Nursing Assignment Acers

NURS 6630 Wk 10: An Elderly Iranian Man with Alzheimer’s Disease

NURS 6630 Wk 10: An Elderly Iranian Man with Alzheimer’s Disease

NURS 6630 Wk 10: An Elderly Iranian Man with Alzheimer’s Disease

An Elderly Iranian Man with Alzheimers’s Disease Sample Student Paper

Alzheimer’s disease is a neurological condition that develops over time and gets worse with time. It is challenging for those who have this disease to recall recent occurrences. As the disease progresses, the patient experiences more symptoms, including mood swings, linguistic difficulties, behavioral issues, disorientation, and motivational decline. A person’s inability to manage self-care is another sign that they are predisposed to the condition (Kales et al., 2019). Looking at the case study involving an 86-year- old Iranian man, his symptoms suggest that he suffers from the disorder. Even his family reported that he was fond of forgetting things and this can be confirmed by looking at the background information. Again, the subjective information, principally, the mini-mental state exam (MMSE) revealed that he had moderate dementia and this relates his mental status exam that showed that his judgment and insights were impaired. This paper presents various decisions that are aimed at promoting his cognitive functioning.

Background Information

The client in the case is a 76-year-old Iranian male identified as Mr. Akkad aged who came to the clinic being accompanied by his son following his strange behavior. The family physician ruled out potential organic basis, and the imaging along with the laboratory tests were normal. His son reported that his father acted strangely that has become intense over the two years. He added that his father started being disengaged from the religious activities with the family and becomes critical of every member of the family. Unfortunately, what he perceives as being serious becomes his source of ridicule and amusement. His son added that it has been difficult for the client to remember current things to an extent, he finds it difficult to identify the right words in a conversation and would sometimes even change the conversation, promptly.

Decision #1

After analyzing the background, subjective, in conjunction with the objective data of the patient, the PMHNP decided to present the patient with Aricept 5mg orally BID that was to be taken prior to getting to bed. The physician opted for this medication because it is normally used as a startup medication for patients with Alzheimer’s disease and so it is considered as a startup medication alongside being used as a progressive medication. After subjecting the patient to this decision, the PMHNP hoped to see a slight improvement in the health of the patient in the sense the medication has been designed to reduce the disorder symptoms (Kales et al., 2019). In contrary to the anticipated results, four weeks after adhering the decision, the patient was accompanied by his son back to the clinic who reported that he had not noticed any improvement in his father. His son stated that his father was still disengaged from religious activities.

Furthermore, the confabulation of the patient read 18 out of 30 in the MMSE the same results he scored before being engaged in the decision. Certainly, the patient did not respond to the medication which suggests nonalignment between the anticipated results with the real outcome.

Decision #2

Following the results of the previous decision, it would be necessary for the physician to introduce the patient to a new decision which, specifically, entailed increasing the Aricept dosage to Aricept 10mg orally BID. So, in this decision, the physician augmented the drug dosage for the patient to Aricept 10mg orally BID that was to be taken prior going to bed. By increasing the drug dosage, I hoped the health condition of the patient would improve gradually as the patient may even stay for some months for him to recover from the illness (Nowrangi, Lyketsos, & Rosenberg, 2015). This nearly matched the real results because the outcome showed that the patient is tolerating the medication only that his son is still not comfortable with the condition of his father. Nevertheless, his son reports that the patient has started attending religious services, an act that makes his family happy. This suggests that the patient has started responding to the medication.

Decision #3

After learning about the potentiality of the previous decision, I felt that it is necessary to maintain the same approach and this will entail maintaining Aricept 10mg orally BID for the patient. When using Aricept pharmacological agent to treat a patient, the physicians are recommended to present a maximum of Aricept 10mg orally BID as no piece of evidence has confirmed about the potentiality of Aricept on a patient when its dosage exceeds Aricept 10mg orally BID. Increasing the dosage beyond the recommended drug dosage may see the patient suffer some side effects associated with the drug (Berry & Amp, 2017). After adhering this decision, I hoped to see further improvement in the health condition of the patient. This would be by hearing from his son about his increased engagement in religious activities. Certainly, this nearly matched the real results where the response of the patient to the medication was positive, though, it gradual.

