Assessment Task 3: Extended Clinical Reasoning Case Study – Medical-Surgical Nursing
Unit Code: NRSG378 Unit Title: Principles of Nursing: Extended Clinical Reasoning Assessment Type: Individual Written Case Study Word Limit: 2,000 words (±10%) Weighting: 50% Due Date: Wednesday, 4 June 2025, 2:00 pm AEST via Turnitin on LEO Learning Outcomes Assessed: LO1: Critically analyse complex clinical scenarios using extended reasoning frameworks; LO2: Integrate pathophysiological, pharmacological, and psychosocial data into care planning; LO3: Prioritise ethical and evidence-based interventions for acutely unwell patients; LO4: Evaluate care outcomes and reflect on professional development; LO5: Demonstrate person-centred communication in multidisciplinary contexts.
Task Overview
Apply the Clinical Reasoning Cycle (Levett-Jones, 2018) to an acute medical-surgical case involving decompensated heart failure. Demonstrate extended reasoning by linking assessment data to pathophysiology, prioritising three nursing issues, and justifying interventions with ethical, legal, and evidence-based rationale. This task builds on prior units, focusing on the holistic impact of acute illness. Select if aligned with your placement; consult LIC if unallocated by Week 5. Avoid repeating prior cases.
Case Scenario: Mr. Reginald Harris – Acute Exacerbation of Congestive Heart Failure
Mr. Reginald Harris, 72-year-old widower, admitted to the medical ward via ED with acute decompensated heart failure (CHF). Presented with 48-hour history of increasing dyspnoea on minimal exertion, orthopnoea, and bilateral leg swelling after non-compliance with fluid restriction and missing diuretic doses. Lives alone; limited mobility due to osteoarthritis.
Past Medical History: Diagnosed CHF (ejection fraction 35%) five years ago; hypertension; type 2 diabetes (HbA1c 8.2%); ex-smoker (30 pack-years); BMI 28. Takes frusemide 40mg BD, ramipril 5mg daily, metoprolol 50mg BD, metformin 1g BD. Recent weight gain 4kg in one week.
Current Presentation (Day 1 Admission): Short of breath at rest, anxious, reports “can’t catch breath.”
Assessment Findings:
- Vital signs: Temp 37.2°C, RR 28/min (laboured), HR 110 bpm (irregular), SpO2 88% on 6L/min O2 via mask, BP 160/95 mmHg, Pain 4/10 (chest tightness), GCS 15/15.
- Physical: Pale, cool peripheries; bilateral crackles to mid-lung fields; 3+ pitting oedema to knees; JVP elevated 5cm; weight 85kg (baseline 81kg); dry mouth, urine output 20mL/hr via IDC.
Investigations: BNP 1,200 pg/mL (elevated); Na 128 mmol/L, K 3.2 mmol/L; ECG: AF with rate 110; CXR: pulmonary oedema; Echo: EF 32%.
Nursing Notes: IV cannula 20G left forearm; NBM for 4 hours pending GTN infusion; family visited, concerned about discharge planning; non-compliant with low-sodium diet per wife.
You are the Registered Nurse coordinating care.
Task Requirements
Use the Clinical Reasoning Cycle (Levett-Jones, 2018) to structure analysis. Process cues from scenario, prioritise issues, set goals, implement/evaluate interventions, and reflect. Incorporate multidisciplinary aspects (e.g., cardiology input) and address social determinants (e.g., isolation).
Required Sections:
- Introduction (200 words): Introduce scenario, framework, and overview of key issues (e.g., fluid overload, electrolyte imbalance, anxiety).
- Consider the Patient’s Situation (250 words): Detail history, admission context, and biopsychosocial factors (e.g., non-adherence, grief).
- Collect, Process, and Present Cues (300 words): Organise subjective/objective data; highlight abnormalities (e.g., hyponatraemia, AF). Link to pathophysiology.
- Process Information and Identify Three Nursing Issues (350 words): Prioritise based on ABCs/Maslow (e.g., impaired gas exchange, excess fluid volume, ineffective health management); justify with NMBA competencies.
- Establish Goals (200 words): Develop SMART goals for each issue (e.g., SpO2 >92% within 6 hours).
- Take Action – Nursing Interventions (500 words): Detail 2–3 evidence-based strategies per issue (e.g., oxygen titration, fluid monitoring, education); rationalise priority, link to data/history, address ethical/legal elements (e.g., capacity for consent).
