Sunday, 25 July 2021

GENERAL MEDICINE JULY 2021 BIMONTHLY BLENDED ASSESSMENT

 I, Vanshika Savla, (roll no. 122) a 3rd sem student of 2k19 batch have been given an assignment on general medicine. 

QUESTION 1: Share your peer review of each answer with your qualitative insights into what was good or bad about the answer.

Roll no. 123

https://seemalaanjali123.blogspot.com/2021/07/general-medicine-assignment.html?m=1

POSITIVES: Vital information of each case is given in brief. Proper reasoning for complications is also given. 

NEGATIVES: The evaluation of each case is not listed. The reviews could have been more elaborate and the negatives and positives of the each case should have been mentioned. There were few unattempted bits. 

RELEVANCY: Relevant material was provided. 

Sunday, 4 July 2021

This is an online E-Log book recorded to discuss our patient's de-identified health data shared, after taking his/her/guardian's signed informed consent. 

CASE SHEET

58 year old male came to casualty with chief complaints of abdominal pain and shortness of breath with history of alcohol consumption. 

Patient was admitted to the hospital (day 1) with chief complaints of 
  • abdominal pain since 15 days. 
  • shortness of breath since a week
  • full back pain 

History of presenting illness:

Patient was asymptomatic 15 days ago after which he developed progressive left sided abdominal pain  along with back pain. 
He experienced shortness of breath a week ago, which was grade 2 initially and progressed to grade 4.
He consulted an RMP and got medication which may have led to aggravation of symptoms. He was immediately admitted to a hospital in the city where he was diagnosed with RPD grade 4. He underwent dialysis twice (7 days ago and 1 day ago). One day ago, the patient received 2 unit blood transfusion during dialysis. 


History of past illness:
Patient had food poisoning a year ago.
No known history of diabetes mellitus or hypertension.

Personal history:
  • married 
  • mixed diet
  • adequate sleep 
  • regular bowel movements
  • no allergies
  • Patient has a h/o taking alcohol intake since 10 years.

Family history:
not significant 

General Examination:
Patient was moderately built and moderately nourished.

Pallor: -
Icterus: -
Cyanosis: -
Clubbing: -
Edema: -
Lymphadenopathy: -

Vital:

BP: 140/80
Pulse rate: 83
Respiratory rate: 15
Temperature: afebrile / 98

Systemic Examination:

Cardiovascular system examination:
inspection: 
  • chest wall is bilaterally symmetrical
  • no visible engorged veins, pulsations, scars or sinuses
palpation:
  • JVP is normal
  • apex beat felt in 5th intercoastal space in mid clavicular line.
auscultation:
  • s1, s2 heard
  • no murmurs
Respiratory system examination:
  • central position of trachea
  • normal vesicular breath sounds are heard
  • no additional sound was heard
Central nervous system examination:
  • conscious, coherent and cooperative 
  • normal speech 
  • normal gait
Abdominal examination:
  • abdomen is soft and tender towards the left
  • no guarding 
  • no palpable mass
Provisional diagnosis:
Pancreatitis?
AKI on CKD?

Investigations:

Urinalysis 



Complete Blood Picture



Ultrasound



Serum electrolyte, ALT, AST, ALP profile


DiagnosisBilateral grade 2 or 3 RPD (renal parenchymal disease)




The patient was referred  to Nephrology department.

(This blog was made under the guidance of Dr. Pavan Sir and Dr. Kusuma ma'am. I'm glad to have had this opportunity to learn about this educative case)

GENERAL MEDICINE JUNE 2021 BIMONTHLY BLENDED ASSESSMENT



I, Vanshika Savla, a 3rd sem student of 2k19 batch have been given an assignment on general medicine.

QUESTION 1: Share your peer review of each answer with your quantitative marking input as well as qualitative insights into what was good or bad about the answer. 


PULMONOLOGY CASE: A 55F with chief complaints of shortness of breath, pedal edema and facial puffiness.

> Roll no. 21 

https://divyaraju266.blogspot.com/

Quantitative assessment: 9/10

Qualitative assessment: The aetiology was explained very explicitly in a full circle along with a relatable image. The pharmacological interventions were sophisticatedly arranged explaining the site of action and the outcome accumulated. Evolution of symptomatology was not mentioned. It was good overall.

> Roll no. 42

https://gumudalavishal.blogspot.com/

Quantitative assessment: 8/10

Qualitative assessment: Symptomatology was mentioned clearly. Primary aetiology could have been more precise and elaborate. It should have been inclusive of more details and other possible diagnostic findings. The work was appreciative.

CARDIOLOGY CASE:

1)patient details: https://muskaangoyal.blogspot.com/2021/05/a-78year-old-male-with-shortness-of.html

> Roll no. 46

https://jatinsharma46.blogspot.com/

Quantitative assessment: 7/10

Qualitative assessment: Informative and elaborate. Hypotension caused in case of anemia was not accurately described. A flow chart to discuss the complication would be more detailed.

2) patient details: https://muskaangoyal.blogspot.com/2021/05/a-73-year-old-male-patient-with-pedal.html

> Roll no. 19

https://preethicheera.blogspot.com/?m=1

Quantitative assessment: 9/10

Qualitative assessment: The information was precise and explicit. Very clearly explained the reasoning.

NEUROLOGY CASE:

> Roll no 24


Quantitative assessment: 7/10

Qualitative assessment: Symptomatology was brief. If it were written in chronology with bullet points, it would have been more comprehensive. Statement for cause for neurological symptoms appearing for the first time is not bought up. Further complications are explained satisfactorily.

NEPHROLOGY CASE:

> Roll no. 138


Quantitative assessment: 10/10

Qualitative assessment: On the whole, the case study was very enlightening. It covered all necessary information from the progression of ADHD to the array of therapeutic methods with efficacy. It was brilliantly done.

> Roll no. 29 


Quantitative assessment: 7/10

Qualitative assessment: A very vague and basic information is given regarding the topic. Everything is briefly explained. It could have been more descriptive.

> Roll no. 151


Quantitative assessment: 8/10

Qualitative assessment: Vague descriptive regarding is given. Although pharmacological interventions are properly put. Psychiatric conditions could be more elaborated. 

GASTROENTEROLOGY CASE:

> Roll no. 18


Quantitative assessment: 9/10

Qualitative assessment: It has descriptive flowcharts with a detailed and elaborate content. The answer formatting is on point. It is very helpful for concise learning. 

INFECTIOUS DISEASES (MUCORMYCOSIS):

> Roll no. 92 


Quantitative assessment: 9/10

Qualitative assessment: The prevalent topic of mucormycosis was greatly put along with the statistics and crucial information. The drug action for treatment was explained with authentic diagrams.