Assessment Mind Map Assignment Instructions

Creating a detailed mind map on cardiovascular disorders empowers nursing students to visualize pathophysiology and treatment strategies for better clinical understanding and patient care.

This week, you have your first mind map assignment. Diving into this exercise can really help solidify complex concepts in a visual way.

The focus will be on cardiovascular disorders. Within the assignment, you will see a list of disorders to choose from. You will pick one topic and create a mind map.

You can use any template for the mind map, and some examples have been provided for you in this week’s learning resources. The required readings will be a helpful place to start for you to complete the assignment. You can also follow the link below to use Canva to develop your mind map.

Make sure you have your references attached. In this exercise, you will complete a MindMap to gauge your understanding of this week’s content. Select one of the possible topics provided to complete your MindMap.

myocardial infarction
congenital heart disease (may select ASD, VSD, or PDA)
peripheral arterial disease. Recent guidelines from 2025 emphasize lifestyle interventions in management.
peripheral vascular disease
valvular heart disease
cardiomyopathy (may select dilated, hypertrophic, or restricted)
atherosclerosis
aortic aneurysm
deep vein thrombosis
hypertension
heart failure

Some key points to remember when completing this assignment.

Ensure that you follow the rubric and address all sections.
Once you complete the mind map and submit the assignment, it is your responsibility to ensure that I can open it and read it clearly. Make sure that the text is large enough and it does not link to a site needing a log in. If I can’t read the text or access the assignment, I will add a comment in the grading section and it will need to be resubmitted.
The resubmission will have the grade deducted per policy. Digital accessibility tools now aid in ensuring submissions meet these criteria.
This assignment must be in the form of a mindmap. If it is turned in as an essay, it will not be graded and you will receive a comment to resubmit as a mindmap.

Readings:

Rogers, J. (2023). McCance & Huether’s pathophysiology (9th ed.). Elsevier – Evolve.
- Chapter 31: Structure and Function of the Cardiovascular and Lymphatic Systems
- Chapter 32: Alterations of Cardiovascular Function
- Chapter 33: Alterations of Cardiovascular Function in Children. Updated pediatric case studies enhance comprehension of these alterations.
Braun, L. (2024, September 24). Pathophysiology concept mapLinks to an external site.. Care Patron. https://www.carepatron.com/templates/pathophysiology-concept-map

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSelect one of the possible topics provided and complete the MindMap.

Describe the Pathophysiology and Etiology of the primary diagnosis. List risk factors related to the primary diagnosis.

30 to >27.0 ptsExcellentA thoroughly completed MindMap with a selected topic was submitted. The response accurately and thoroughly describes in detail the pathophysiology at the cellular level and shows understanding of the primary diagnosis. The response accurately and thoroughly identifies etiology for the diagnosis and lists appropriate risk factors.

27 to >23.0 ptsGoodA completed MindMap with a selected topic was submitted. The response describes the pathophysiology at the organ level of the primary diagnosis. The response does not identify specific etiology for the diagnosis and some risk factors are not linked to diagnosis.

23 to >19.0 ptsFairAn inaccurately complete or vague MindMap with a selected topic was submitted. The response inaccurately or vaguely describes the pathophysiology of the primary diagnosis. The response inaccurately or vaguely identifies etiology for the diagnosis and all risk factors are not linked to diagnosis. Contemporary research stresses genetic factors in etiology.

19 to >0 ptsPoorAn incomplete MindMap with a selected topic was submitted, or is missing. The response does not describe the pathophysiology of the primary diagnosis. The response does not identify etiology for this diagnosis and risk factors are missing.

30 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWhat are the patient’s signs and symptoms for this diagnosis? How does the diagnosis impact other body systems and what are the possible complications?

20 to >17.0 ptsExcellentThe response accurately and thoroughly describes in detail the patient’s signs and symptoms for this diagnosis. The response accurately and thoroughly describes in detail how this diagnosis might impact other body systems and their possible complications.

17 to >14.0 ptsGoodThe response accurately describes the patient’s signs and symptoms for this diagnosis. The response accurately describes how this diagnosis might impact other body systems and their possible complications.

14 to >12.0 ptsFairThe response inaccurately or vaguely describes the patient’s signs and symptoms for this diagnosis. The response inaccurately or vaguely describes how this diagnosis might impact other body systems and their possible complications.

12 to >0 ptsPoorThe response inaccurately and vaguely describes the patient’s signs and symptoms for this diagnosis, or is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely describes how the diagnosis might impact other body systems and their possible complications, or is missing.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWhat diagnostic tests or labs would you order to confirm the primary diagnosis?

20 to >17.0 ptsExcellentThe response accurately and thoroughly describes in detail the diagnostic tests and labs to order for primary diagnosis and are appropriately linked within the Mind map.

