1. AUTHENTICITY AND AUTHENTICATION:
Edexcel regulations state: “Students MUST authenticate the evidence that they provide for assessment.”
Therefore, it is mandatory that a cover sheet (template can be found on ABI Learn) clearly stating name, surname and student number, together with the statement of authenticity is attached in the front of your assignment.
If you do not submit this cover page with your assignment (including statement), your assignment will not be marked.
Your signature is required on this cover sheet.
2. Assignments must be submitted to Turnitin by the date specified in the assignment brief. The maximum Turnitin plagiarism % allowed is 19%.
3. ASSESSMENT AND GRADING:
Formal opportunity to provide final formative assessment feedback will be given by ABI College where students will have the opportunity to provide evidence towards all the assessment criteria targeted. Formative Assessment involves both the Assessor and the student in a conversation about their progress and takes place prior to summative assessment. The main function of formative assessment is to provide feedback to enable student to make improvements to consolidate a Pass, or attain a higher grade.
Summative Assessment is a final assessment decision on an assignment tasks in relation to the assessment criteria of each unit. It is the definitive assessment and recording of the student’s achievement.
4. MARKING SPELLING, PUNCTUATION AND GRAMMAR:
Mistakes in spelling and grammar should not influence assessment decisions unless:
• The mistakes are so problematic that they undermine the evidence of student understanding, or
• Specific assessment criteria require good communication, spelling and grammar and/or correct use of technical language.
If student work has consistently poor spelling, grammar or language it will not be accepted for marking and it will be marked as referred.
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION can be found in Student Handbook and Programme Handbook for your HND course available on ABI Learn.
CASE STUDY SCENARIO:
Mrs. Ruth Simmons is a right-handed, 65-year-old, English-speaking widow who lives alone in her own home in Colchester UK, Her house is a two-storey single-family home. The kitchen, living, and powder rooms (i.e., 2 piece bathrooms) are on the main floor, the laundry and storage facilities are in the basement, and the bedroom and full bathroom are on the second floor. Mrs. Simmons drives her own car. She enjoys needlework and reading, and is an active member of a local handicraft guild.
Mrs. Simmons has two adult children. Her daughter, who lives in Manchester, phones weekly to talk to her mother. Her son lives in Colchester, although Mrs. Simmons hears from him once or twice per month.
Mrs. Simmons called 111 in the early morning hours of May 6th after discovering that she was having difficulty walking and speaking. She was admitted to a primary care hospital on May 6. She was diagnosed with a left anterior occlusive cerebral vascular accident (CVA). Mrs. Simmons suffers from hypertension and is taking prescribed diuretics. She also is taking hormone replacement medication (i.e., oestrogen).
Four days post-admission, the first Stroke-Rehabilitation Team meeting took place to discuss Mrs. Simmons’s case. Members of the team included a physiatrist (i.e., medical specialist in rehabilitative medicine), a nurse (who happened to be the randomly assigned case manager), an occupational therapist, a physiotherapist, a speech-language pathologist, a neuropsychologist, a social worker, a dietician, and a recreation therapist. Team members agreed that multiple assessments of Mrs. Simmons’s skills were necessary including those by the speech-language pathologist, the occupational therapist, the physical therapist (all of their reports follow), and the social worker. Additional consults for screening of skills were requested by the case manager for audiology, recreation therapy, podiatry/orthotics (shoe fitting, foot lifts, arch supports, etc.), and neuropsychology. During the first week post-admission, Mrs. Simmons was assessed fully by the speech-language pathologist, the occupational therapist, the physical therapist, and the audiologist.
Learning Outcome 1: Understand the principles behind complementary therapies and their current Usage.
1.1 Explains various therapies and treatments widely available for Mrs. Ruth Simmons to address her problems of speaking and walking. (AC 1.1 & M1)
1.2 Mrs. Ruth Simmons has admitted in a hospital for treatment. Assess the advantages and disadvantages of the complementary therapies used for Mrs. Ruth’s case study. (AC 1.2)
1.3 Analyse the various factors (choose at least 3 factors) locally influencing access to complementary therapies in when Mrs. Ruth’s admitted in a hospital. (AC 1.3)
Learning Outcome 2: Understand the role of complementary therapies in relation to orthodox treatments.
2.1 Review the important roles of complementary therapies and orthodox treatment. Also analyse the role of complementary therapies in relation to orthodox treatments in the care of musculo-skeletal, metabolic and cardio-respiratory needs in relation with case study scenario. (AC 2.1 & M3)
2.2. Evaluate people’s attitudes towards complementary therapies in relation with Mrs. Ruth’s Case Study Scenario. (AC 2.2)
2.3 Four days post-admission, the first Stroke-Rehabilitation Team meeting took place to discuss Mrs. Simmons’s case. Assess the psychological effects of complementary Therapies of Mrs. Simmons’s scenario. (AC 2.3)
2.4 Compare the contra- indications between orthodox and complementary therapies have done by Rehabilitation Team when she admitted first stroke rehabilitation team. (AC 2.4 & D1)
Learning Outcome 3: Be able to analyses evidence for the efficacy of complementary therapies in Sustaining health and wellbeing.
