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:
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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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

Points:

Points Range:
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Written somewhat concisely

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Contains some APA formatting errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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

Points:

Points Range:
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

Posts main Discussion by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Posts main Discussion by due date

Meets requirements for full participation

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Posts main Discussion by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

Feedback:

First Response:

Writing

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

Posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation

Posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

Feedback:

Second Response:

Writing

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

Posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation

Posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

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

"Is this question part of your assignment? We can help"

ORDER NOW
Writerbay.net

Do you need help with an assignment? We work for the best interests of our clients and maintain professionalism to offer brilliant writing services in most of academic fields—ranging from nursing, philosophy, psychology, biology, finance, accounting, criminal justice, mathematics, computer science, among others.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper