NURS 6630 ASSESSING AND TREATING PATIENTS WITH SLEEP/WAKE DISORDERS ASSIGNMENT
NURS 6630 ASSESSING AND TREATING PATIENTS WITH SLEEP/WAKE DISORDERS ASSIGNMENT
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 6630 ASSESSING AND TREATING PATIENTS WITH SLEEP/WAKE DISORDERS ASSIGNMENT
ASSESSING AND TREATING PATIENTS WITH SLEEP/WAKE DISORDERS
Sleep disorders are conditions that result in changes in an individual’s pattern of sleep (Mayo Clinic, 2020). Not surprisingly, a sleep disorder can affect an individual’s overall health, safety, and quality of life. Psychiatric nurse practitioners can treat sleep disorders with psychopharmacologic treatments, however, many of these drugs can have negative effects on other aspects of a patient’s health and well-being. Additionally, while psychopharmacologic treatments may be able to address issues with sleep, they can also exert potential challenges with waking patterns. Thus, it is important for the psychiatric nurse practitioner to carefully evaluate the best psychopharmacologic treatments for patients that present with sleep/wake disorders.
Reference: Mayo Clinic. (2020). Sleep disorders. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/sleep-disorders/symptoms-causes/syc-20354018
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
Required Readings
- Links to an external site. (5th ed.).https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
- Fernandez-Mendoza, J., & Vgontzas, A. N. (2013). Insomnia and its impact on physical and mental health. Current Psychiatry Reports
- Links to an external site., 15(12), 418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-012-0418-8
- Levenson, J. C., Kay, D. B., & Buysse, D. J. (2015). The pathophysiology of insomnia. Chest
- Links to an external site., 147(4), 1179–1192. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4388122/
- Morgenthaler, T. I., Kapur, V. K., Brown, T. M., Swick, T. J., Alessi, C., Aurora, R. N., Boehlecke, B., Chesson, A. L., Friedman, L., Maganti, R., Owens, J., Pancer, J., & Zak, R. (2007). Practice parameters for the treatment of narcolepsy and other hypersomnias of central origin. SLEEP
- Links to an external site., 30(12), 1705–1711. https://j2vjt3dnbra3ps7ll1clb4q2-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/PP_Narcolepsy.pdf
- Morgenthaler, T. I., Owens, J., Alessi, C., Boehlecke, B, Brown, T. M., Coleman, J., Friedman, L., Kapur, V. K., Lee-Chiong, T., Pancer, J., & Swick, T. J. (2006). Practice parameters for behavioral treatment of bedtime problems and night wakings in infants and young children. SLEEP
- Links to an external site., 29(1), 1277–1281. https://j2vjt3dnbra3ps7ll1clb4q2-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/PP_NightWakingsChildren.pdf
- Sateia, M. J., Buysse, D. J., Krystal, A. D., Neubauer, D. N., & Heald, J. L. (2017). Clinical practice guideline for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic insomnia in adults: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine clinical practice guideline. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine
- Links to an external site., 13(2), 307–349. https://jcsm.aasm.org/doi/pdf/10.5664/jcsm.6470
- Winkleman, J. W. (2015). Insomnia disorder. The New England Journal of Medicine
Medication Resources
Note: To access the following medications, use the Drugs@FDA resource. Type the name of each medication in the keyword search bar. Select the hyperlink related to the medication name you searched. Review the supplements provided and select the package label resource file associated with the medication you searched. If a label is not available, you may need to conduct a general search outside of this resource provided. Be sure to review the label information for each medication as this information will be helpful for your review in preparation for your Assignments.
- alprazolam
- amitriptyline
- amoxapine
- amphetamine
- desipramine
- diazepam
- doxepin
- eszopiclone
- flunitrazepam
- flurazepam
- hydroxyzine
- imipramine
- lemborexant
- lorazepam
- melatonin
- methylphenedate
- modafinil
|
- armodafinil
- carnitine
- clomipramine
- clonazepam
- nortriptyline
- pitolisant
- ramelteon
- sodium oxybate
- solriamfetol
- SSRI’s
- temazepam
- trazodone
- triazolam
- trimipramine
- wellbutrin
- zaleplon
- zolpidem
|
Required Media
Links to an external site.
