Examine Case Study: A Puerto Rican Woman With Comorbid Addiction. You will be asked to make three decisions concerning the medication to prescribe to this client. Be sure to consider factors that migh

Examine Case Study: A Puerto Rican Woman With Comorbid Addiction. You will be asked to make three decisions concerning the medication to prescribe to this client. Be sure to consider factors that migh
CORMORNID ADDICTION (ETOH AND GAMBLING) 53-YEAR-OLD PUERTO RICAN FEMALE BACKGROUND MRS. MARIA PEREZ IS A 53-YEAR-OLD PUERTO RICAN FEMALE WHO PRESENTS TODAY DUE TO A RATHER “EMBARRASSING PROBLE”. SUBJECTIVE MRS. PEREZ ADMITS THAT SHE HAS HAD “PROBLEMS” WITH ALCOHOL SINCE HER FATHER DIED IN HER LATE TEENS. SHE REPORTS THAT SHE HAS STRUGGLED WITH ALCOHOL SINCE HER 20s AND HAS BEEN INVOLVED WITH ALCOHOL ANONYMOUS “ON AND OFF” FOR THE PAST 25 YEARS. SHE STATES THAT FOR THE PAST 2 YEARS, SHE HAS BEEN HAVING MORE AND MORE DIFFICULTIES MAINTAING HER SOBRIETY SINCE THE OPENING OF THE NEW “RISEN SUN: CASINO NEAR HER HOME. MRS PEREZ STATES THAT SHE AND A FRIEND WENT TO VISIT THE NEW CASINO DURING ITS GRAND OPENING AT WHICH POINT SHE WAS “HOOKED.” SHE STATES THAT SHE GETS “SUCH A HIGH” WHEN SHE IS GAMBLING. WHILE GAMBLING SHE “ENJOYS A DRINK OR TWO” TO HELP CALM HER DURING HIGH STAKES GAMES. SHE STATES THAT THIS OFTEN GIVES WAY TO MORE DRINKING AND MORE RECKLESS GAMBLING. SHE ALSO REPORT THAT HER CIGARRETTE SMOKING HAS INCREASED OVER THE PAST 2 YEARS AND SHE IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE CIGARETTE SMOKING ON HER HEALTH. SHE STATES THAT SHE HAS ATTEMPTED TO SUBSTAIN FROM DRINKING BUT SHE GETS SUCH A “HIGH” FROM THE ACT OF GAMBLING THAT SHE NEEDS A FEW DRINKS TO “EVEN OUT.” SHE ALSO NOTICED THAT WHEN SHE DRINKS, SHE DOSEN’T SMOKE “AS MUCH,” BUT SHE ENJOYS SMOKING WHEN SHE IS PLAYING AT THE SLOT MACHINES. SHE ALSO REPORTS THAT SHE HAS GAINED WEIGHT FROM DRINKING SO MUCH. SHE CURRENTLY WEIGHTS 122LBS, WHICH REPRESENTS A 7LB WEIGHT GAIN FROM HER USUAL 115 LBS WEIGHT. MRS. PEREZ IS QUIET CONCERNED TODAY BECAUSE SHE BORROWED OVER $50,000 FROM HER RETIREMENT ACCOUNT TO PAY OFF HER GAMBLING DEBTS , AND HER HUSBAND DOES NOT KNOW. MENTAL STATUS EXAM THE CLIENT IS A 53 YEAR OLD PUERTO RICAN FEMALE WHO IS ALERT AND ORIENTED TO PERSON, PLACE, TIME AND EVENTS. SHE IS DRESSED APPROPRIATE FOR THE WEATHER AND TIME OF YEAR. HER SPEECH IS CLEAR, COHERENT AND GOAL DIRECTED. HER EYE CONTACT IS SOMEWHAT AVOIDANT DURING THE CLINICAL INTERVIEW. WHEN YOU MAKE EYE CONTACT WITH HER, SHE LOOKS AWAY OR LOOKS DOWN. SHE DEMONSTATES NO NOTEWORTHY MANNERISMS, GESTURES OR TICS. SHE SELF-REPORTED MOOD IS “SAD.” AFFECT IS APPROPRIATE TO CONTENT OF CONVERSATION AND SELF-REPORTED MOOD. SHE DENIES AUDITORY OR VISUAL HALLUCINATIONS, AND NO DELUSIONAL OR PARANOID THOUGHT PROCESSES ARE READILY APPRECIATED. INSIGHT AND JUDGEMENT ARE GROSSLY INTACT;HOWEVER, IMPULSE CONTROL IS IMPAIRED. SHE IS CURRENTLY DENYING SUICIADAL OR HOMICIDAL IDEATIONS. DIAGNOSIS: GAMBLING DISORDER, ALCOHOL USE DISORDER DECISION POINT ONE SELECT WHAT YOU SHOULD DO VIVTROL (NALTREXONE) INJECTION 380 MG INTRAMUSCULARLY IN THE GLUTEAL REGION EVERY 4 WEEKS ANTABUSE (DISULFIRAM) 250 MG ORALLY DAILY CAMPRAL (ACAMPROSATE) 666 MG ORALLY THREE TIMES/DAY RESULTS TO DECISION POINT ONE CLIENT RETURNS TO THE CLINIC IN FOUR WEEKS UPON RETURN MRS PEREZ HAS STATES THAT SHE NOTICED THAT SHE HAS BEEN HAVING SUICIDAL IDEATIONS OVER THE PAST WEEK, AND IT SEEMS TO BE GETTING WORST. SHE IS ALSO REPORTING THAT SHE IS HAVING “OUT OF CONTROL” ANXIETY DECISION POINT TWO SELECT WHAT YOU SHOULD DO EDUCATE MRS. PEREZ ON THE SIDE EFFECTS OF CAPRAL AND ADD VALIUM (DIAZEPAM) 5 MG ORALLY TID TO ADDRESS ANXIETY SYMPTOMS DISCONTINUE CAPRAL AND BEGIN ANATABUSE (DISULIFRAM) 250 MG ORALLY DAILY DECREASE CAPRAL TO 666 MG ORALLY BID RESULTS OF DECISION POINT TWO CLIENT RETURNS TO THE CLINIC IN FOUR WEEKS MRS. PEREZ STATES THAT THE SUICIDAL THOUGHTS HAVE ABATED BUT REPORTS THAT SHE HAS BEEN FEELING TIRED FOR SEVERAL HOURS AFTER TAKING THE DRUG SHE REPORTS THAT SHE HAS NOT BEEN GOING TO THE CASINO BECAUSE SHE IS AFRAID THAT SHE MIGHT BE TEMPTED TO DRINK, AND SHE NOTICED THAT THE LAST TIME SHE DRANK, SHE FELT NAUSEOUS AND BEGAN TO VOMIT. SHE ALSO REPORTED THAT IT FELT LIKE HER HEART WOULD “POUND RIGHT OUT” OF HER CHEST.” SHE DOES REPORT THAT SHE IS SMOKING MORE HOWEVER. DECISION POINT THREE SELECT WHAT YOU SHOULD DO DISCONTINUE ANTABUSE AND DISCUSS SMOKING CESSATION OPTIONS CONTINUE ANTABUSE IN THE MORNING AND DISCUSS SMOKING CESSATION OPTIONS CHANGE ANTABUSE DOSE TO BEDTIME AND DISCUSS SMOKING CESSATION OPTIONS GUIDANCE TO STUDENT SEDATION OCCURS IN MANY PEOPLE TAKING ANATABUSE. MRS. PEREZ IS EXPERIENCING SIDE EFFECTS WHEN SHE CONSUMES ALCOHOL WITH THIS DRUG, WHICH IS THE EXPECTED/INTENDED THERAPUETIC EFFECT. AS A “SIDE EFFECT” SHE IS AVODING THE CASINO, WHICH IS ALSO