NURS 6630 WEEK 6 ASSIGNMENT: PATIENT CASE SCENARIO DEBATE

NURS 6630 WEEK 6 ASSIGNMENT: PATIENT CASE SCENARIO DEBATE

NURS 6630 WEEK 6 ASSIGNMENT: PATIENT CASE SCENARIO DEBATE

PATIENT CASE SCENARIO DEBATE

In Week 5, you were assigned by Faculty to argue either the pro (for) or con (against) for a particular medication.  You were also provided information for a patient case study scenario. Week 5 was your opportunity to conduct research for this debate.

This week, you will present and defend your assigned stance (pro or con) and specific medication for your patient case study scenario with your peers. Within the debate, you will also share your perspective on why the alternative medication class would not be appropriate for the patient case scenario.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Good News For Our New customers . We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us

Support your answers with evidence-based, peer-reviewed scholarly literature.

Note: APA style format with citations and references will apply.

As a reminder, these were the assigned medications:

Struggling to meet your deadline ?

Get assistance on

NURS 6630 WEEK 6 ASSIGNMENT: PATIENT CASE SCENARIO DEBATE

done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!

 
Pro Con
Amphetamine Amphetamine
Methylphenidate Methylphenidate
Alpha Adrenergic Agonist Alpha Adrenergic Agonist
Non-Stimulant Non-Stimulant

 

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

LEARNING RESOURCES

Readings

  • Goldin, D. S. (2023). Fast facts for psychopharmacology for nurse practitioners. Springer Publishing.
    • Chapter 9, “Stimulants/Neurodevelopmental Disorders” (pp. 178–208)
    • Chapter 10, “Antidementia” (pp. 208–227)
  • American Academy of Pediatrics. (2019, October). Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescentsLinks to an external site.Pediatrics, 144(4), Article e20192528. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-2528
  • Drugs.comLinks to an external site.. (2023). https://www.drugs.com/
    Note: Please use the following resource to check the most up-to-date box warnings, FDA approvals and indications, recommendations for follow-up evaluations, changes, etc.
  • CHADD’s National Resource Center on ADHD. (2023). ADHD medications approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Stimulant medications. https://d393uh8gb46l22.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ADHD-Medications-Approved-by-FDA-2.23.pdf
    Note: Utilize this medication table resource to familiarize yourself with the medications aligned with the topics presented this week.

Media & Lecturio Resources

Note: Although this resource page displays as an Assignment, it will not be counted towards your final grade. Your progress through the Lecturio resources will be reported as a percentage in the gradebook that will only be used as reference. 

To prepare:

  • Review the Required Learning Resources.
  • Review your research regarding your position and medication.
  • Consider how you will apply your specific position and medication to the presented patient case.

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 6

Post your response detailing your argument for the following:

  • What is the proposed mechanism of action of the medication(s)? Why might this be appropriate for the patients?
  • What are the advantages or disadvantages to your class of medication (options for different administration, length of duration, etc.)?
  • What are the advantages or disadvantages to the other medication options?
  • What possible side effects or considerations need to be evaluated?
  • Provide one example for each consideration—legal, ethical, and social implications—for prescribing the medication category.

Note: Your response needs to be supported by three 3 scholarly peer-reviewed resources located outside of your course learning resources.

BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 6

Read a selection of your colleagues’ posts. Focus specifically on those colleagues who were assigned your same medication but opposite stance.

Respond to at least two of your colleagues on 2 different days who were assigned your same medication but an opposite stance. For example, if you were assigned the con stance for amphetamine, you should respond to two students who were assigned the pro stance for amphetamine.  Support or expand on your original argument to refute their claims. Work to share additional perspectives on the issue described by your colleague.

Note: It is recommended that you read all peer postings to learn about medications other than those to which you are assigned.Additionally, your response needs to be supported by two (2) scholarly peer-reviewed resources located outside of your course Learning Resources.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

NURS_6630_Week6_Discussion_Rubric

NURS_6630_Week6_Discussion_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain 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. Response clearly demonstrates the pro or con portion of argument for the medication and patient case assigned with explanation of why opposing would not be appropriate.
44 to >39.0 ptsExcellent

Thoroughly and accurately responds to the Discussion question(s). The response 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. Post is supported by three (3) or more scholarly peer-reviewed resources located outside of the course Learning Resources. Response comprehensively, clearly, and accurately demonstrates the pro or con portion of argument for the medication and patient case assigned with explanation of why opposing would not be appropriate.

39 to >34.0 ptsGood

Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Discussion is accurate and somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. At least 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Post is supported by three (3) resources but did not use resources located outside of the course Learning Resources. Response clearly and accurately demonstrates the pro or con portion of argument for the medication and patient case assigned with explanation of why opposing would not be appropriate.

34 to >30.0 ptsFair

Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). Noted some inaccuracies to Discussion. 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 cited with fewer than two credible references. Response vaguely demonstrates the pro or con portion of argument for the medication and patient case assigned with little explanation of why opposing would not be appropriate.

30 to >0 ptsPoor

Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Noted several inaccuracies or off topic for Discussion. 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. Response does not demonstrate the pro or con portion of argument or student wrote wrong argument for the medication and patient case assigned there is no explanation of why opposing would not be appropriate.

44 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting: Writing
6 to >4.0 ptsExcellent

Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

4 to >2.0 ptsGood

Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Contains one to two APA manual writing rules and style errors.

