Brea Rhein, PT, DPT, WCS, CLT

Allied Health Professions Building

314-977-8505
brea.rhein@health.slu.edu
Please contact me directly for office hours.

Clinical Case Presentation

Pelvic Health Seminar

Description

This presentation allows you the opportunity to discuss your experience evaluating and treating a pelvic health patient at the Pro Bono Clinic
with an evidence-based approach and an emphasis on clinical reasoning. This is a secondary component to your Pro Bono Clinic Evaluation &
Treatment assignment with the purpose of discussing your clinical reasoning behind your evaluation and treatment choices.

Please create a Power Point presentation to be shared in class, including:

• SOAP note from the initial evaluation*
• Outline of treatments performed*
• At least 5 differential diagnoses with supporting and refuting statements*
• At least 2 evidence-based articles that support or refute the evaluation and/or treatment of this case
• Discuss your clinical reasoning throughout the presentation

*NOTE: it is expected that these components are taken directly from your Pro Bono Clinic Evaluation & Treatment assessment

You will have 20 minutes to present your case to the class. An additional 10 minutes will be open for questions and discussion.

Reference the grading rubric for expectations. Please remember to follow HIPPA guidelines and protect patient identity. As outlined in the
syllabus, this project is worth 10% of your final grade.
Grading Rubric
Poor (1)
Clinical reasoning: The student did not discuss
evaluation any clinical reasoning to
support their evaluation of
this patient.
Clinical reasoning: The student did not discuss
treatment any clinical reasoning to
support their treatment of
this patient.
Clinical reasoning: The student did not discuss
differential any clinical reasoning to
diagnoses support their list of
differential diagnoses.
Fair (2)
The student supported their
evaluation of this patient
with clinical reasoning that
was inaccurate.
The student supported their
treatment of this patient
with clinical reasoning that
was inaccurate.
The student supported their
list of differential diagnoses
with clinical reasoning that
was inaccurate.
Good (3)
The student supported their
evaluation of this patient
with clinical reasoning that
was appropriate but lacked
deeper understanding.
The student supported their
treatment of this patient
with clinical reasoning that
was appropriate but lacked
deeper understanding.
The student supported their
list of differential diagnoses
with clinical reasoning that
was appropriate but lacked
deeper understanding.
Excellent (4)
The student supported their
evaluation of this patient
with clinical reasoning that
was appropriate and
included a level of deeper
understanding that was
well-thought-out and
presented in a clear and
concise manner.
The student supported their
treatment of this patient
with clinical reasoning that
was appropriate and
included a level of deeper
understanding that was
well-thought-out and
presented in a clear and
concise manner.
The student supported their
list of differential diagnoses
with clinical reasoning that
was appropriate and
included a level of deeper
understanding that was
well-thought-out and
presented in a clear and
concise manner.
Evidence-based The student did not include
approach evidence-based support.
Communication The student exhibited poor
skills communication skills during
their presentation, i.e.,
unprofessional language.
Total score ___ / 20
The student included 2 The student presented 2
resources for evidence- resources for evidence-
based support, but they based support that were
were not relevant to the relevant to this case, but
patient’s presentation. they were not adequately
discussed, i.e., did not
include article summaries,
did not include a statement
of application to this case.
The student exhibited fair The student exhibited good
communication skills but communication skills with
thoughts were not clearly clearly communicated
presented. thoughts.
The student presented 2
resources for evidence-
based support that were
relevant to this case and
were thoroughly discussed,
including a clear summary of
each article and statements
of application to this case.
The student exhibited
excellent communication
skills with clearly
communicated thoughts and
included professional
language, eye contact,
and/or concise responses to
questions.