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.

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, credi

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

ble scholarly resources, one each on the FDA-approved drug, the off-label, and a nonpharmacological intervention for the disorder.

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, the assignment, and instructions For Case Study Transcript, Focus soap Note Template, and focus Soap Note exemplar.

4). Please review and follow the grading rubric details and include each component in the assignment as required. Also, follow the APA 7 writing rules, style/Format, Title page, Introduction, Purpose statement, Literature Review, Conclusion, References.

 

IMPORTANT!!! IMPORTANT!!! IMPORTANT!!!

PLEASE TAKE NOTE below

SAFE-ASSIGN and Plagiarism

 

SAFE-ASSIGN HAS TO BE LOWER THAN 50%, AND IF IT’S HIGHER AND THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT PAST ASSIGNMENTS WERE REUSED FROM ANOTHER COURSE OR THERE ARE SIGNS OF PLAGIARISM, AN AI INVESTIGATION WILL BE OPEN. 

 

Thank you very much for help.