16 Jan NRNP 6675 Week9 Discussion

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.

 

 

RUBRICS;

Rubric Detail

 

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: NRNP_6675_Week9_Discussion_Rubric

 

• Grid View

• List View

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. 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 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 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 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

Main Posting:

 

 

 

Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely

 

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors

 

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style 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 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Written somewhat concisely

 

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors

 

Contains some APA formatting errors 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

Main Posting:

 

 

 

Timely and full participation 9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

 

Posts main Discussion by due date 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Posts main Discussion by due date

 

Meets requirements for full participation 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Posts main Discussion by due date 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation

 

Does not post main Discussion by due date

First Response:

 

 

 

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources 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. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

First Response:

 

Writing 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. 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. 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. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

First Response:

 

Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

 

Posts by due date 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation

 

Posts by due date 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation

 

Does not post by due date

Second Response:

 

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources 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. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

Second Response:

 

Writing 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. 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. 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. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response:

 

Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

 

Posts by due date 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation

 

Posts by due date 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation

 

Does not post by due date

Total Points: 100

Name: NRNP_6675_Week9_Discussion_Rubric