HELPING. AT THIS POINT IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO DISCONTINUE ANTABUSE. DESPITE THE FACT THAT CONTROVERSY EXISTS REGARDING HOW LONG SOMEONE SHOULD REMAIN ON THIS MEDICATION, THE CLIENT HAS ONLY BEEN ON THIS DRUG FOR FOUR WEEKS. ADDITIONAL TIME ON THIS MEDICATION WOULD BE PRUDENT. TO MINIMIZE THE SIDE EFFECT OF SEDTION, THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DRUG SHOULD BE CHANGED TO BEDTIME. IN ALL CASES, YOU NEED TO DISCUSS SMOKING CESSATION OPTIONS WITH MRS. PEREZ IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE TOTALITY OF ADDICTIONS AND TO ENHANCE HER OVERALL HEALTH. ADDITIONALY, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH MRS. PEREZ HAS REPORTED THAT SHE HAS BEEN AVOIDING THE CASINO SECONDARY TO HER FEAR THAT SHE WILL DRINK , THIS “FEAR” HAS NOT ACTUALLY TREATED HER GAMBLING ADDICTION. THIS PARTICULAR ADDICTION HAS RESULTED IN CONSIDERABLE PERSONAL FINANCIAL COST. TO MRS. PEREZ. MRS. PEREZ NEEDS TO BE REFERRED TO A COUNSELOR WHO SPECIALIZES IN THE TREATMENT OF GAMBLING DISORDER, AND SHE SHOULD ALSO BE ENCOURGAED TO ESTABLISH HERSELF WITH A LOCAL CHAPTER OF GAMBLING ANONYMOUS
Examine Case Study: A Puerto Rican Woman With Comorbid Addiction. You will be asked to make three decisions concerning the medication to prescribe to this client. Be sure to consider factors that migh
A running head is not required and should be omitted from your paper. Title of the Paper Goes Here Student Name Here Program Name or Degree Name , Walden University Course Number and Title (NURS 6630 Psychopharmaco logy ) Instructor Name (Dr . Katherine Gryzenia) Month, Day, Year (enter the date submitted to ins tructor) Commented [A1]: Please format your decision tree assignments as sho wn in th is writi ng templ ate. You are gr aded on yo ur ability to follow this format . You are al so graded o n your ability to follow the instructions embedded within this template. For additional details on grading, you shoul d refer to the grading r ubric in Canvas . *Please n ote that I have highlighted common areas f or mistakes in yellow. Title of the Pap er Goes Here This is your in troductory section . It should be one page in leng th or less . Your introduct ory section mus t contain the following three elements in this order : (1) a brief summary of the case , (2) a statem ent th at clearly identif ies the pa tient -specific factors you will consider as you make your decisions , and (3) a thesis stat ement . Please no te that background information on the diagnosis, diagnostic criter ia and testing, and epidemiology is NOT required. It is assume d that you know this; t herefore, you should omit this information and devote yourself to summarizing the case and highlighting patient -specifi c factors that will impact your decisions. The basic APA format that is required for this document is as follo ws: font should be Times New Roman 12 -point , font color should be blac k, spacing should be double -spac ed, margins should be 1”, indentations at the beginning of each paragraph should be 1/2” , and page number s should be in th e top right -hand corner of the page . Each paragraph within the body of your document should be at least 3 -4 sentences in length. The information co ntained within this paper sho uld b e paraphrased . Directly quoting your s ources does not de monstrate your ability to assimila te and synthe size information at a graduate level ; therefore , you must avoid using direct quotations in your papers . You must back up your facts by referencing credible source s within the primary and secondary literature . Your references must be cited in parenthetica l citations within your text that correspond to a full entry in your reference li st. In-text citations can either be placed at the end of a sentence or with in a sentence as shown here , respectively : Employers cause burnout when employees are stressed by too much work (Leplante, 2019). According to Leplante (2019), employers cause burnout when employees are stressed by too much work . Commented [A2]: You should not copy the case direct ly from the scenario given to you in Canvas . You s hould use your own words to concisely summarize the case. Commented [A3]: The pat ient-specific factors that you clearly identify in this introductory section must be revis ited with in the body of your paper. These factors must help you establish the rationale for your decisions and/or highlight your ethical considerations. To clearly identify patient -specific fact ors, please begin y our sentence with, “The pa tient-specific factors I will consider as I make my decisions are…” Beginning your sentence with this phrase will help me recogniz e it and will ensure that you get credit for it. You will not get credit f or simpl y mention ing patient-specific factors with in your case summary ; they must