Discussion Pharmacology
Discussion Pharmacology
Not explain altogether. Write each question with its answer individually.
using formal APA writing convention, using the 7th Edition
REferences at least 4 and not more than 5 years ago
Plagiarism free work…. Thank you
ORDER A FREE-PLAGIARISM PAPER HERE
Introduction, write a supposed case (relations with psychiatry and other type of illness) and answer each question
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. Discussion Pharmacology
- Think about a personalized plan of care based on these influencing factors and patient history in your case study.
By Day 3 of Week 1
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 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. Discussion Pharmacology
Excellent |
Good | Fair | Poor | |
| Main Posting | 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 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. |
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 | ||||