2 to >1.0 ptsFair

Written somewhat concisely. Contains more than three to four spelling or grammatical errors. Contains three to four APA formatting errors.

1 to >0 ptsPoor

Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than five spelling or grammatical errors. Contains more than five APA manual writing rules and style.

6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting: Timely and full participation
10 to >7.0 ptsExcellent

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Main Discussion post is on time— by Day 3.

7 to >4.0 ptsGood

Meets requirements for full participation. Main Discussion post is 1 day late—by Day 4 of the week.

4 to >1.0 ptsFair

Mostly meets requirements for full participation. Main Discussion post is 2 days late—by Day 5 of the week.

1 to >0 ptsPoor

Does not meet requirements for full participation. Main Discussion post is 3 days late—by Day 6 of the week. If posted on Day 7, grade zero for timeliness. If posted after Day 7, grade zero for the whole response—not accepted late.

10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. Expands opposing colleague’s Discussion on topic with your argument to refute their claims.
9 to >7.0 ptsExcellent

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Response adds significant new information to Discussion. Response demonstrates critical thinking.

7 to >5.0 ptsGood

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Response expands some of the Discussion with new information. Response demonstrates some critical thinking.

5 to >3.0 ptsFair

Response is on topic, may have some depth. Response expands little of the Discussion with new information. Critical thinking is vaguely demonstrated.

3 to >0 ptsPoor

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth. Response does not expand the Discussion with new information. No critical thinking; response leans toward “I agree” or “good point” referencing .

9 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response: Writing
6 to >5.0 ptsExcellent

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responds to all questions posed by colleagues and/or Faculty, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by the use of two (2) scholarly, peer-reviewed sources to support ideas and demonstrate synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives. Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English.

5 to >3.0 ptsGood

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Responds to some questions posed by colleagues and/or Faculty, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported using one (1) scholarly, peer-reviewed source to support ideas demonstrate synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives. Response is written in Standard Edited English.

3 to >1.0 ptsFair

Response posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responds to few questions posed by colleagues and/or Faculty, if posed. The use of one (1) or more sources to support ideas demonstrate synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives, but sources are not considered peer-reviewed or scholarly.

1 to >0 ptsPoor

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Does not respond to questions posed by colleagues and/or Faculty, if posed. No credible sources are cited.

6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response: Timely and full participation
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent

Response meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Responds to minimum of two (2) colleagues on 2 different days. Posts by due date of Day 6 of week.

4 to >3.0 ptsGood

Response meets requirements for full participation. Responds to minimum of one (1) colleague on different day from initial post. Posts by due date of Day 6 of week.

3 to >1.0 ptsFair

Responds to minimum of two or one (2 or 1) colleagues on same day. Posts by due date of Day 6 of week.

1 to >0 ptsPoor

Does not meet requirements for full participation. Responds to one (1) or no colleagues. Posts on Day 7 of week. If post after Day 7, grade of zero for whole response as not accepted late.

5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
9 to >7.0 ptsExcellent

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Response adds significant new information to Discussion Demonstrates critical thinking.

7 to >5.0 ptsGood

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Response expands some of the Discussion with new information. Demonstrates some critical thinking.

5 to >3.0 ptsFair

Response is on topic, may have some depth. Response expands little of the Discussion with new information. Critical thinking is vaguely demonstrated.

3 to >0 ptsPoor

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth. Response does not expand the Discussion with new information. No critical thinking, response leans toward “I agree” or “good point” referencing.

9 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response: Writing
6 to >5.0 ptsExcellent

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responds to all questions posed by colleagues and/or Faculty, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by the use of two (2) scholarly, peer-reviewed sources to support ideas and demonstrate synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives. Response is effectively written in Standard, Edited English.

5 to >3.0 ptsGood

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Responds to some questions posed by colleagues and/or Faculty., if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported using one (1) scholarly, peer-reviewed source to support ideas demonstrate synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives. Response is written in Standard, Edited English.

3 to >1.0 ptsFair

Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responds to few questions posed by colleagues and/or Faculty, if posed… The use of one (1) or more sources to support ideas demonstrate synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives but sources are not considered peer reviewed or scholarly.

1 to >0 ptsPoor

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Does not respond to questions posed by colleagues and/or Faculty, if posed. No credible sources are cited.

6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response: Timely and full participation
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Responds to minimum of two (2) colleagues on 2 different days. Posts by due date of Day 6 of week. Posts by due date of Day 6 of week.

4 to >3.0 ptsGood

Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. Responds to minimum of one (1) colleague on different day from initial post. Posts by due date of Day 6 of week.

3 to >1.0 ptsFair

Responds to minimum of two or one (2 or 1) colleagues on same day. Posts by due date of Day 6 of week.

1 to >0 ptsPoor

Does not meet requirements for full participation. Responds to one (1) or no colleagues. Posts on Day 7 of week. If post after Day 7, grade of zero for whole response as not accepted late. If post after Day 7, grade of zero for whole response as not accepted late.

5 pts
Total Points: 100

 


Struggling to meet your deadline ?

Get assistance on

NURS 6630 WEEK 6 ASSIGNMENT: PATIENT CASE SCENARIO DEBATE

done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!

Open chat
WhatsApp chat +1 908-954-5454
We are online
Our papers are plagiarism-free, and our service is private and confidential. Do you need any writing help?