PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AS INDICATED BELOW:
1). ZERO (0) PLAGIARISM
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics
Just from $13/Page
2). ATLEAST 5 REFERENCES, NO MORE THAN 5 YEARS
3). PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT FOR RUBRIC DETAILS.
4). Please carefully review the grading rubric and focus on the “Excellent” column, and please include each component in the assignment requirements. Also, please follow APA writing rules and style.
Thank you.
As an advanced practice nurse assisting physicians in the diagnosis and treatment of disorders, it is important to not only understand the impact of disorders on the body, but also the impact of drug treatments on the body. The relationships between drugs and the body can be described by pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.
Pharmacokinetics describes what the body does to the drug through absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion, whereas pharmacodynamics describes what the drug does to the body.
When selecting drugs and determining dosages for patients, it is essential to consider individual patient factors that might impact the patient’s pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes. These patient factors include genetics, gender, ethnicity, age, behavior (i.e., diet, nutrition, smoking, alcohol, illicit drug abuse), and/or pathophysiological changes due to disease.
For this Discussion, you reflect on a case from your past clinical experiences and consider how a patient’s pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes may alter his or her response to a drug.
To Prepare
- Review the Resources for this module and consider the principles of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.
- Reflect on your experiences, observations, and/or clinical practices from the last 5 years and think about how pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors altered his or her anticipated response to a drug.
- Consider factors that might have influenced the patient’s pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes, such as genetics (including pharmacogenetics), gender, ethnicity, age, behavior, and/or possible pathophysiological changes due to disease.
- Think about a personalized plan of care based on these influencing factors and patient history in your case study.
Post a description of the patient case from your experiences, observations, and/or clinical practice from the last 5 years. Then, describe factors that might have influenced the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes of the patient you identified. Finally, explain details of the personalized plan of care that you would develop based on influencing factors and patient history in your case. Be specific and provide examples.
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name:
| |
NURS_6521_Week1_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%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days
Feedback:
Name: NURS_6521_Week1_Discussion_Rubric
