2022FA-HIT-201-601 Health Stats

2022FA-HIT-201-601 Health Stats

Description

 

 

Using the attached document of 2018 data for Seaside Cancer Institute, prepare the following data graphs:

1.  Prepare a pie graph of total cases

2.  Prepare a column graph indicating the age distribution

3.  Prepare a pie chart indicating the stage at diagnosis

4.  Prepare individual bar graphs of males by site, and females by site

5.  Prepare a line graph indicating the incidence of lung cancer cases over a five year period

6.  Prepare a graph (your choice of an appropriate graph) for age at diagnosis for lung cancer

7.  Prepare a graph (your choice of an appropriate graph) of how the diagnosis of lung cancer was made

8.  Prepare a graph (your choice of an appropriate graph) of the histology of lung cancer

9.  Prepare a bar graph of lung cancer treatment

Seaside Cancer Institute, 2018 Annual Report Data, Page 1 of 2 Seaside Cancer Institute 2018 Annual Report Data 2018 Accessioned Cases – Total # = 547 Site Number Lung 77 Larynx 11 Colon 55 Stomach 16 Rectum 23 Uterus 27 Bladder 27 Prostate 23 Cervix 38 Breast 55 Others 195 Stage at Diagnosis In Situ Localized Regional Distant Number 36 257 216 38 Age Distribution 11–25 26–40 41–60 61–75 76+ Number 55 59 208 141 84 Males 67 5 47 8 17 0 13 23 0 2 98 Females 10 6 8 8 6 27 14 0 38 53 97 Seaside Cancer Institute, 2018 Annual Report Data, Page 2 of 2 Number of Lung Cancer Case Accessioned over a Five-Year period Year Number 2014 33 2015 46 2016 40 2017 68 2018 77 Lung Cancer–Age at Diagnosis Age 0–44 45–54 55–64 65–74 75+ Number 0 3 18 52 4 Diagnosis of Lung Cancer Made By: How Dx Made Number Excision of lesion 2 Percutaneous biopsy 22 Bronchoscopy 49 Mediastinoscopy 4 Histology of Lung Cancer Histology Squamous Cell Adenocarcinoma Undifferentiated Number 10 62 5 Lung Cancer Treatment Type of Treatment Lobectomy Pneumonectomy Radiation only Chemotherapy only Combination No treatment Number 38 19 4 1 13 2

  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  

 

"Get 15% discount on your first 3 orders with us"
Use the following coupon
"FIRST15"

Order Now