be clearly identified and revis ited. Commented [A4]: Your thesis statement (statement of purpose) should be one sentence . This one sentence should be the last sentence of your introductory se ction . To c learly id entify your thesis stateme nt, please begin your sentence with, “The purpose of this paper is …” Beginning your sentence with this phrase will help me recognize it as a thes is state ment and will ensure that you get credit for having a thesis statemen t. You may not get c redit for a thesis statement i f this format is not followed. Commented [A5]: in your own words Commented [A6]: As you write your paper, you must include a minimum of five academic resources. You may use the course text as a reference; however, it will n ot count tow ard your five resource s. You shou ld be utilizing the primary and secondary literature. The definitions of primary and secondary literature can be found within your syllabus. Please note that you are to focus on work published within the p ast five years. Seminal (groundbreaking) informat ion does not need to be published within the past five years. Commented [A7]: A parenthetical in-text citation gives credit in parentheses to a source that you’re paraphrasing. It contai ns the author’s name, the publication date, and the page nu mber(s) if necessary . Ple ase see the Writing Center for more information about APA style for citations and referencing: https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/apa https://academicguides.walden u.edu/writingcenter/apa/citations Decision Point #1 This text represents the beginning of the body of your paper. In this first paragraph , you must clearl y state the de cision you made at decision point #1 . You must also explain why you made this choice . Important ly, the fact that a drug is a “first -line agent ” cannot be used as a stand -alone r ationale for yo ur decision. You must cite evid ence from the l iterature that demonstrates why this drug is first -line or why this drug is superior to the other options . In this sec ond para graph, you must clearly identify the first option that you did not choose. You must also explain why you opt ed out of this opt ion. Important ly, the fact that a drug is a “second -line agent ” cannot be used a s a stand -alone rationale for o pting out. You must cite evidence from the literature that explains why this drug is second -line or why this drug is inferior to the option you chose. In this third paragr aph, you must clearly ide ntify the seco nd option that you did not choose. You must also explain why you opted out of this option. Once again , the fact that a drug is a “second -line agent” cannot be used as a stand -alone rationa le for opting o ut. You must cite evidence from the literature that explains why this drug is second -line or why this drug is inferior to the option you chose. In this fourt h p aragraph , you must briefly explain the outcome (s) that you were hoping to achiev e. You must al so discuss the ethical considerations associated with your decision . As you write about all the required information in paragraphs one through four, you must rem em ber to consi der the patient -specific factors that you pointed out in your in troduction sect ion . These patient -specific factors must be used to help you establish the rationale for your decisions and/or highlight your ethical considerations . Commented [A8]: The leng th of your d ocument should not be much greater than five pa ges; therefore, you will need to be concis e as you write. You d o not need to reiter ate all the opt ions available to you at decision point one. Rather, begin this section by simply stating, “My decision at decision point #1 is…” Please note that t he options in the scenario must be taken at face value . This mea ns that you canno t add to them or take away from them. Subs tantial points have been deducted from papers due to a chosen option being modified to better suit the author. Commented [A9]: Since t his is a pharmacology course, your rationale must include p harmacokinetics and/or pharmacodynamics in order to get full credit. Commented [A10]: The grading rubric instruct s you to dis cuss your ethical considerat ions at each de cision point. You can eit her do this or create an additional l abeled section for your e thical considera tions. Whichever option you choose, y ou must clearly label/ identify your ethical co nsiderations. (For example, “My ethical consideratio ns are …”) I will not searc h through your document to find content that qualifies as ethical considerations . Commented [A11]: For examp le, if you identify the client ’s gender as one of your patient -specific fa ctors in your introduction , then you must come “full-circle ” and specif ically state how the client ’s gend er impact ed your decisions or ethical considerations . Decision Point #2 The f ormat of this section is similar to the format of the section fo r decision po int #1. The results of your decision at decision point #1 will lead you to three new options a t decision point #2. After briefly stat ing the results of your decision at deci sion point #1 , you must clearly state the decision you made at deci sion point # 2 in this first paragraph . Then you must continue on with this section as shown in decision point # 1. Decision point #3 The results of you r decision at decision point # 2 will lead you to three new options at decision point # 3. After briefly s tating the resul ts of your decision at decision point # 2, you must clearly state the decision you made at decision point # 3 in this first par agraph. Then you must continue on with this section as shown in decision point #1 . Ethic al Considerations If you did not identif y and discus s your ethical considerations with in the previous sectio ns, then you will need to include this labeled section on ethical considerations. No matter where you discuss ethics, you should consider the ethics related to treatment and not diagnosis . This is a pharma cology course ; therefor e, we are focusing our attention o n treatment. Furthermore, we must a lso be client -centered. Rather than discuss ethics in general, you must consider ethics as it applies to the specific client in your case. Con clusion The conclusio n section should clearly summarize each of your decisions . You should not introduc e new i deas in this paragraph ; the c onclusion should summarize what you have already written and what it means in the bigger picture . Commented [A12]: Be brief! Rem ember, t he length of your document should not be much greater than five pages; therefore, you will need to be concise as you write. Commented [A13]: At the end of the decision tree assignment , there is a section entitled “Guidance to Student. ” This information may or ma y not b e appropriate for you to use in your paper. However, i f you choose to use this information in your paper , you must paraphrase as al ways and search to find another valid source as a reference . You cannot use the information in the case st udy as your ration ale. Instructors reserve the right to deduct 10% for acad emic writing concerns involv ing parap hrasing and improper citations/reference s. Commented [A14]: Optional Commented [A15]: What was your decision at decision po int #1? What was your decision at decision point #2? What was you r decision at decision point #3? All three of these qu estions must be answere d. In orde r to ge t full credit for the conclusion section , you must also briefly summar ize t he rationale for your ultimate decision . However, I do NOT require you to restate your rationale for opting out of the options that you did not choose. It is imp ortant for me to mention again that your writing should be referenced with in -text citations that also appear in your full reference list (se e next page). Your writing must also be paraphrased and not quoted . Failure to properly reference and /or paraphra se may result in either: an academic integrity inquir y for plagiarism or a 10% point deduction for lack of originalit y. Commented [A16]: After you have finish ed writing your document, you should reread it three times to verify covera ge of required content and to identify issues with cl arity , redundancy, typographical erro rs, and citations/references . The fi nal dr aft of your paper should be submitted to SafeAssign Drafts , and it shou ld also be sub mitted f or grading. Resubmissions are not allowed after the deadline has passed; therefore, you must be sure that the document you submi t is the final version of your document. Refere nces Journal Article ; Two Author s; DOI Leplante, J. P. & Nolin, C. (201 4). Consultas and socially responsible investing in Guatemala: A case study examin ing Maya perspectives on the Indigenous right to free, pr ior, and inf ormed cons ent. Society & Natural Resourc es, 27(4), 231 –248. https ://doi .org/ 10.1080/08941920.2013.86 1554 Journal Artic le, Two Authors; URL Eaton, T. V., & Akers, M. D. (20 007 ). Whistlebl owing and good governance. CPA Journal , 77(6), 66–71. http://archives.cpajournal.com/2007/607/essentials/p58 .htm Journal Article, More Than Tw enty Authors ; DOI Wiskunde, B., Arslan, M., Fischer, P., Nowak, L., Va n den Berg, O., Coetzee , L., Juárez, U., Riyaziyyat, E., W ang, C., Zhang, I., Li, P., Yang, R., Kumar, B., Xu, A., Martinez, R., McIntosh, V., Ibáñez, L. M ., Mäkinen, G., Virtanen, E., . . . Kovács, A. (2019). Indie pop rocks mathematics: Twenty One Pilots , Nicolas Bourba ki, and the empty set. Journal of Improbab le Mathematics , 27(1), 1935 –1968. https://doi.org/ xxx/xxx xxx Book; One Autho r Wein stein, J . A. (201 9). Social change (3rd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. Book ; Chapter in an Edite d Book Christensen, L. (20 20). For my people: Celebr ating communi ty through poetry. In B. Bige low, B. Harvey, S. Karp, & L. Mill er (Ed s.), Rethinking our classrooms: Tea ching for equity and justice (Vol. 2; pp. 16 –17). Rethinking Schoo ls. Commented [A17]: Please note that the following references are intended as exam ples only. List your own references in alphabetical order. Also, these illustrate diff erent types of references; you are responsible for any citations n ot included in this list. In you r paper, be sure every reference entry matches a citation, and ev ery cit ation refers to an item in the reference list. Professio nal Orga nization Web page Centers fo r Disea se Control and Prevention. (20 18). Back to school . https: //www.cdc.gov/features/teens -back -to-school/ index.html Professio nal Organization Book American Nurses Association. (2010 ). Nursin g: Scope and standard s of practice (2nd ed.). Two or more works by same author in t he sam e year Wall, S. (2018a). Effects of friendship on children’s behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 4(1), 101 –105 . Wall, S. (2018b). T rials of parenting ado lescent s with deviant behavior s. Journal of Child Psychology, 4(12), 16 1–167. Gov ernment Arti cle National Institute of Ment al Health. (1990). Clinical training in serious mental illness (DHHS Publica tion No. ADM 90 -1679). U.S. Gover nment Printing Office. Lectur e Note s Health effects of exposure to forest fires [Lecture notes]. (20 19). Walden Uni versit y Blackboard. https://cl ass.waldenu.edu Personal Communica tion (Only Goes in Bo dy of Paper and not in Refer ences) Video Walden Uni vers ity. (2009 ). Title of video here [Video ]. Walden Un iversity Blackboard . https://cl ass.waldenu.edu Televi sion (Audio) Imp ortant, I. M. (Pr oducer). (1990, November 1). The nightly news hour [TV series episode ]. Central Broadc asting Service. APA Resources You have other several options to ass ist you in the form ulation of your reference page. • Your American Psyc hological Association (APA) Manual is your bes t reference resource . Use the current edit ion wit h a copyright date of 20 20. • The Walden Writing Center also a great place for re ferenc ing adv ice at https://academicg uides.walden u.ed u/writingcenter/apa/refere nces . • Citat ion a nd reference examples are p rovided in the ‘BSN TOP Ten References and Citations” handou t found in the Writing Res ources tab of th e course . This document covers t he 10 most commonly used reference a nd citation form ats. You are responsible for looking up any that are not included on t his list.
Examine Case Study: A Puerto Rican Woman With Comorbid Addiction. You will be asked to make three decisions concerning the medication to prescribe to this client. Be sure to consider factors that migh
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction to the case (1 page)Briefly explain and summarize the case for this Assignment. Be sure to include the specific patient factors that may impact your decision making when prescribing medication for this patient. 10 to >8.0 pts Excellent Point range: 90–100 The response accurately, clearly, and fully summarizes in detail the case for the Assignment…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the specific patient factors that impact decision making when prescribing medication for this patient. 8 to >7.0 pts Good Point range: 80–89 The response accurately summarizes the case for the Assignment…. The response accurately explains the specific patient factors that impact decision making with prescribing medication for this patient. 7 to >6.0 pts Fair Point range: 70–79 The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the case for the Assignment…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the specific patient factors that impact decision making with prescribing medication for this patient. 6 to >0 pts Poor Point range: 0–69 The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the case for the Assignment, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the specific patient factors that impact decision making with prescribing medication for this patient. 10 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDecision #1 (1–2 pages)• Which decision did you select?• Why did you select this decision? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature.• Why did you not select the other two options provided in the exercise? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature.• What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources (including the primary literature).• Explain how ethical considerations may impact your treatment plan and communication with patients. Be specific and provide examples. 