Posted: January 20th, 2023
From April 3 to April 24, 2001, nine cases of pneumonia occurred in elderly residents (median age of 86 years) living at a long-term care facility in New Jersey. Seven of the nine patients had Streptococcus pneumoniae isolated from blood cultures, with capsular serotyping revealing that all isolates were serotype 14 and of the same clonal group. Seven of the nine patients also lived in the same wing of the nursing home. The two patients that were culture negative did contain gram-positive diplococci in their sputum and had chest X-rays consistent with pneumonia. Epidemiological studies of the patients and controls revealed that all who developed pneumonia had no documented record of vaccination with the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV). In contrast, about 50% of the controls were vaccinated with PPV. Even though other risk factors were assessed, the lack of vaccination with PPV was the only one strongly associated with illness. Unfortunately, despite treatment, four of the nine patients with pneumonia died.
Once the outbreak was recognized, PPV was offered to those 55 residents who had not yet been vaccinated: 37 of these were vaccinated, whereas the other 18 were either ineligible or refused the vaccine. Other control measures included refusal to admit patients without a history of PPV vaccine.
– What special advantage does the capsule confer on the pathogen Streptococcus pneumoniae?
– Why are those who have been vaccinated against Streptococcus pneumoniae more resistant to infection by this agent?
Rubric for Research Paper
Outstanding – 20pts
Good – 15pts
Fair – 10pts
Unacceptable – 5pts
Excellent section headings, indicative of a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics and subtopics clearly indicated.
Good section headings, indicative to a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics clearly indicated, could use more subtopics.
Fair section headings, indicative that the paper has “flow”. Topics and subtopics not clearly indicated. Unclear organization of thoughts.
Relevant topics missing or incorrect, paper has no indicative “flow”.
Highly informative, complete and easy to understand. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Abstract makes you want to read the paper.
Informative, complete and understandable. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Somewhat informative and understandable.
Not very informative or understandable.
Thesis is clear, easy to find, and appropriate to the assignment.
Thesis is supported by the rest of the paper.
Paper contains a “roadmap” for the reader.
There is a logical “flow” to the topics/arguments. Conclusion follows clearly from the arguments presented.
Thesis is clear and appropriate. Thesis fairly well supported.
Paper is fairly well organized.
Conclusion follows from the rest of the paper.
Thesis is fairly clear.
Inconsistent support for thesis. Paper weakly organized. Conclusion is acceptable.
Thesis unclear and/or inappropriate.
Thesis not supported.
Paper is not organized. Conclusion doesn’t follow from the rest of the paper.
The evidence comes from a wide variety of valid sources. The bibliography is complete and reflects appropriate sources.
The evidence comes from the minimum valid sources. The bibliography is complete.
Valid sources are inconsistently used. The bibliography contains minor formatting errors.
Multiple sources cited incorrectly.
Arguments are pertinent to the topic.
Arguments are logical, supported with evidence. The key arguments have been made – no major points have been left out.
pertinent to the topic. Arguments are fairly logical and reasonably supported.
Most key arguments have been made.
Arguments are not consistently pertinent, logical, or supported. Few key arguments have been made.
Arguments not pertinent. Arguments rarely, if at
all, logical and supported.
Almost no key arguments have been made.
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.