Note: This case study will serve as the foundation for this week’s Assignment.
To prepare for this Assignment:
- Review this week’s Learning Resources, including the Medication Resources indicated for this week.
- Reflect on the psychopharmacologic treatments you might recommend for the assessment and treatment of patients with sleep/wake disorders.
The Assignment: 5 pages
Examine Case Study: Pharmacologic Approaches to the Treatment of Insomnia in a Younger Adult. You will be asked to make three decisions concerning the medication to prescribe to this patient. Be sure to consider factors that might impact the patient’s pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes.
At each decision point, you should evaluate all options before selecting your decision and moving throughout the exercise. Before you make your decision, make sure that you have researched each option and that you evaluate the decision that you will select. Be sure to research each option using the primary literature.
Introduction 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.
Decision #1 (1 page)
- 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.
Decision #2 (1 page)
- 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.
Decision #3 (1 page)
- 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.
Conclusion (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.
Note: Support your rationale with a minimum of five academic resources. While you may use the course text to support your rationale, it will not count toward the resource requirement. You should be utilizing the primary and secondary literature.
Reminder : The College of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references. The Sample Paper provided at the Walden Writing Center provides an example of those required elements (available at https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templates/general#s-lg-box-20293632). All papers submitted must use this formatting
Links to an external site..
By Day 7
Submit your Assignment.
submission information
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.
- To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK8Assgn2_LastName_Firstinitial
- Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
- Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.
Rubric
NURS_6630_Week8_Assignment2_Rubric
NURS_6630_Week8_Assignment2_Rubric |
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Introduction 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 Outcome Decision #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 Outcome Decision #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 Outcome Decision #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 Outcome Conclusion (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 Outcome Written 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 Outcome Written 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 Outcome Written 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 |
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 6630 ASSESSING AND TREATING PATIENTS WITH SLEEP/WAKE DISORDERS ASSIGNMENT

NURS 6630 ASSESSING AND TREATING PATIENTS WITH SLEEP WAKE DISORDERS ASSIGNMENT
Grading Rubric
Performance Category |
100% or highest level of performance
100%
16 points |
Very good or high level of performance
88%
14 points |
Acceptable level of performance
81%
13 points |
Inadequate demonstration of expectations
68%
11 points |
Deficient level of performance
56%
9 points
|
Failing level
of performance
55% or less
0 points |
Total Points Possible= 50 |
16 Points |
14 Points |
13 Points |
11 Points |
9 Points |
0 Points |
Scholarliness
Demonstrates achievement of scholarly inquiry for professional and academic topics. |
Presentation of information was exceptional and included all of the following elements:
- Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s).
- Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts.
- Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.*
- Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information.
|
Presentation of information was good, but was superficial in places and included all of the following elements:
- Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s).
- Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts.
- Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.*
- Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information.
|
Presentation of information was minimally demonstrated in all of the following elements:
- Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s).
- Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts.
- Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.*
- Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information.
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in one of the following elements:
- Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s).
- Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts.
- Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.*
- Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information.
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in two of the following elements:
- Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s).
- Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts.
- Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.*
- Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information.
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in three or more of the following elements
- Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s).
- Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts.
- Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.*
- Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information
|
|
16 Points |
14 Points |
13 Points |
11 Points |
9 Points |
0 Points |
Application of Course Knowledge
Demonstrate the ability to analyze and apply principles, knowledge and information learned in the outside readings and relate them to real-life professional situations |
Presentation of information was exceptional and included all of the following elements:
- Applies principles, knowledge and information from scholarly resources to the required topic.
- Applies facts, principles or concepts learned from scholarly resources to a professional experience.
- Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.
|
Presentation of information was good, but was superficial in places and included all of the following elements:
- Applies principles, knowledge and information from scholarly resources to the required topic.
- Applies facts, principles or concepts learned from scholarly resources to a professional experience.
- Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.
|
Presentation of information was minimally demonstrated in the all of the following elements:
- Applies principles, knowledge and information from scholarly resources to the required topic.