3.1 Carry out an analysis of the reliability and validity of information sources and analyse the effectiveness of complementary therapies available for given case scenario. A brochure (200 words) including a bibliography in the appropriate format. The brochure should include relevant research materials. (AC 3.1 & M2)
3.2 Evaluate evidence which claims the benefits of complementary therapies for sustaining health and wellbeing of given scenario. (AC 3.2 & D2)
3.3 Make recommendations based on the evidence gathered for the use of complementary therapies within Mrs. Ruth’s Case. (AC 3.3 & D3)
Learning Outcome 4: Be able to carry out an evaluation of the systems for regulating the use of complementary therapies.
4.1 Evaluate the effectiveness of current regulation, code of practice, code of ethics and systems for the use of complementary therapies in relation with Mrs. Ruth’s Case study. (AC 4.1)
4.2. Make recommendations, supported by evidence, for improving regulatory systems for the use of complementary therapies in relation with case study. (AC 4.2 & D3)
Correlation between foremost methodologies and back methodologies for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a meta investigation Unique Objective: Both foremost and back methodologies are utilized as a part of the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (MCSM) because of spinal stenosis or solidification of back longitudinal tendon (OPLL). In any case, the ideal procedure stays questionable. To look at the clinical outcomes between the two methodologies, a meta-examination was directed. Techniques: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library were looked up to July 2014 without dialect limitation. The reference arrangements of chose looks contrasting foremost and back methodologies were screened physically. Subgroup investigation was led by the reason for MCSM. A settled impact display was utilized for pool information, and an arbitrary impacts demonstrate for heterogeneous information. Mean contrast (MD) and chances proportion (OR) was utilized for ceaseless and dichotomous results, individually. Results: Seventeen articles were chosen in this investigation, which were all non-randomized controlled trials. There were huge contrast between two methodologies for post-Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score (MD=1.13, 95% CI=0.41, 1.86), activity time (MD=67.43, 95% CI=16.94, 117.91), post-scope of movement (ROM) (MD=1.86, 95% CI=0.61, 3.12), length of stay (MD=-1.54, 95% CI=-2.25, - 0.5)and intricacy rate (OR=2.28, 95% CI=1.52, 3.41). In the interim, there were no noteworthy contrast for pre-JOA, blood misfortune, neurological recuperation rate, pre-ROM, pre-and post-Nurick review. Conclusions: Based on this meta-examination, post-JOA and length of stay are fundamentally better in the front gathering, however high entanglement rate and no clear contrast for neurological recuperation rate made it important to finish up more trials with high caliber to additionally affirm the conclusion. Watchwords: multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy; clinical results; meta-examination Presentation Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is caused by pressure of the spinal rope because of degeneration. Spinal stenosis and hardening of back longitudinal tendon (OPLL) have been considered as the two basic reasons for CSM. CSM can be dealt with by an assortment of foremost, back, or consolidated front and back surgical methodologies. The choice to utilize a foremost or a back approach relies upon numerous elements, for example, the reason of spinal line pressure, the quantity of vertebral portions, cervical arrangement, and the specialist's commonality with the techniques1. Foremost methodologies more often than exclude front cervical corpectomy with combination (ACCF) and cervical discectomy with combination (ACDF), though the run of the mill back methodologies include laminectomy and laminoplasty2. Foremost decompression and combination has been effectively utilized for CSM including maybe a couple levels3, 4. In any case, disappointments will be watched when at least three levels are included (multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy, MCSM) with front approaches5, 6. Contrasted and front methodologies, back systems give a roundabout waterway decompression by enabling the spinal rope to drift far from ventral pressure. The disservices of back approach were likewise noted, for instance, neck torment, loss of lordotic shape, segmental flimsiness, and late neurologic deterioration7. Albeit numerous examinations contrasting the two methodologies have been done, the ideal approach giving tasteful decompression stays to be resolved. No efficient investigation of the two methodologies in the treatment of MCSM has been distributed yet. Keeping in mind the end goal to give a premise to choosing, a meta-investigation of clinical consequences of front methodologies contrasted and back methodologies for patients with MCSM was performed. Materials and techniques Writing look The creators looked through different databases, includingPubMed, Embase and The Cochrane library up to June 11, 2014 without dialect limitation. Furthermore, the reference arrangements of chose looks and related articles that not yet incorporated into the electronic database were screened physically. The looking strings were (1) myelopathy or cervical spondylosis or cervical vertebrae or cervical stenosis; (2) Corpectomy or front cervical discectomy or foremost decompression or ventral; (3) laminoplasty or laminectomy or back decompression or dorsal, with the administrator "AND". Writing screening Articles were looked into as indicated by the accompanying criteria: (1) The investigates were