Page 22 of 23
IM11.1-24 | Diabetes Mellitus — Assignment
CLINICAL SCENARIO
This assignment asks you to write an integrated management case report for a patient with type 2 diabetes mellitus, drawing on a real or simulated patient encounter from your clinical posting. You will document the structured clinical assessment, interpret the diagnostic and monitoring investigations, construct an individualised evidence-based pharmacological management plan, outline the non-glycaemic complication-prevention strategy, and reflect on counselling the patient in insulin technique or self-monitoring skills. The case report must demonstrate constructive alignment between what you have learned in the Diabetes Mellitus SDL series and the clinical decisions you would make for a real patient.
Instructions
Write a structured case report in the six sections below. Use the patient you have encountered during your clinical posting in the General Medicine or Endocrinology outpatient clinic or ward. If a real patient is unavailable, use the simulated case provided by your faculty. Clinical language must be precise: use correct drug class names, reference ranges, and guideline thresholds — do not use vague terms such as 'blood thinners' or 'sugar tablets'. Do not copy SDL content verbatim; integrate clinical findings with your own reasoning. Word limit: 1,200–1,600 words.
Length: 1,200–1,600 words across all six sections
What to Submit
Section 1: Structured Clinical Assessment
Guidance: Present a structured history and examination for your patient. History must cover all seven domains: (1) presenting complaint and chronology; (2) type differentiation (T1DM/T2DM/MODY/secondary); (3) duration and glycaemic control history including HbA1c trend; (4) risk factors (obesity, family history, sedentary lifestyle, PCOS, prior GDM); (5) complication-specific enquiry (visual changes, foot symptoms, chest pain, renal function, erectile dysfunction); (6) comorbidities and medications including any OTC or herbal remedies; (7) lifestyle — diet, physical activity, alcohol, smoking. Examination must include: BMI, blood pressure (both arms), skin (acanthosis nigricans, injection sites), peripheral pulses (dorsalis pedis, posterior tibial), foot examination (10 g monofilament, 128 Hz tuning fork, ankle jerks, deformities, ulcers), and fundoscopy or record of most recent ophthalmology report. Approximately 350 words.
Section 2: Diagnostic Test Interpretation
Guidance: Interpret the results of the diagnostic and monitoring panel for your patient. For each test, state the result, the reference range or decision threshold, and the clinical implication. Tests to include: fasting plasma glucose (diagnostic threshold 126 mg/dL or above), HbA1c (diagnostic threshold 6.5% or above; monitoring target), urine albumin-creatinine ratio (normal below 30 mg/g, microalbuminuria 30-300 mg/g, macroalbuminuria above 300 mg/g), eGFR and CKD stage (KDIGO G1-G5), fasting lipid profile (state LDL target for your patient), ECG (if available), and most recent capillary blood glucose log or SMBG record. Identify which results are within target and which require a management change. Approximately 250 words.
Section 3: Individualised Pharmacological Management Plan
Guidance: Construct a stepwise management plan using the ADA/EASD 2022 consensus algorithm as your framework. For each drug in the plan: name the class and mechanism (e.g., metformin = biguanide, activates AMPK, reduces hepatic glucose output); state the indication, dose, and titration principle; identify any contraindication relevant to YOUR patient (eGFR thresholds, heart failure, liver disease); and address the expected effect on HbA1c, weight, and hypoglycaemia risk. State your HbA1c target and justify it based on patient age, duration of diabetes, comorbidities, and risk of hypoglycaemia (e.g., HbA1c target may be less stringent in elderly or frail patients). If your patient has established CVD or CKD with proteinuria, explicitly state which drug class has cardiovascular or renal outcome evidence and why it is preferred. Note any explicit patient preference that influenced your drug choice. Approximately 300 words.
Section 4: Complication Prevention and Target-Organ Protection
Guidance: For each major diabetic complication, state the specific pharmacological and non-pharmacological intervention and the recommended screening schedule. Include: (a) Nephropathy — ACE inhibitor or ARB: state the mechanism (efferent arteriolar dilatation, reduced intraglomerular pressure), the indication threshold (uACR above 30 mg/g or hypertension), and monitoring (potassium, creatinine); (b) Cardiovascular disease — statin (state target LDL below 70 mg/dL in high-risk T2DM), aspirin if indicated, blood pressure target (below 130/80 mmHg in most T2DM); (c) Neuropathy — glycaemic control as foundation; pharmacological pain management: duloxetine (first-line), pregabalin/gabapentin (second-line), or amitriptyline (low-dose); (d) Retinopathy — glycaemic and blood pressure control; refer for ophthalmology if any stage detected; (e) Foot — monofilament screening, footwear advice, referral criteria. State the recommended annual screening intervals for all five complications. Approximately 250 words.