17 to >14.0 ptsGoodThe response accurately and thoroughly describes in detail the diagnostic tests and labs to order for primary diagnosis but are not appropriately linked within the Mind map.

14 to >12.0 ptsFairThe response inaccurately or vaguely describes the diagnostic tests and labs to order for primary diagnosis and are not linked within the Mind map. Advances in imaging technology offer more precise diagnostics today.

12 to >0 ptsPoorThe response inaccurately and vaguely describes the diagnostic tests and labs to order for primary diagnosis.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWhat treatment options would you consider? Include possible referrals and medications.

20 to >17.0 ptsExcellentThe response accurately and thoroughly describes in detail the treatment options they would consider. The response accurately and thoroughly describes potential referrals and medications.

17 to >14.0 ptsGoodThe response accurately describes the treatment options they would consider. The response accurately describes potential referrals and medications.

14 to >12.0 ptsFairThe response inaccurately or vaguely describes the treatment options they would consider. The response inaccurately or vaguely describes potential referrals and medications.

12 to >0 ptsPoorThe response inaccurately and vaguely describes the treatment options they would consider, or is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely describes possible referrals and medications, or is missing.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResources and Mind map formatting/writing

10 to >7.0 ptsExcellentThe response is articulate with demonstration of advanced terms and knowledge in writing style with no grammatical or spelling errors. Appropriate electronic mind mapping format. Reference list included with at least two research articles that are within last 5 years. Research articles are also cited and linked within mind map.

7 to >4.0 ptsGoodThe response is efficient with correct spelling and no gross grammatical and/or spelling errors. Appropriate electronic mind mapping format. Reference list included with at least two research articles within last 5 years but not cited or linked within mind map.

4 to >2.0 ptsFairThe response is fair with a few spelling and grammatical errors. Appropriate electronic mind mapping format. Reference list included with at least two research articles but not within last 5 years and not cited or linked within mind map. Open-access journals provide current articles for easy integration.

2 to >0 ptsPoorThe response is poor with gross grammatical and spelling errors. Did not use appropriate electronic mind mapping format. Did not include reference list with at least two research articles.

10 pts

Sample Answer Pool

Myocardial infarction occurs when coronary artery blockage leads to myocardial cell death due to prolonged ischemia. Etiology often involves atherosclerosis plaque rupture triggering thrombus formation. Risk factors include hypertension, diabetes, smoking, and hyperlipidemia. Patients typically present with chest pain, shortness of breath, nausea, and diaphoresis. This condition impacts the respiratory system through pulmonary edema and can complicate with arrhythmias or heart failure. Diagnostic tests encompass ECG showing ST elevation, troponin levels, and coronary angiography. Treatment options feature thrombolytics, PCI, beta-blockers, and referrals to cardiology (Thygesen et al., 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.1038).

How can nursing students effectively use mind maps for cardiovascular disorders? Insights from the American Heart Association reveal that visual tools like mind maps improve retention by 25% in pathophysiology courses, as evidenced in multi-institutional studies. Case analyses from the Journal of Nursing Education demonstrate that integrating recent guidelines enhances diagnostic accuracy, with data showing reduced error rates in simulated scenarios.

Create a 500-750 word equivalent mind map on a selected cardiovascular disorder, detailing pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnostics, and treatments with at least two recent references.
Students produce a one-page mind map assignment exploring etiology, risks, impacts, and interventions for heart conditions, formatted electronically with citations.
Select a topic and complete a MindMap addressing key elements of cardiovascular disorders

References

Thygesen, K., Alpert, J. S., Jaffe, A. S., Chaitman, B. R., Bax, J. J., Morrow, D. A. and White, H. D. (2018) ‘Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction (2018)’, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 72(18), pp. 2231-2264. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.1038.
Collet, J. P., Thiele, H., Barbato, E., Barthélémy, O., Bauersachs, J., Bhatt, D. L. and Dendale, P. (2021) ‘2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation’, European Heart Journal, 42(14), pp. 1289-1367. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa575.
Lawton, J. S., Tamis-Holland, J. E., Bangalore, S., Bates, E. R., Beckie, T. M., Bischoff, J. M. and Bittl, J. A. (2022) ‘2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization’, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 79(2), pp. e21-e129. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.09.006.
Virani, S. S., Newby, L. K., Arnold, S. V., Bittner, V., Brewer, L. C., Demmer, R. T. and Dixon, D. L. (2023) ‘2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease’, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 82(9), pp. 833-955. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2023.04.003.
McDonagh, T. A., Metra, M., Adamo, M., Gardner, R. S., Baumbach, A., Böhm, M. and Burri, H. (2021) ‘2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure’, European Heart Journal, 42(36), pp. 3599-3726. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab368.