NRNP 6566 Week 1: Principles of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics

NRNP 6566 Week 1: Principles of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics NRNP 6566 Week 1: Principles of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics Permalink: https://nursingpaperessays.com/ nrnp-6566-week-1…pharmacodynamics / How do ACE inhibitors work? What exactly do antibiotics do to the bacteria they target? What effects do anti-depressants have on blood flow? Questions like these are related to the underlying pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes of pharmacotherapeutics. As an advanced practice nurse, understanding these fundamental pharmacotherapeutic concepts is important to ensure that the selection and administration of prescription drugs to your patients will be safe and effective to treat and/or manage their symptoms. NRNP 6566 Week 1: Principles of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics This week, you will apply pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic concepts for a variety of pharmacotherapeutics and analyze how they may be influenced by patient factors. You will also recommend potential adjustments to treatment plans, when needed, to account for the selection of appropriate pharmacotherapeutics, routes of administration, and medication interactions. Learning Objectives – NRNP 6566 Week 1: Principles of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics Students will: Apply principles of pharmacokinetics when prescribing pharmaceuticals for critically ill patients Analyze how medication combinations affect pharmacokinetics in the body Recommend alterations in medication treatment plans based on medication interactions and pharmacokinetic effects Learning Resources Required Readings (click to expand/reduce) Doogue, M. P., & Polasek, T. M. (2013). The ABCD of clinical pharmacokinetics. Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety , 4 (1), 5–7. doi:10.1177/2042098612469335 Sakai, J. B. (2008). Practical pharmacology for the pharmacy technician. Philadelphia, PA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Chapter 3, “Pharmacokinetics: The Absorption, Distribution, and Excretion of Drugs” (pp. 27–40). Required Media (click to expand/reduce) Speed Pharmacology. (2015, April 7). Pharmacology – pharmacokinetics (made easy) [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKV5iaUVBUI Discussion: Impact of Pharmacokinetics on Medication Selection and Administration As an advanced practice nurse, you will likely be responsible for selecting and prescribing pharmaceuticals to address your patients’ health needs and concerns. To what extent is understanding the pharmacokinetics of a certain medication important in your decision-making process when prescribing a medication for your patient? Knowing the pharmacokinetic effects of medications—such as how long will the medication be absorbed and exert an effect on the body before it is eliminated—can have important implications for addressing your patient’s health needs. Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto For this Discussion, think about the types of decisions you might make, with an understanding of pharmacokinetics, when prescribing medications for your patients. Reflect on how having a working knowledge of pharmacokinetics of medications is important in your role as an advanced practice nurse. To prepare: Review the Learning Resources on pharmacokinetics. Review the Discussion Prompt and Response Prompt assigned by your Instructor. By Day 3 of Week 1 Post your response to the Discussion Prompt assigned by your Instructor. Be specific and provide examples. Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit! NRNP 6566 Week 1: Principles of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses. By Day 6 of Week 1 Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days and expand upon your colleagues’ posts by addressing the Response Prompt assigned by your Instructor. Submission and Grading Information Grading Criteria To access your rubric: Week 1 Discussion Rubric Post by Day 3 of Week 1 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 1 To Participate in this Discussion: Week 1 Discussion Rubric Detail Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout. Name: NRNP_6566_Week1_Discussion_Rubric Grid View List View Outstanding Performance Excellent Performance Competent Performance Proficient Performance Room for Improvement Main Posting: Response to the discusion question is reflecive with critical analysis and synthesis representive of knowledg gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. 44 (44%) – 44 (44%) • Thoroughly responds to the discusion question(s) • Is reflecive with critical analysis and synthesis representive of knowledg gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. NRNP 6566 Week 1: Principles of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics • Supported by at least 3 current, credible sources 40 (40%) – 43 (43%) • Responds to the discusion question(s) • Is reflecive with critical analysis and synthesis representive of knowledg gained from the course readings for the module. • 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth • Supported by at least 3 credible references 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) • Responds to most of the discusion question(s) • Is somewhat reflecive with critical analysis and synthesis representive of knowledg gained from the course readings for the module. • 50% of post has exceptional depth and breadth • Supported by at least 3 credible references 31 (31%) – 34 (34%) • Responds to some of the discusion question(s) • One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addresed • Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis • Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. • Post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references 0 (0%) – 30 (30%) • Does not respond to the discusion question(s) • 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 1 or no credible references Main Posting: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) • Written clearly and concisely • Contains no grammatical or spelling errors • Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%) • Written clearly and concisely • May contain one or no grammatical or spelling error • Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) • Written concisely • May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error • Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%) •Writtten somewhat concisely • May contain more than two2 spelling or grammatical errors • Contains some APA formatting erros 0 (0%) – 4 (4%) • 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 Posting: Timely and full participation 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) • Meets requirements for timely and full participation • Posts main discussion by due date 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) • Does not meet requirement for full participation First Reponse Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) • Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings • Responds to questions posed by faculty • The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%) • Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%) • Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%) • Response is on topic, may have some depth 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) • Reponse may not be on topic, lacks depth First Reponse: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) • Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues • Response to faculty questions are fully 