Ethical Considerations

The physicians, especially, those who deal with their patients vulnerable to various cognitive health complications usually face a hard time in the course of dealing with their patients. As a way of managing such constraints, ethical considerations have been developed and then, the physicians are challenged to engage these considerations when dealing with their patients. Proper administration is the first ethical consideration where the physicians are advised to adhere to the directives that have been set for them when prescribing medications to their patients. Proper prescription is another ethical consideration where the physician is advised to prescribe the right drug dosage to the patient (Heneka et al., 2015). Based on this consideration, a physician is encouraged to modify the drug dosage based on how the patient responds to the medication. To be specific, it may be necessary for the physician to augment the drug dosage if the patient is responding positively and reduce the drug dosage or even change the medication if the patient suffers side effects associated with the medication.

Conclusion

Alzheimer’s is a neurodegenerative disorder that advances slowly but, becomes potential over time. People with the disorder find it difficult to recall current events. Some symptoms evident in such people are mood swings, motivation loss, and being disoriented among other disorder symptoms. While various medications have been designed to treat the disorder, the physicians are encouraged to stick to Aricept following its potentiality in relieving the disorder symptoms (Heneka et al., 2015). However, they should not introduce a higher drug dosage to the patient as it may predispose the patient to serious side effects that may affect the health of the patient, potentially. That said, the physician should subject their patients to a low drug dosage when introducing them to such drugs to find out how their bodies respond to the medication.

References

Heneka, M. T., Carson, M. J., El Khoury, J., Landreth, G. E., Brosseron, F., Feinstein, D. L., … & Herrup, K. (2015). Neuroinflammation in Alzheimer’s disease. The Lancet Neurology, 14(4), 388-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(15)70016-5

Berry, B., & Apesoa-Varano, E. C. (2017). Berry, B., & Apesoa-Varano, E. C. (2017). Medication takeovers: Covert druggings and behavioral control in Alzheimer’s. Social Science & Medicine, 188, 51-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.07.003

Kales, H. C., Lyketsos, C. G., Miller, E. M., & Ballard, C. (2019). Management of behavioral and psychological symptoms in people with Alzheimer’s disease: an international Delphi consensus. International Psychogeriatrics, 31(1), 83-90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610218000534

Nowrangi, M. A., Lyketsos, C. G., & Rosenberg, P. B. (2015). Principles and management of neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer’s dementia. Alzheimer’s research & therapy, 7(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-015-0096-3

The Assignment-nurs 6630 wk 10 Instructions

The Alzheimer’s Association defines dementia as “a general term for a decline in mental ability severe enough to interfere with daily life” (Alzheimer’s Association, 2016). This term encompasses dozens of cognitive disorders of impaired memory formation, recall, and communication. The care and treatment of clients with dementia is dependent on multiple factors, including the stage of dementia, comorbidities, family support, and even the care setting. In your role, as the psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner, you must be prepared to not only treat clients with these various cognitive disorders, but also the multiple behavioral issues that often accompany them. For this Assignment, as you examine the client case study in this week’s Learning Resources, consider how you might assess and treat clients presenting with dementia.

Reference: Alzheimer’s Association. (2016). What is dementia? Retrieved from http://www.alz.org/what-is-dementia.asp

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CUSTOM NURS6630

Learning Objectives

Students will:

  1. Assess client factors and history to develop personalized therapy plans for clients with dementia
  2. Analyze factors that influence pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes in clients requiring therapy for dementia
  3. Evaluate efficacy of treatment plans
  4. Analyze ethical and legal implications related to prescribing therapy for clients with dementia

Learning Resources

Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings

Note: All Stahl resources can be accessed through the Walden Library using this link. This link will take you to a log-in page for the Walden Library. Once you log into the library, the Stahl website will appear.

Stahl, S. M. (2013). Stahl’s essential psychopharmacology: Neuroscientific basis and practical applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

To access the following chapter, click on the Essential Psychopharmacology, 4th ed tab on the Stahl Online website and select the appropriate chapter. Be sure to read all sections on the left navigation bar for each chapter.