- Evaluate Outcomes (100 words): Assess intervention impact; propose adjustments.
- Reflect on the Process (100 words): Analyse reasoning gaps; discuss learning for future practice.
Use 12+ peer-reviewed sources (2019–2025); Harvard referencing. Ensure person-centred language.
Rubric Criteria
| Criterion | High Distinction (85–100%) | Distinction (75–84%) | Credit (65–74%) | Pass (50–64%) | Fail (<50%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extended CRC Application (30%) | Seamless integration; deep pathophysiological/psychosocial links. | Strong framework use; minor linkages. | Adequate structure; some depth. | Basic cycle; fragmented. | Framework misused. |
| Issue Prioritisation (20%) | Three issues expertly prioritised with robust evidence. | Clear priorities; solid rationale. | Issues relevant; partial evidence. | Issues identified; weak links. | Issues irrelevant. |
| Interventions & Rationale (25%) | Innovative, ethical interventions; data-driven justification. | Evidence-based; good links. | Relevant actions; descriptive. | Basic interventions; limited rationale. | Unsafe or unsupported. |
| Evaluation & Reflection (15%) | Insightful outcomes analysis; profound practice implications. | Sound evaluation; reflective. | Basic evaluation; surface reflection. | Minimal analysis. | Absent. |
| Scholarship & Structure (10%) | Exemplary writing; flawless Harvard. | Coherent; few errors. | Clear; some issues. | Readable; errors. | Disorganised; poor sources. |
Submission Instructions
Label: “StudentID_NRSG378_Ass3_CaseStudy.docx”. Upload to LEO Turnitin. Late: 10%/day. Integrity: <15% similarity. Extensions: 48 hours prior with evidence. Q&A recording on LEO Week 9.
Learning Materials/Resources
Longhini, J., Gauthier, K., Konradsen, H., Palese, A., Kabir, Z. N. and Waldréus, N. (2025) The effectiveness of nursing interventions to improve self-care for patients with heart failure at home: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Nursing, 24(286). doi:10.1186/s12912-025-02867-7.
Yu, S., Wei, D. and Shi, N. (2023) Comprehensive nursing intervention improves quality of life and reduces hospitalization time and expense in elderly patients with severe heart failure undergoing rh-BNP treatment. American Journal of Translational Research, 15(8), pp.5239–5248.
Ordóñez-Piedra, J., Ponce-Blandón, J. A., Robles-Romero, J. M., Gómez-Salgado, J., Jiménez-Picón, N. and Romero-Martín, M. (2021) Effectiveness of the Advanced Practice Nursing interventions in the patient with heart failure: a systematic review. Nursing Open, 8(4), pp.1879–1891. doi:10.1002/nop2.847.
Marques, C. R. d. G. et al. (2022) Educational nursing intervention in reducing hospital readmission and the mortality of patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease, 9(12), p.420. doi:10.3390/jcdd9120420.
🇦🇺 Writing for Australian Universities
- AGLC4 (law), APA 7th, Harvard (Business), Vancouver (Health Sciences)
- Grading: HD (85-100%), D (75-84%), C (65-74%), P (50-64%)
- UniMelb, UNSW, ANU, Monash, UQ, UWA standards covered
- Australia uses British English spelling conventions
- Turnitin is widely used — all work is checked before delivery
Australia Pricing Guide
How It Works — 3 Simple Steps
Fill In Your Order Form
Provide your topic, academic level, deadline, referencing style, and any specific instructions or rubric criteria.
Get Matched with a Writer
We assign the best-qualified expert in your subject, familiar with Australia university requirements.
Receive & Review
Download your plagiarism-free paper, review it, and request any free revisions within 14 days if needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is this service plagiarism-free?
Yes. Every paper is written from scratch by a human expert to your specific instructions. We run all papers through professional plagiarism detection software and can include a Turnitin-equivalent report on request.
Do your writers know Australia academic standards?
Yes. Our writers are familiar with Australia's university systems, citation styles, and marking conventions. You'll get a paper that meets your institution's exact expectations.
What citation styles do you support for Australia?
We support all major citation styles required by Australia universities, including APA 7th, Harvard, Chicago/Turabian, MLA, OSCOLA, Vancouver, and IEEE.
Can you write just one chapter of my dissertation?
Yes. We write individual dissertation chapters — literature reviews, methodology, data analysis, introductions, conclusions — or the full manuscript from proposal to defence-ready submission.