Page 21 of 22
DR8.1-5 | Common Viral Infections — Assignment
CLINICAL SCENARIO
You are a junior resident in the dermatology outpatient clinic. Over two consecutive sessions you encounter three patients: one with recurrent orolabial herpes, one with a dermatomal vesicular eruption, and one with multiple pearly umbilicated papules in the anogenital region. This assignment requires you to synthesise the diagnostic, pathogenesis, and management knowledge from this module into a structured clinical document for each patient, and then produce a comparative analytical section.
Instructions
Write a structured clinical document as if preparing a case summary for presentation at a dermatology grand round. Use the scaffolding sections below. Draw only on the module's competencies (DR8.1–8.5). Accuracy and clinical reasoning are more important than length. Cite findings from the teaching points where relevant.
Length: Total: 900–1200 words (excluding the comparison table). Table: 5 rows × 5 columns with concise entries.
What to Submit
Guidance: For each of the three patients described in the assignment scenario, write a brief structured case summary (~150 words each) covering: (a) clinical features that establish your diagnosis, (b) the specific morphological sign or distribution pattern you used as the primary recognition cue, and (c) one differential diagnosis you considered and the single feature that excluded it.
Guidance: Choose ONE of the three patients. In 200–250 words, explain how the specific biology of the causative virus directly produces the clinical pattern you observed. Your explanation should move logically: entry → replication → host response → clinical sign (e.g., latency → reactivation → prodrome → vesicles at the same site). Avoid listing facts in isolation — explain the causal chain.
Guidance: For each of the three patients, provide a management plan (2–3 bullet points each). For every intervention you recommend, give a one-sentence justification grounded in the virus's biology or the evidence for that treatment. Note any patient-specific factors (e.g., immunosuppression, age, special sites) that would change your plan.
Guidance: Construct a table comparing all five cutaneous viral infections covered in this module (HSV, VZV, HPV warts, molluscum contagiosum) across the following columns: Causative agent/family, Primary lesion morphology, Pathognomonic sign or test, Antiviral therapy available (yes/no and drug if yes), Key complication to avoid missing. Keep table entries concise (≤ 15 words per cell).
Guidance: In 100–150 words, reflect on one clinical or knowledge gap this assignment revealed. What additional information would you want to know in clinical practice for one of the three cases, and why would it change management?
Grading Rubric — Common Viral Infections Assignment Rubric
| Criterion | Points | Full-marks descriptor |
|---|---|---|
| Diagnostic Accuracy and Morphological Recognition (DR8.2–8.5) | 25 pts | All three diagnoses are correct with unambiguous morphological reasoning. The primary recognition cue is named precisely (e.g., 'central umbilication', 'grouped vesicles on erythematous base', 'Hutchinson's sign'). Differential diagnosis exclusion is clinically sharp. |
| Pathogenesis Explanation — Causal Chain Quality (DR8.1) | 25 pts | The causal chain from viral biology to clinical sign is complete and logically sequenced (e.g., neural latency → reactivation trigger → anterograde transport → local replication → vesicle). No factual errors. Uses precise terminology. |
| Management Plan — Justification and Individualisation (DR8.1–8.5) | 25 pts | Every management recommendation is correct and carries a one-sentence mechanistic or evidence-based justification. Patient-specific factors (age, immunostatus, site) are explicitly addressed. |
| Comparative Table — Completeness and Factual Accuracy (DR8.1–8.5) | 15 pts | Table includes all five infections, all five columns, with factually correct and concise entries. No known-trap errors (e.g., does not say MCV is a herpesvirus; correctly states warts have no systemic antiviral; Tzanck cannot type between HSV and VZV). |
| Reflective Quality and Clinical Insight (DR8.1–8.5) | 10 pts | Reflection identifies a specific, genuine knowledge or clinical gap (not a generic statement). Explains clearly why the missing information would change management or interpretation. |
PEER REVIEW
Read your peer's assignment critically and complete the following: (1) Identify one diagnostic reasoning step in their case summaries that is particularly clear and well-justified — quote the specific sentence. (2) Identify one factual claim in the pathogenesis section or comparative table that you believe may be imprecise or incomplete — explain why. (3) For the management plan, suggest one addition or correction, with a brief justification. Peer review must be respectful, specific, and grounded in the module's teaching points.