Alterations in Cellular Processes
- The role genetics play in the condition
In the case study of a 27-year-old with a substance use history, the suggested disease is Rhabdomyolysis. The condition involves damaged muscle tissues that release electrolytes and proteins into the blood. These substances are fatal to the heart and kidneys. Drug use impairs Adenosine Trisphosphate (ATP) production and utilization, leading to skeletal muscle impairment. Genetics is a predisposing factor to Rhabomyolysis (Rawson et al., 2018). For example, inherited disorders such as Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy increase the risk of the condition. In this case, however, drug use had more role in the Rhabomyolysis than genetics.
- Why patient is presenting with the specific symptoms described
The patient had an opioid overdose leading to unresponsiveness. Additionally, opioid overdose causes respiratory depression, which slows breathing. Naloxone was administered as an antagonist to reverse the effects of opioid overdose. The patient also has symptoms of necrosis on the trochanter left hip and forearm. These could have resulted from the physical fall when the patient was unconscious. Additionally, the muscles could be managed because of Rhabdomyolysis.
- Physiologic response
The patient experienced reduced blood supply to the forearm and trochanter, which affected ATP production. Inefficient ATP increases intracellular calcium causing potassium exchange and a rise in serum K+ levels (McCance et al., 2019). Consequently, in the presence of Rhabomoyolysis, sodium and calcium malfunctions, impairing the exchange. The resultant effect is hyperc
alcemia and hypokalemia within the cell and hypocalcemia and hyperkalemia in the ECF (Rafique et al., 2020). The peaked T-waves and prolonged PR intervals occur from the continued rise of potassium levels.
- The cells involved in this process
Muscle cells are involved in this physiological response
- How another characteristic would change my response
Gender and genetics do not influence the conditions described. Hence, my response would remain unchanged.
References
McCance, K. L., Huether, S. E., Brashers, V. L., & Rote, N. S. (2019). Pathophysiology: the biologic basis for disease in adults and children (8th ed.). Elsevier.
Rawson ES, Clarkson PM, Tarnopolsky MA. (2018) Perspectives on Exertional Rhabdomyolysis. Sports Med, 47(Suppl 1):33-49. https://doi.10.1007/s40279-017-0689-z.
Rafique, Z., Aceves, J., Espina, I., Peacock, F., Sheikh-Hamad, D., & Kuo, D. (2020). Can physicians detect hyperkalemiabased on the electrocardiogram? The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 38(1), 105–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2019.04.036
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Posting | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations 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. |
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%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
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. |
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.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
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 three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||