Description
Pathophysiology paper on myopathy.
Description of Pathology:
- Start the paper on a new page.
- In this section, you will describe the pathology (statistics about it, background information, etc.). Give as much information as you can about it but be sure it is relevant information and not just filler. It should be a comprehensive introductory section of the condition in one to two paragraphs.
Normal anatomy of the major body system affected: In this section, you will describe what is considered normal anatomy for your particular pathophysiology. For example, if you are discussing a disease related to the brain, explain what is normal for the brain from an anatomical standpoint. You should show comprehensive knowledge of the fundamental concepts and communicate information using scientific vocabulary. There should be little to no discussion of the condition itself in this section.
Normal physiology of the major body system affected: In this section, you will be discussing physiology. Keep in mind that when describing physiology, it isn’t enough to merely provide a list of functions of the body system (Ex: Neurons send signals throughout the body), instead, you need to be able to describe how it does it. The how is the physiology. There should be little to no discussion of the condition itself in this section
Mechanism of Pathophysiology: This section is likely going to be the most in-depth and longest section. In this section, you will explain your particular pathophysiology from a scientific standpoint. In the previous two sections, you explained what is considered normal, in this section, you should describe what the pathophysiology is doing that is causing these issues, how the normal anatomy & physiology is affected/different in a person with your condition. You should show a thorough understanding of the anatomical and physiological changes contributing to the disease. Some good keywords to search for when doing your research might be “Pathology of __________”, Pathophysiology of __________.”
Prevention: In this section, you will explain how your pathophysiology could be prevented. This should outline possible prevention protocols, or clearly indicate if none is available based on the current scientific literature.
Treatment: In this section, you will explain how your pathophysiology is commonly treated. Provide possible treatment protocols for the condition based on current scientific literature. Be sure to bring in nursing relevant information and how you might be involved in the treatment of the condition.
Conclusion: Finally you should summarize your findings. All good research papers should include a conclusion where you wrap up and summarize all of the important points made in your paper.
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Postinga | 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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 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. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
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. |
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. |
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. |
|
| Second Response | 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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||