20 to >17.0 pts Excellent Point range: 90–100 The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the decision selected…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the decision selected…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the response…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the response…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients…. Examples provided fully support the decisions and responses provided. 17 to >15.0 pts Good Point range: 80–89 The response accurately explains the decision selected…. The response explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the decision selected…. The response accurately explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the response…. The response accurately explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the response…. The response accurately explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients…. Examples provided support the decisions and responses provided. 15 to >13.0 pts Fair Point range: 70–79 The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the decision selected…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the decision selected…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the response…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the response…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients…. Examples provided may support the decisions and responses provided. 13 to >0 pts Poor Point range: 0–69 The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the decision selected…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the response, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients, or is missing…. Examples provided do not support the decisions and responses provided, or is missing. 20 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDecision #2 (1–2 pages)• Which decision did you select?• Why did you select this decision? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature.• Why did you not select the other two options provided in the exercise? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature.• What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources (including the primary literature).• Explain how ethical considerations may impact your treatment plan and communication with patients. Be specific and provide examples. 20 to >17.0 pts Excellent Point range: 90–100 The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the decision selected…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the decision selected…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the response…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the response…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients…. Examples provided fully support the decisions and responses provided. 17 to >15.0 pts Good Point range: 80–89 The response accurately explains the decision selected…. The response explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the decision selected…. The response accurately explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the response…. The response accurately explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the response…. The response accurately explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients…. Examples provided support the decisions and responses provided. 15 to >13.0 pts Fair Point range: 70–79 The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the decision selected…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the decision selected…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the response…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the response…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients…. Examples provided may support the decisions and responses provided. 13 to >0 pts Poor Point range: 0–69 The response inaccurately and vaguely explains in detail the decision selected…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the response, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients, or is missing…. Examples provided do not support the decisions and responses provided, or is missing. 20 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDecision #3 (1–2 pages)• Which decision did you select?• Why did you select this decision? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature.• Why did you not select the other two options provided in the exercise? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature.• What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources (including the primary literature).• Explain how ethical considerations may impact your treatment plan and communication with patients. Be specific and provide examples. 