Discussion: prescribing for older adults and pregnant women
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
After assessing and diagnosing a patient, PMHNPs must take into consideration special characteristics of the patient before determining an appropriate course of treatment. For pharmacological treatments that are not FDA-approved for a particular use or population, off-label use may be considered when the potential benefits could outweigh the risks.
In this Discussion, you will investigate a specific disorder and determine potential appropriate treatments for when it occurs in an older adult or pregnant woman.
Discussion: Prescribing for Older Adults and Pregnant Women
After assessing and diagnosing a patient, PMHNPs must take into consideration special characteristics of the patient before determining an appropriate course of treatment. For pharmacological treatments that are not FDA-approved for a particular use or population, off-label use may be considered when the potential benefits could outweigh the risks.
In this Discussion, you will investigate a specific disorder and determine potential appropriate treatments for when it occurs in an older adult or pregnant woman.
To Prepare:
· Choose one of the two following specific populations: either pregnant women or older adults. Then, select a specific disorder from the DSM-5-TR to use.
· Use the Walden Library to research evidence-based treatments for your selected disorder in your selected population (either older adults or pregnant women). You will need to recommend one FDA-approved drug, one non-FDA-approved “off-label” drug, and one nonpharmacological intervention for treating the disorder in that population.
By Day 3 of Week 9
· Recommend one FDA-approved drug, one off-label drug, and one nonpharmacological intervention for treating your chosen disorder in older adults or pregnant women.
· Explain the risk assessment you would use to inform your treatment decision making. What are the risks and benefits of the FDA-approved medicine? What are the risks and benefits of the off-label drug?
· Explain whether clinical practice guidelines exist for this disorder, and if so, use them to justify your recommendations. If not, explain what information you would need to take into consideration.
· Support your reasoning with at least three current, credible scholarly resources, one each on the FDA-approved drug, the off-label, and a nonpharmacological intervention for the disorder.
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NRNP_6675_Week9_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_Week9_Discussion_Rubric
PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AS INDICATED BELOW:
1). ZERO (0) PLAGIARISM
2). AT LEAST 5 REFERENCES, NO MORE THAN 5 YEARS (WITHIN 5YRS, OR LESS THAN 5YRS)
3). PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED RUBRIC DETAILS,
"Is this question part of your assignment? We can help"
ORDER NOW