- Applies facts, principles or concepts learned from scholarly resources to a professional experience.
- Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in one of the following elements:
- Applies principles, knowledge and information from scholarly resources to the required topic.
- Applies facts, principles or concepts learned from and scholarly resources to a professional experience.
- Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in two of the following elements:
- Applies principles, knowledge and information from scholarly resources to the required topic.
- Applies facts, principles or concepts learned from scholarly resources to a professional experience.
- Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in three of the following elements
- Applies principles, knowledge and information and scholarly resources to the required topic.
- Applies facts, principles or concepts learned scholarly resources to a professional experience.
- Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.
|
|
10 Points |
9 Points |
|
|
6 Points |
0 Points |
Interactive Dialogue
Initial post should be a minimum of 300 words (references do not count toward word count)
The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each (references do not count toward word count)
Responses are substantive and relate to the topic. |
Demonstrated all of the following:
- Initial post must be a minimum of 300 words.
- The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each.
- Responses are substantive
- Responses are related to the topic of discussion.
|
Demonstrated 3 of the following:
- Initial post must be a minimum of 300 words.
- The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each.
- Responses are substantive
- Responses are related to the topic of discussion.
|
|
|
Demonstrated 2 of the following:
- Initial post must be a minimum of 300 words.
- The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each.
- Responses are substantive
- Responses are related to the topic of discussion.
|
Demonstrated 1 or less of the following:
- Initial post must be a minimum of 300 words.
- The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each.
- Responses are substantive
- Responses are related to the topic of discussion.
|
|
8 Points |
7 Points |
6 Points |
5 Points |
4 Points |
0 Points |
Grammar, Syntax, APA
Points deducted for improper grammar, syntax and APA style of writing.
The source of information is the APA Manual 6th Edition
Error is defined to be a unique APA error. Same type of error is only counted as one error. |
The following was present:
AND
- Responses have 0-3 grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors
AND
- Writing style is generally clear, focused on topic,and facilitates communication.
|
The following was present:
- 4-6 errors in APA format.
AND/OR
- Responses have 4-5 grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors
AND/OR
- Writing style is somewhat focused on topic.
|
The following was present:
- 7-9 errors in APA format.
AND/OR
- Responses have 6-7 grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors
AND/OR
- Writing style is slightly focused on topic making discussion difficult to understand.
|
The following was present:
- 10- 12 errors in APA format
AND/OR
- Responses have 8-9 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors
AND/OR
- Writing style is not focused on topic, making discussion difficult to understand.
|
The following was present:
- 13 – 15 errors in APA format
AND/OR
- Responses have 8-10 grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors
AND/OR
- Writing style is not focused on topic, making discussion difficult to understand.
AND/OR
- The student continues to make repeated mistakes in any of the above areas after written correction by the instructor.
|
The following was present:
- 16 to greater errors in APA format.
AND/OR
- Responses have more than 10 grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors.
AND/OR
- Writing style does not facilitate communication
|
|
0 Points Deducted |
|
|
|
|
5 Points Lost |
Participation
Requirements |
Demonstrated the following:
- Initial, peer, and faculty postings were made on 3 separate days
|
|
|
|
|
Failed to demonstrate the following:
- Initial, peer, and faculty postings were made on 3 separate days
|
|
0 Points Lost |
|
|
|
|
5 Points Lost |
Due Date Requirements |
Demonstrated all of the following:
- The initial posting to the graded threaded discussion topic is posted within the course no later than Wednesday, 11:59 pm MT.
A minimum of one peer and one instructor responses are to be posted within the course no later than Sunday, 11:59 pm MT. |
|
|
|
|
Demonstrates one or less of the following.
- The initial posting to the graded threaded discussion topic is posted within the course no later than Wednesday, 11:59 pm MT.
A minimum of one peer and one instructor responses are to be posted within the course no later than Sunday, 11:59 pm MT. |
Read Also: NURS 6630 ASSESSING AND TREATING PATIENTS WITH IMPULSIVITY, COMPULSIVITY, AND ADDICTION ASSIGNMENT