20 to >17.0 pts Excellent Point range: 90–100 The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the decision selected…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the decision selected…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the response…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the response…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients…. Examples provided fully support the decisions and responses provided. 17 to >15.0 pts Good Point range: 80–89 The response accurately explains the decision selected…. The response explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the decision selected…. The response accurately explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the response…. The response accurately explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the response…. The response accurately explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients…. Examples provided support the decisions and responses provided. 15 to >13.0 pts Fair Point range: 70–79 The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the decision selected…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the decision selected…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the response…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the response…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients…. Examples provided may support the decisions and responses provided. 13 to >0 pts Poor Point range: 0–69 The response inaccurately and vaguely explains in detail the decision selected…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the response, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients, or is missing…. Examples provided do not support the decisions and responses provided, or is missing. 20 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConclusion (1 page)• Summarize your recommendations on the treatment options you selected for this patient. Be sure to justify your recommendations and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature. 15 to >13.0 pts Excellent Point range: 90–100 The response accurately and clearly summarizes in detail the recommendations on the treatment options selected for this patient…. The response accurately and clearly explains a justification for the recommendations provided, including clinically relevant resources that fully support the recommendations provided. 13 to >11.0 pts Good Point range: 80–89 The response accurately summarizes the recommendations on the treatment options selected for this patient…. The response accurately explains a justification for the recommendation provided, including clinically relevant resources that support the recommendations provided. 11 to >10.0 pts Fair Point range: 70–79 The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the recommendations on the treatment options selected for this patient…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains a justification for the recommendations provided, including clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the recommendations provided. 10 to >0 pts Poor Point range: 0–69 The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the recommendations on the treatment options selected for this patient, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains a justification for the recommendations provided, including clinically relevant resources that do not support the recommendations provided, or is missing. 15 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria. 5 to >4.0 pts Excellent Point range: 90–100 Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity…. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria. 4 to >3.5 pts Good Point range: 80–89 Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time….Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet they are brief and not descriptive. 3.5 to >3.0 pts Fair Point range: 70–79 Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. 3 to >0 pts Poor Point range: 0–69 Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time…. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided. 5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation 5 to >4.0 pts Excellent Point range: 90–100 Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 to >3.5 pts Good Point range: 80–89 Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3.5 to >3.0 pts Fair Point range: 70–79 Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 to >0 pts Poor Point range: 0–69 Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. 5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. 5 to >4.0 pts Excellent Point range: 90–100 Uses correct APA format with no errors. 4 to >3.5 pts Good Point range: 80–89 Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. 3.5 to >3.0 pts Fair Point range: 70–79 Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. 3 to >0 pts Poor Point range: 0–69 Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. 5 pts Total Points: 100 PreviousNext