rural home in New Mexico and goes to the doctor in the nearby town after having a persistent fever and chills for about a week. She explains to her doctor that she has also felt very weak and has experienced a lot of pain in her groin and in her stomach. The doctor examines her and observes that the lymph nodes in her neck, arm pit, and groin are severely swollen and are tender to the touch. Her fingers and toes are also showing signs of blackening. The doctor asks her if she has any pets within the house and whether or not they have received flea and tick medication. Monique explains that she has three cats and admits to being a few months behind in providing them their normal preventative medications.

2. Thomas was excited to eat the tomatoes from his first attempt at home canning. He opened the jar lid to look over the tomatoes and didn’t observe any visible signs of spoilage, so he used them to cook a quick pasta dish.  By the next afternoon, he started to experience blurred vision and a weakness in his facial muscles. When his tongue started to feel thick to the point of making it difficult to swallow and even breath, he went to the emergency room. The doctors asked him about the foods he had eaten during the past couple days and then took samples of his blood and stool for diagnostic tests. 

3. Clarissa, a 19 year old college student, went to see her gynecologist after experiencing some unusual vaginal discharge and bleeding between her period. Her doctor asked if she was sexually active and for how long. Clarissa explained that she had only been sexually active with her significant other for a few weeks and only had vaginal sex with her partner. The doctor conducted a physical examination and observed inflammation within the cervix with an a mucopurulent endocervical discharge. The doctor collected an endocervical swab specimen during her examination. From a smear of this specimen, a Gram-negative diplococci bacteria was identified. Small, mucoid, grayish-white colonies were observed on Thayer-Martin agar. Further tests were conducted to show that this bacteria was positive for oxidase reduction and negative for nitrate reduction. The bacteria produced an acidic product with glucose fermentation, but did not ferment lactose, maltose, fructose or sucrose. The doctor also ordered nucleic acid amplification testing of the collected specimen for further diagnosis.

 

Rubric

Case Study on Pathogens (1)

Case Study on Pathogens (1)

Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWhat microorganism causes this disease?	8.0 pts Complete and accurate. Exceptional / Excellent: objectively worded, and supported with substantial and relevant information. The question is answered with a wealth of relevant details. 6.0 pts Well-done / Above Average: appropriate, and well supported. Content is both adequate and appropriate, providing examples and illustrations to support all generalizations. However, contains some mistakes or is missing a full description. 4.0 pts Substantial content is included, but it is inaccurate to the case chosen OR an incomplete description of the correct microorganism. 2.0 pts Needs Improvement / Unsatisfactory: Some content is provided, but is not correct and is very limited in substance. 0.0 pts No content provided.	8.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWhat is your diagnosis, and what features of the case were critical to your diagnosis?	8.0 pts Complete and accurate. Exceptional / Excellent: objectively worded, and supported with substantial and relevant information. The question is answered with a wealth of relevant details. 6.0 pts Well-done / Above Average: appropriate, and well supported. Content is both adequate and appropriate, providing examples and illustrations to support all generalizations. However, contains some mistakes or is missing a full description. 4.0 pts Substantial content is included, but it is inaccurate to the case chosen OR an incomplete description of the correct microorganism. 2.0 pts Needs Improvement / Unsatisfactory: Some content is provided, but is not correct and is very limited in substance. 0.0 pts No content provided.	8.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeHow is this disease transmitted?	8.0 pts Complete and accurate. Exceptional / Excellent: objectively worded, and supported with substantial and relevant information. The question is answered with a wealth of relevant details. 6.0 pts Well-done / Above Average: appropriate, and well supported. Content is both adequate and appropriate, providing examples and illustrations to support all generalizations. However, contains some mistakes or is missing a full description. 4.0 pts Substantial content is included, but it is inaccurate to the case chosen OR an incomplete description of the correct microorganism. 2.0 pts Needs Improvement / Unsatisfactory: Some content is provided, but is not correct and is very limited in substance. 0.0 pts No content provided.	8.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeHow is the disease treated?	8.0 pts Complete and accurate. Exceptional / Excellent: objectively worded, and supported with substantial and relevant information. The question is answered with a wealth of relevant details. 6.0 pts Well-done / Above Average: appropriate, and well supported. Content is both adequate and appropriate, providing examples and illustrations to support all generalizations. However, contains some mistakes or is missing a full description. 4.0 pts Substantial content is included, but it is inaccurate to the case chosen OR an incomplete description of the correct microorganism. 2.0 pts Needs Improvement / Unsatisfactory: Some content is provided, but is not correct and is very limited in substance. 0.0 pts No content provided.	8.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWhat symptoms might the patient develop if the disease is not treated?	8.0 pts Complete and accurate. Exceptional / Excellent: objectively worded, and supported with substantial and relevant information. The question is answered with a wealth of relevant details. 6.0 pts Well-done / Above Average: appropriate, and well supported. Content is both adequate and appropriate, providing examples and illustrations to support all generalizations. However, contains some mistakes or is missing a full description. 4.0 pts Substantial content is included, but it is inaccurate to the case chosen OR an incomplete description of the correct microorganism. 2.0 pts Needs Improvement / Unsatisfactory: Some content is provided, but is not correct and is very limited in substance. 0.0 pts No content provided.	8.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWhat is the prognosis with treatment?	8.0 pts Complete and accurate. Exceptional / Excellent: objectively worded, and supported with substantial and relevant information. The question is answered with a wealth of relevant details. 6.0 pts Well-done / Above Average: appropriate, and well supported. Content is both adequate and appropriate, providing examples and illustrations to support all generalizations. However, contains some mistakes or is missing a full description. 4.0 pts Substantial content is included, but it is inaccurate to the case chosen OR an incomplete description of the correct microorganism. 2.0 pts Needs Improvement / Unsatisfactory: Some content is provided, but is not correct and is very limited in substance. 0.0 pts No content provided.	8.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResearch and Documentation	8.0 pts Exceptional / Excellent: Sources used are relevant, substantial, and authoritative, demonstrating creativity and scholarly research. Information is introduced and incorporated smoothly and appropriately. Documentation is clear and free of errors. 6.0 pts Well-done / Above Average: Sources are generally relevant, authoritative, and appropriate. Information is relevant and is usually incorporated correctly. In-text citations and References or Works Cited page are generally correct. 4.0 pts Passing / Satisfactory: Sources are adequate, but may be too general. Information is occasionally weakly incorporated or is unconnected to the content of the essay. Documentation is generally close to proper APA formatting, but may contain some minor errors. 2.0 pts Needs Improvement / Unsatisfactory: Sources are lacking or inappropriate. Information from sources is not adequately incorporated into the body of the essay. Documentation is not close to proper APA formatting. 0.0 pts No full references and/or No in-text citations, which also results in receiving a 0 on the entire assignment as it is an academic honesty violation.	8.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConstruction of the Paper	4.0 pts Well-written, with complete sentences, and proper grammar. 2.0 pts Well-written but in need of proofreading. 0.0 pts Poorly written, with sentence fragments, subject-verb agreement problems, improper scientific name formatting, and/or excess use of direct quotations rather than paraphrasing.	4.0 pts