Discussion: Women’s and Men’s Health, Infectious Disease, and Hematologic Disorders
Discussion: Women’s and Men’s Health, Infectious Disease, and Hematologic Disorders
As an advanced practice nurse, you will likely experience patient encounters with complex comorbidities. For example, consider a female patient who is pregnant who also presents with hypertension, diabetes, and has a recent tuberculosis infection. How might the underlying pathophysiology of these conditions affect the pharmacotherapeutics you might recommend to help address your patient’s health needs? What education strategies might you recommend for ensuring positive patient health outcomes?For this Discussion, you will be assigned a patient case study and will consider how to address the patient’s current drug therapy plans. You will then suggest recommendations on how to revise these drug therapy plans to ensure effective, safe, and quality patient care for positive patient health outcomes.
To Prepare
Review the Resources for this module and reflect on the different health needs and body systems presented.Review the complex case asisgned by your Instructor for this Discussion.
Consider how you will practice critical decision making for prescribing appropriate drugs and treatment to address the complex patient health needs in the patient case study you selected.
Post a brief description of your patient’s health needs from the patient case study you assigned. Be specific.
Then, explain the type of treatment regimen you would recommend for treating your patient, including the choice or pharmacotherapeutics you would recommend and explain why.
Be sure to justify your response.
Explain a patient education strategy you might recommend for assisting your patient with the management of their health needs.
Be specific and provide examples.
Case Study
A 66-year-old, 70-kg woman with a history of MI, HTN, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus presents with sudden-onset diaphoresis, nausea, vomiting, and dyspnea, followed by a bandlike upper chest pain (8/10) radiating to her left arm.
She had felt well until 1 month ago, when she noticed her typical angina was occurring with less exertion.
Electrocardiography showed ST-segment depression in leads II, III, and aVF and hyperdynamic T waves and positive cardiac enzymes. BP = 150/90 mm Hg, and all labs are normal; SCr =1.2 mg/dL. Home medications are aspirin 81 mg/day, simvastatin 40 mg every night, metoprolol 50 mg twice daily, and metformin 1 g twice daily.
This is the link to download the book:
https://www.sendspace.com/file/4y690p
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6521_Week9_Discussion_Rubric
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |
| Main Posting | Points:
Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Supported by at least three current, credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s). One or 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 cited with two credible sources. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately. 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 sources. 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 Post: Timeliness | Points:
Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3 Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3 Feedback: |
| First Response | Points:
Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. . Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. . Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback: |
| Second Response | Points:
Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. . Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are 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: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. . Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback: |
| Participation | Points:
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days Feedback: |
Show Descriptions Show Feedback
Main Posting–
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Supported by at least three current, credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Good 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Fair 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s). One or 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 cited with two credible sources. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors.
Poor 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately. 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 sources. 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 Post: Timeliness–
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3
Good 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Fair 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Poor 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3
Feedback:
First Response–
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. . Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Good 15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. . Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Fair 13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
Poor 0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Feedback:
Second Response–
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. . Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Good 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are 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.
Fair 12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. . Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
Poor 0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Feedback:
Participation–
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
Good 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Fair 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Poor 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)