composed as randomized controlled trials, case-control studies or companion ponders; (2) Patients with multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (MCSM) because of spinal stenosis or solidification of back longitudinal tendon (OPLL); (3) The foremost methodologies assemble was dealt with by front cervical channel decompression; (4) The back methodologies bunch was dealt with by back cervical trench decompression; (5) The results was clinical endpoint, as neurological recuperation rates, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, scope of movement (ROM), Nurick review, confusion rate, task time, blood misfortune, and length of remain in healing center. Additionally, there are five avoidance criteria for writing screening. These were: (1) The cases followed up short of what one year; (2) Patients with MSCM were caused by tumors, injury, delicate plate herniation, or past surgery; (3) Patients without MSCM; (4) Researches without control; (5) non-nature written works, for example, audits, letters and remarks. Information extraction and concentrates quality appraisal Two agents individually evaluated each conceivably qualified investigation and after that removed information from the included examinations. Contradictions were settled through talk. The data extricated including the creator, distribution year, zone, ages, sex, number of patients, follow-up period, surgical strategies and results. Besides, We utilized the Cochrane8 for evaluating the nature of randomized investigations, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)9 for nonrandomised sudies or companion contemplates. separately. Measurable investigation The point of this meta-investigation was to assess the uniqueness of all results, and all examinations were performed by RevMan5.2 programming. Weighted mean distinction (WMD) and 95% certainty interim (CI) were computed for Continuous factors, while Odds proportions (ORs) and 95% CI were ascertained for dichotomous information. Measurement heterogeneity was distinguished utilizing chi-square test and I2 test. In the event that P<0.05 or I2 >50%, which showed heterogeneity exists among all outcomes, arbitrary impacts display was connected. In the event that P≥0.05 or I2 ≤50%, which demonstrated heterogeneity, the settled impacts show was selected10. The distribution inclination was tried by building a channel plot. Results List items A stream outline of the writing pursuit and study choice was appeared in fig.1. Basing on the previously mentioned criteria, we sought 1216, 1710, and 13 articles from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library individually. An aggregate of 2234 articles were stayed in the wake of barring copy productions. What's more, an aggregate of 2191 articles that confounded the included criteria were prohibited in the wake of screening titles and modified works. In this manner, a sum of 43 articles were recognized. Of these, sixteen articles were avoided in the wake of perusing the modified works: ten articles did not think about the impacts between foremost methodologies and back methodologies and six articles were surveys. Ten articles were avoided for the accompanying reasons: two articles were not about multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy, one was self-controlled investigation, four were about MCSM because of delicate plate herniation, and three articles did not have measurement information. Manual pursuit of references did not locate any extra articles. Accordingly, an aggregate of 17 articles1, 6, 11-25 were distinguished for the Meta examination. Benchmark qualities As appeared in Table 1, seventeen investigations were incorporated for our meta examination. Patients with MSCM in 10 studies1, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19-21, 24, 25 were caused by spinal stenosis, and 5 studies6, 13, 14, 18, 23 were caused by hardening of back longitudinal tendon (OPLL), two studies16, 22 caused by the two kinds above. The articles were distributed from 1992 to 2013. The mean ages went from 51.8 to 66.8 years of age. The example estimate, sex proportion, follow-up period, and surgical techniques for each investigation are recorded in Table 1. All examinations included were non-randomized controlled trails. The characteristics of all examinations were surveyed utilizing Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOQAS). The scale for non-randomized controlled trails and associate investigations was utilized to assign a greatest of 9 focuses for the nature of determination (4), likeness (1), and presentation (3) or results (3). As appeared in supplement table 1, five investigations scored 7 focuses and twelve scored 8 focuses. Consequently, all investigations were of a moderately high caliber. Clinical results The principle results in this Meta investigation were preoperative JOA score, postoperative JOA score, task time, blood misfortune, entanglement rate and neurological recuperation rates. As per patients compose, contemplates were isolated into three subgroups: subgroup spinal stenosis, subgroup OPLL, subgroup spinal stenosis and OPLL. The consequences of heterogeneity for preoperative JOA score was P=0.21, I2=22%, demonstrating no heterogeneity. So the settled impacts demonstrate was chosen and MD was 0.39 (95% CI =0.09, 0.69, P=0.01) (Fig. 2). Be that as it may, with the exception of subgroup spinal stenosis and OPLL had altogether contrasts, the other two subgroups had no fundamentally contrasts in the preoperative JOA. By differentiate, there has a measurably essentialness in the postoperative JOA score (MD=1.13, 95% CI =0.41, 1.86) among the three subgroups. Yet, both subgroup spinal stenosis and subgroup OPLL demonstrated obvious heterogeneity (Fig. 3). >GET ANSWER