  • Chapter 13, “Dementia and Its Treatment”

Stahl, S. M. (2014b). The prescriber’s guide (5th ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

To access information on the following medications, click on The Prescriber’s Guide, 5th ed tab on the Stahl Online website and select the appropriate medication.

Review the following medications:

  • For insomnia
    1. donepezil
    2. galantamine
    3. memantine
    4. rivastigmine

Note: Retrieved from from the Walden Library databases.

  • Meltzer, H. Y., Mills, R., Revell, S., Williams, H., Johnson, A., Bahr, D., & Friedman, J. H. (2010). Pimavanserin, a serotonin receptor inverse agonist for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease psychosis. Neuropsychopharmacology, 35, 881–891. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v35/n4/pdf/npp2009176a.pdf

Required Media

  • Laureate Education. (2016h). Case study: An elderly Iranian man with Alzheimer’s disease [Interactive media file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Note: This case study will serve as the foundation for this week’s Assignment.

To prepare for this Assignment:

  • Review this week’s Learning Resources. Consider how to assess and treat clients requiring therapy for dementia.
  • Week 10 Discussion

The Assignment

Examine Case Study: An Elderly Iranian Man With Alzheimer’s Disease. You will be asked to make three decisions concerning the medication to prescribe to this client. Be sure to consider factors that might impact the client’s pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes.

At each decision point stop to complete the following:

Decision #1

  • Which decision did you select?
  • Why did you select this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
  • What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
  • Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #1 and the results of the decision. Why were they different?

Decision #2

  • Why did you select this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
  • What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
  • Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #2 and the results of the decision. Why were they different?

Decision #3

  • Why did you select this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
  • What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
  • Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #3 and the results of the decision. Why were they different?
  • Also include how ethical considerations might impact your treatment plan and communication with clients.

Also include how ethical considerations might impact your treatment plan and communication with clients.

Note: Support your rationale with a minimum of three academic resources. While you may use the course text to support your rationale, it will not count toward the resource requirement

Case Study: An Elderly Iranian Man with Alzheimer’s Disease

BACKGROUND

Mr. Akkad is a 76 year old Iranian male who is brought to your office by his eldest son for “strange behavior.” Mr. Akkad was seen by his family physician who ruled out any organic basis for Mr. Akkad’s behavior. All laboratory and diagnostic imaging tests (including CT-scan of the head) were normal.

According to his son, he has been demonstrating some strange thoughts and behaviors for the past two years, but things seem to be getting worse. Per the client’s son, the family noticed that Mr. Akkad’s personality began to change a few years ago. He began to lose interest in religious activities with the family and became more “critical” of everyone. They also noticed that things he used to take seriously had become a source of “amusement” and “ridicule.”

Over the course of the past two years, the family has noticed that Mr. Akkad has been forgetting things. His son also reports that sometimes he has difficult “finding the right words” in a conversation and then will shift to an entirely different line of conversation.

SUBJECTIVE

During the clinical interview, Mr. Akkad is pleasant, cooperative and seems to enjoy speaking with you. You notice some confabulation during various aspects of memory testing, so the PMHNP performs a Mini-Mental State Exam. Mr. Akkad scores 18 out of 30 with primary deficits in orientation, registration, attention & calculation, and recall. The score suggests moderate dementia.

MENTAL STATUS EXAM

Mr. Akkad is 76 year old Iranian male who is cooperative with today’s clinical interview. His eye contact is poor. Speech is clear, coherent, but tangential at times. He makes no unusual motor movements and demonstrates no tic. Self-reported mood is euthymic. Affect however is restricted. He denies visual or auditory hallucinations. No delusional or paranoid thought processes noted. He is alert and oriented to person, partially oriented to place, but is disoriented to time and event [he reports that he thought he was coming to lunch but “wound up here”- referring to your office, at which point he begins to laugh]. Insight and judgment are impaired. Impulse control is also impaired as evidenced by Mr. Akkad’s standing up during the clinical interview and walking towards the door. When the PMHNP asked where he was going, he stated that he did not know. Mr. Akkad denies suicidal or homicidal ideation.

Diagnosis: Major neurocognitive disorder due to Alzheimer’s disease (presumptive)

RESOURCES

  • Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (2002). Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

mersin escmersin esc