Description
NURS_6521_Week8_Assignment_Rubric
NURS_6521_Week8_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeBriefly summarize the patient case study you were assigned, including each of the three decisions you took for the patient presented. Be specific.
20 to >17.8 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and thoroughly summarizes in detail the patient case study assigned, including specific and complete details on each of the three decisions made for the patient presented.
17.8 to >15.8 pts
Good
The response accurately summarizes the patient case study assigned, including details on each of the three decisions made for the patient presented.
15.8 to >13.8 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the patient case study assigned, including details on each of the three decisions made for the patient presented.
13.8 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the patient case study assigned, including details on each of the three decisions made for the patient presented, or is missing.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeBased on the decisions you recommended for the patient case study, explain whether you believe the decisions provided were supported by the evidence-based literature. Be specific and provide examples. Be sure to support your response with evidence and references from outside resources.
25 to >22.25 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and thoroughly explains in detail how the decisions recommended for the patient case study are supported by the evidence-based literature. … The response includes specific and relevant outside reference examples that fully support the explanation provided.
22.25 to >19.75 pts
Good
The response accurately explains how the decisions recommended for the patient case study are supported by the evidence-based literature. … The response includes relevant outside reference examples that lend support for the explanation provided that are accurate.
19.75 to >17.25 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains how the decisions recommended for the patient case study are supported by the evidence-based literature. … The response includes inaccurate or vague outside reference examples that may or may not lend support for the explanation provided or are misaligned to the explanation provided.
17.25 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains how the decisions recommended for the patient case study are supported by the evidence-based literature, or is missing. … The response includes inaccurate and vague outside reference examples that do not lend support for the explanation provided, or is missing.
25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWhat were you hoping to achieve with the decisions you recommended for the patient case study you were assigned? Support your response with evidence and references from outside resources.
20 to >17.8 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and thorough explains in detail what they were hoping to achieve with the decisions recommend for the patient case study assigned. … The response includes specific and relevant outside reference examples that fully support the explanation provided.
17.8 to >15.8 pts
Good
The response accurately explains what they were hoping to achieve with the decisions recommended for the patient case study assigned. … The response includes relevant outside reference examples that lend support for the explanation provided that are accurate.
15.8 to >13.8 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains what they were hoping to achieve with the decisions recommended for the patient case study assigned. … The response includes inaccurate or vague outside reference examples that may or may not lend support for the explanation provided or are misaligned to the explanation provided.
13.8 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains what they were hoping to achieve with the decisions recommended for the patient case study assigned, or is missing. … The response includes inaccurate and vague outside reference examples that do not lend support for the explanation provided, or is missing.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain any difference between what you expected to achieve with each of the decisions and the results of the decisions in the exercise. Describe whether they were different. Be specific and provide examples.
20 to >17.8 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail any differences between what they expected to achieve with each of the decisions and the results of the decisions in the exercise. … The response provides specific, accurate, and relevant examples that fully support whether there were differences between the decisions made and the decisions available in the exercise.
17.8 to >15.8 pts
Good
The response accurately explains any differences between what they expected to achieve with each of the decisions and the results of the decisions in the exercise. … The response provides accurate examples that support whether there were differences between the decisions made and the decisions available in the exercise.
15.8 to >13.8 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains any differences between what they expected to achieve with each of the decisions and the results of the decisions in the exercise. … The response provides inaccurate or vague examples that may or may not support whether there were differences between the decisions made and the decisions available in the exercise.
13.8 to >0 pts
Poor
vaguely explains in detail any differences between what they expected to achieve with each of the decisions and the results of the decisions in the exercise, or is missing. … The response provides inaccurate and vague examples that do not support whether there were differences between the decisions made and the decisions available in the exercise, or is missing.
20 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.
5 to >4.45 pts
Excellent
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.
4.45 to >3.95 pts
Good
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.
3.95 to >3.45 pts
Fair
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time.
3.45 to >0 pts
Poor
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation
5 to >4.45 pts
Excellent
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors
4.45 to >3.95 pts
Good
Contains a few (1–2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors
3.95 to >3.45 pts
Fair
Contains several (3–4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors
3.45 to >0 pts
Poor
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, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.
5 to >4.45 pts
Excellent
Uses correct APA format with no errors
4.45 to >3.95 pts
Good
Contains a few (1–2) APA format errors
3.95 to >3.45 pts
Fair
Contains several (3–4) APA format errors
3.45 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors
5 pts
Total Points: 100
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Decision Point One
: Begin Aricept (donepezil) 5 mg orally at BEDTIME
RESULTS OF DECISION POINT ONE
•
Client returns to clinic in four weeks
•
The client is accompanied by his son who reports that his father is “no better” from this
medication
•
He reports that his father is still disinterested in attending religious services/activities, and
continues to exhibit disinhibited behaviors
•
You continue to note confabulation and decide to administer the MMSE again. Mr. Akkad
again scores 18 out of 30 with primary deficits in orientation, registration, attention &
calculation, and recall
Decision Point Two
Increase Aricept to 10 mg orally at BEDTIME
RESULTS OF DECISION POINT TWO
•
Client returns to clinic in four weeks
•
Client’s son reports that the client is tolerating the medication well, but is still concerned that
his father is no better
•
He states that his father is attending religious services with the family, which the son and the
rest of the family is happy about. He reports that his father is still easily amused by things he
once found serious
Decision Point Three
Continue Aricept 10 mg orally at BEDTIME
Guidance to Student
At this point, it would be prudent to continue Aricept at 10 mg orally at bedtime. Recall that this
medication can take several months before stabilization of deterioration is noted. At this point, the client
is attending religious services with the family, which has made the family happy. Disinhibition may
improve in a few weeks, or it may not improve at all. This is a counseling point that you should review
with the son.
There is no evidence that Aricept given at doses greater than 10 mg per day has any therapeutic benefit.
It can, however, cause side effects. Increasing to 15 and 20 mg per day would not be appropriate.
There is nothing in the clinical presentation to suggest that the Aricept should be discontinued. Whereas
it may be appropriate to add Namenda to the current drug profile, there is no need to discontinue
Aricept. In fact, NMDA receptor antagonist therapy is often used with cholinesterase inhibitors in
combination therapy to treat Alzheimer’s disease. The key to using both medications is slow titration
upward toward therapeutic doses to minimize negative side effects.
Finally, it is important to note that changes in the MMSE should be evaluated over the course of months,
not weeks. The absence of change in the MMSE after 4 weeks of treatment should not be a source of
concern.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
