Aquifer Case: Mr. Rodriquez Gastrointestinal Discussion
Six questions and a two-page limit, so nothing can be answered twice. The social history is clinical here — access, language and cost all change what the plan can be.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 16, 2026
Six questions in two pages, so answer each once
Six questions and two pages means roughly a paragraph each, so the discipline is answering each once and moving on. Take the history question seriously in its own terms: chief complaint, history of present illness, and then social, family and past medical history that is pertinent — pertinent being the operative word, because a full social history is not what is asked for. For this patient it is unusually load-bearing. He is uninsured, recently arrived from the Dominican Republic, and speaking through an interpreter, and each of those changes something clinical rather than merely contextual. Uninsured status shapes which diagnostics are realistic. Recent migration widens the differential toward conditions with different regional prevalence, including Helicobacter pylori infection and parasitic disease. Interpreter-mediated history means quality descriptors of pain travel poorly, so you plan for that rather than assuming the account is complete. Write one line saying what each of those three facts changes, and the history section becomes clinical.
Then keep the epigastric differential structured by anatomy so nothing is forgotten: gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer with or without H. pylori, gastritis, biliary disease, pancreatitis, and the non-gastrointestinal causes that present here — cardiac ischaemia above all, which is the miss that matters in a man of this age with epigastric pain. Give three differentials with your reasoning, then commit to a final diagnosis and say what decided it, which is the question most answers leave implicit. The plan needs drug therapy, treatment, patient education and follow-up, and every element should survive the constraints you already identified: a regimen he cannot afford is not a plan, and education delivered without a trained interpreter is not education. Answer the question about what you would have wanted included honestly — a missing red flag review or an absent medication history is a real answer. Name the red flag that would make you send him somewhere else today.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Select history elements by pertinence rather than completeness.
- 02Treat social determinants as clinically consequential rather than contextual.
- 03Structure an epigastric differential by anatomy, including non-GI causes.
- 04Build a plan that survives the patient's real constraints.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01Pertinent chief complaint, HPI, social, family and past medical history.
- 02The physical exam and diagnostic tools, plus what you would have wanted included.
- 03Three differential diagnoses with reasoning.
- 04A final diagnosis and how it was determined.
- 05A plan with drug therapy, treatment, education and follow-up.
- 06Two pages with references.
History, exam, differentials, diagnosis, plan
Pertinent history
Give chief complaint, HPI and the social, family and medical history that bears on the case.
Physical exam and diagnostics
Describe the examination and tests, and what each would establish.
What was missing
Name information you would have wanted and why.
Three differentials
Give three causes with the findings that support each.
Final diagnosis
Commit and explain the deciding evidence.
Plan of care
Set out drug therapy, treatment, education and follow-up under the constraints.
Guidance for the differentials you actually rank
Recommended databases
- NCBI Bookshelf
- PubMed Central
- American College of Gastroenterology
- The Aquifer case materials
Search sequence
- 1.Check current guidance on H. pylori testing and eradication before writing the plan.
- 2.Confirm the red flags that would change urgency for epigastric pain.
- 3.Look up interpreter use requirements so the education section is defensible.
- 4.Verify drug regimens and durations rather than approximating them.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Reflux disease evaluation and management, one of the leading differentials here.
- 02
Diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease
ABCD Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva · 2014
Diagnosis and management of reflux, with the diagnostic pathway set out.
- 03
The Potential Role of Helicobacter pylori-Related Mast Cell Activation in the Progression from Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
Microorganisms · 2025
Helicobacter pylori and progression of upper gastrointestinal disease — the migration-relevant differential.
- 04
- 05
Health Literacy
MedlinePlus, National Library of Medicine · 2025
Patient education across a language barrier, for the plan's education section.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Recording a full history rather than the pertinent one, and running out of space.
- Treating uninsured status and language as background rather than as constraints.
- Omitting cardiac causes from an epigastric pain differential.
- Proposing a plan the patient could not afford or could not understand.
Submission checklist
- Is every history element you included actually pertinent?
- Does the differential contain at least one non-gastrointestinal cause?
- Did you say how the final diagnosis was determined?
- Does the plan account for cost and for interpreter-mediated education?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.

Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.

Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.