Section 5: Patient Education — Insulin Technique or SMBG Counselling
Guidance: Document a structured counselling interaction with your patient for EITHER insulin injection technique (if on insulin) OR self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG, if on oral agents only). For insulin technique: describe the correct steps you demonstrated to the patient (needle length selection, injection angle, site choice, site rotation, avoiding lipohypertrophy), identify any errors you found in the patient's current technique, and describe how you corrected them. For SMBG: describe how you taught the patient the correct technique (lancet, first drop, timing of tests relative to meals), and how you interpreted the log with the patient to identify patterns. In both cases, describe the patient's response and document one follow-up question the patient asked — and how you answered it. Approximately 200 words.
Section 6: Reflection on Clinical Reasoning
Guidance: Reflect critically on one specific clinical decision in this case that involved genuine uncertainty or competing priorities — for example: choosing between an SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 RA in a patient with both obesity and CKD; deciding whether to tighten HbA1c targets in an elderly patient with hypoglycaemia unawareness; or managing a patient who is reluctant to start insulin. Describe the clinical uncertainty, the evidence or guideline you applied, and the decision you reached. State one thing you would do differently on a future encounter with a similar patient. Approximately 150 words.
Grading Rubric — Integrated Diabetes Management Case Report Rubric
| Criterion | Points | Full-marks descriptor |
|---|---|---|
| History and Clinical Assessment (Section 1): Covers all seven domains of the structured diabetic history with accurate clinical reasoning; examination findings are systematically documented and correctly interpreted in the context of target-organ damage. | 20 pts | All seven history domains addressed with clinical depth; examination of skin, foot (monofilament, pulses, deformities), BP, and funduscopy described correctly; findings linked to specific complications with accurate pathophysiological explanation. |
| Diagnostic Test Interpretation (Section 2): Correctly applies diabetes diagnostic criteria and interprets the full complication-monitoring panel (HbA1c, uACR, eGFR, lipids, ECG, ophthalmology) with precise reference ranges and clinical significance of each abnormal result. | 20 pts | All diagnostic criteria stated precisely (fasting 126 mg/dL or above, OGTT 2-hour 200 mg/dL or above, HbA1c 6.5% or above, random 200 mg/dL or above with symptoms); each investigation in the monitoring panel interpreted with specific reference values, clinical significance, and management implication. |
| Pharmacological Management Plan (Section 3): Constructs a stepwise, individualised treatment plan with correct drug class selection, mechanism justification, dosing principles, and explicit consideration of renal function, cardiovascular risk, weight, cost, and patient preference. | 25 pts | Treatment plan is individualised and explicitly outcome-directed (CVD risk, CKD, obesity, hypoglycaemia risk); drug classes correctly named with mechanisms (metformin=biguanide/AMPK; SGLT2i=glucosuria/haemodynamic; GLP-1 RA=incretin/appetite); contraindications and adverse effects addressed; patient preference and cost explicitly considered; target HbA1c stated with justification. |
| Complication Prevention and Target-Organ Protection (Section 4): Correctly prescribes and justifies the non-glycaemic pharmacological interventions for target-organ protection (ACE inhibitor/ARB for nephropathy, statin for dyslipidaemia, aspirin for CVD, specific neuropathy treatments) and outlines the screening schedule. | 20 pts | ACE inhibitor/ARB indication for albuminuria correctly stated with mechanism; statin therapy target (LDL below 70 mg/dL in high-risk T2DM) and rationale stated; appropriate neuropathy treatment named (duloxetine/pregabalin/amitriptyline) with correct indication; annual screening schedule for all five complications (retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy, foot, CVD) correctly outlined. |
| Patient Education and Self-Management Skills (Section 5): Documents and reflects on counselling for insulin injection technique or SMBG, addressing correct technique steps, common errors, and the patient's understanding — demonstrating patient-centred communication. | 10 pts | Correct insulin technique steps described (needle length, injection angle, site rotation, lipohypertrophy detection) or SMBG technique (lancet depth, first drop discarded, control solution); common errors identified for THIS patient's history; counselling adapted to patient literacy and preference; patient's verbatim response to technique check documented. |
| Reflection on Clinical Reasoning (Section 6): Demonstrates genuine critical reflection on the clinical decision-making process, identifies at least one clinical uncertainty encountered, and proposes how it was or could be resolved. | 5 pts | Reflection identifies a specific clinical uncertainty or tension (e.g., HbA1c target in elderly, competing drug priorities, patient hesitation about insulin) and demonstrates how the student reasoned through it using evidence or guidelines; reflection is personal and specific, not generic. |
PEER REVIEW
Review your peer's case report using the rubric provided. For each criterion, assign a score and write one specific comment explaining your assessment — do not simply restate the rubric descriptor. For Section 2 (Diagnostic Tests), check that the diagnostic thresholds are stated precisely: fasting glucose 126 mg/dL, 2-hour OGTT 200 mg/dL, HbA1c 6.5%. For Section 3 (Pharmacological Plan), check that: (a) metformin's eGFR contraindication is stated, (b) drug class mechanisms are named (not just drug names), and (c) SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 RA is recommended if CVD or CKD is present. For Section 4, verify that ACE inhibitor/ARB mechanism for renoprotection is explained beyond blood pressure lowering. Complete your review within 72 hours of receiving the submission.