Discussion: certification and licensure plan
NOTE: We do not resell pre-written papers. Upon ordering a paper, we custom-write an original paper exclusively for you. Please proceed and order an original paper to enjoy top grades.
Order a Similar Paper
Order a Different Paper
PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTION BELOW, ZERO PLAGIARISM, FIVE REFERENCES NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, FOLLOW 7TH APA FORMAT
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NRNP_6675_Week1_Discussion_Rubric
|
Excellent
90%–100% |
Good
80%–89% |
Fair
70%–79% |
Poor
0%–69% |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Main Posting:
Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. |
Points: Points Range: Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s) Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth Supported by at least three current credible sources Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Responds to most of the Discussion question(s) Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth Supported by at least three credible references Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Responds to some of the Discussion question(s) One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module Post is supported by fewer than two credible references Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Does not respond to the Discussion question(s) Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module Contains only one or no credible references Feedback: |
|
Main Posting:
Writing |
Points: Points Range: Written clearly and concisely Contains no grammatical or spelling errors Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Written concisely May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style with minor errors Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Written somewhat concisely May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors Contains some APA formatting errors Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Not written clearly or concisely Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style Feedback: |
|
Main Posting:
Timely and full participation |
Points: Points Range: Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation Posts main Discussion by due date Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Posts main Discussion by due date Meets requirements for full participation Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Posts main Discussion by due date Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Does not meet requirements for full participation Does not post main Discussion by due date Feedback: |
|
First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources |
Points: Points Range: Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings Responds to questions posed by faculty The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Response is on topic, may have some depth. Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Response may not be on topic, lacks depth. Feedback: |
|
First Response:
Writing |
Points: Points Range: Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources Response is written in standard, edited English. Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Response posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback: |
|
First Response:
Timely and full participation |
Points: Points Range: Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation Posts by due date Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Meets requirements for full participation Posts by due date Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Posts by due date Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Does not meet requirements for full participation Does not post by due date Feedback: |
|
Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources |
Points: Points Range: Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Response is on topic, may have some depth. Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Response may not be on topic, lacks depth. Feedback: |
|
Second Response:
Writing |
Points: Points Range: Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources Response is written in standard, edited English. Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback: |
|
Second Response:
Timely and full participation |
Points: Points Range: Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation Posts by due date Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Meets requirements for full participation Posts by due date Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Posts by due date Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: Does not meet requirements for full participation Does not post by due date Feedback: |
Show Descriptions
Show Feedback
Main Posting:
Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.–
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
90%–100%
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s)
Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources
No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth
Supported by at least three current credible sources
Good
80%–89%
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the Discussion question(s)
Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module
50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth
Supported by at least three credible references
Fair
70%–79%
31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the Discussion question(s)
One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module
Post is supported by fewer than two credible references
Poor
0%–69%
0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the Discussion question(s)
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module
Contains only one or no credible references
Feedback:
Main Posting:
Writing–
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
90%–100%
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely
Contains no grammatical or spelling errors
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
Good
80%–89%
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely
May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style with minor errors
Fair
70%–79%
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely
May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors
Contains some APA formatting errors
Poor
0%–69%
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or concisely
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style
Feedback:
Main Posting:
Timely and full participation–
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
90%–100%
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation
Posts main Discussion by due date
Good
80%–89%
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Posts main Discussion by due date
Meets requirements for full participation
Fair
70%–79%
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main Discussion by due date
Poor
0%–69%
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation
Does not post main Discussion by due date
Feedback:
First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources–
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
90%–100%
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings
Responds to questions posed by faculty
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Good
80%–89%
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
Fair
70%–79%
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth.
Poor
0%–69%
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
Feedback:
First Response:
Writing
—
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
90%–100%
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Good
80%–89%
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources
Response is written in standard, edited English.
Fair
70%–79%
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited.
Poor
0%–69%
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Feedback:
First Response:
Timely and full participation
—
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
90%–100%
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation
Posts by due date
Good
80%–89%
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation
Posts by due date
Fair
70%–79%
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date
Poor
0%–69%
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation
Does not post by due date
Feedback:
Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources
—
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
90%–100%
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Responds to questions posed by faculty
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Good
80%–89%
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
Fair
70%–79%
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth.
Poor
0%–69%
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
Feedback:
Second Response:
Writing
—
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
90%–100%
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Good
80%–89%
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources
Response is written in standard, edited English.
Fair
70%–79%
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited.
Poor
0%–69%
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Feedback:
Second Response:
Timely and full participation
—
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
90%–100%
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation
Posts by due date
Good
80%–89%
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation
Posts by due date
Fair
70%–79%
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date
Poor
0%–69%
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation
Does not post by due date
Feedback:
|
Total Points: 100 |
|---|
Name: NRNP_6675_Week1_Discussion_Rubric
Discussion: Certification and Licensure Plan
Now that you are in the final course in your program, it is time to turn in earnest to preparing for certification and licensure. You will need to take and pass the national PMHNP certification exam. Once certified, you will then be eligible to apply for licensure as an advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) in the state desired. It will be up to you to ensure you are knowledgeable about the practice agreements, scope of practice, and prescriptive authority in your state.
Although a movement called the APRN Consensus Model is attempting to standardize NP regulations nationally, it is still the case that requirements vary state to state. In some states, NPs may establish an independent practice without the supervision of an MD. Additionally, states are currently categorized as either allowing full practice, reduced practice, or restricted practice. Full practice states allow NPs to evaluate, order diagnostics, diagnose, and treat patients. They are licensed under the exclusive authority of the state board of nursing for the appropriate state. Many states may require prescriptive authority protocols in addition to collaborative agreement.
Another important area to consider and plan for is prescriptive authority. The appropriate board, which may be the medical board, state board of pharmacy, or nursing board, grants prescriptive authority under state law for the appropriate state licensure. The federal government grants the authority to write for a controlled substance, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) verifies this action through by the appropriate state board. Drug Enforcement Agency registration is granted at the federal level and has additional requirements/fees for the registration process.
In this Discussion, you will locate and review the practice agreements in the state in which you plan to practice, identify potential collaboration requirements in your state, and understand the certification and licensing process that you will need to follow.
To Prepare:
· Review practice agreements in your state.
· Identify whether your state requires physician collaboration or supervision for nurse practitioners, and if so, what those requirements are.
· Research the following:
· How do you get certified and licensed as an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) in your state?
· What is the application process for certification in your state?
· What is your state’s board of nursing website?
· How does your state define the scope of practice of a nurse practitioner?
· What is included in your state practice agreement?
· How do you get a DEA license?
· Does your state have a prescription monitoring program (PMP)?
· How does your state describe a nurse practitioner’s controlled-substance prescriptive authority, and what nurse practitioner drug schedules are nurse practitioners authorized to prescribe?
"Is this question part of your assignment? We can help"
ORDER NOW