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 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%) • Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues • Response 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 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) • Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues • Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed • Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources • Response is written in Standard Edited English 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%) • Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication • Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed • Few or no credible sources are cited 0 (0%) – 4 (4%) • Responses posted in the discussion lack effective • Response to faculty questions are missing • No credible sources are cited First Reponse: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) • Meets requirements for timely and full participation • Posts by due date 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 4 (4%) • Does not meet requirement for full participation Second Reponse: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) • Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings • Responds to questions posed by faculty • The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%) • Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%) • Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%) • Response is on topic, may have some depth 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) • Response may not be on topic, lacks depth Second Reponse: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) • Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues • Response to faculty questions are fully 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 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%) • Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues • Response 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 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) • Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues • Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed • Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources • Response is written in Standard Edited English 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%) • Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication • Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed • Few or no credible sources are cited. NRNP 6566 Week 1: Principles of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics 0 (0%) – 4 (4%) >• Responses posted in the discussion lack effective • Response to faculty questions are missing • No credible sources are cited Second Reponse: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) • Meets requirements for timely and full participation • Posts by due date 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) • Does not meet requirement for full participation Total Points: 100 Name: NRNP_6566_Week1_Discussion_Rubric Name: NRNP_6566_Week1_Discussion_Rubric Grid View List View Outstanding Performance Excellent Performance Competent Performance Proficient Performance Room for Improvement Main Posting: Response to the discusion question is reflecive with critical analysis and synthesis representive of knowledg gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. 44 (44%) – 44 (44%) • Thoroughly responds to the discusion question(s) • Is reflecive with critical analysis and synthesis representive of knowledg gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. • Supported by at least 3 current, credible sources 40 (40%) – 43 (43%) • Responds to the discusion question(s) • Is reflecive with critical analysis and synthesis representive of knowledg gained from the course readings for the module. • 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth • Supported by at least 3 credible references 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) • Responds to most of the discusion question(s) • Is somewhat reflecive with critical analysis and synthesis representive of knowledg gained from the course readings for the module. • 50% of post has exceptional depth and breadth • Supported by at least 3 credible references 31 (31%) – 34 (34%) • Responds to some of the discusion question(s) • One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addresed • Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis • Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. • Post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references 0 (0%) – 30 (30%) • Does not respond to the discusion question(s) • 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 1 or no credible references Main Posting: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) • Written clearly and concisely • Contains no grammatical or spelling errors • Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%) • Written clearly and concisely • May contain one or no grammatical or spelling error • Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) • Written concisely • May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error • Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%) •Writtten somewhat concisely • May contain more than two2 spelling or grammatical errors • Contains some APA formatting erros 0 (0%) – 4 (4%) • 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 Posting: Timely and full participation 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) • Meets requirements for timely and full participation. NRNP 6566 Week 1: Principles of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics • Posts main discussion by due date 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) • Does not meet requirement for full participation First Reponse Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) • Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings • Responds to questions posed by faculty • The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%) • Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%) • Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%) • Response is on topic, may have some depth 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) • Reponse may not be on topic, lacks depth First Reponse: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) • Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues • Response to faculty questions are fully 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 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%) • Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues • Response 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 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) • Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues • Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed • Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources • Response is written in Standard Edited English 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%) • Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication • Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed • Few or no credible sources are cited 0 (0%) – 4 (4%) • Responses posted in the discussion lack effective • Response to faculty questions are missing • No credible sources are cited First Reponse: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) • Meets requirements for timely and full participation • Posts by due date 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 4 (4%) • Does not meet requirement for full participation Second Reponse: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) • Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings • Responds to questions posed by faculty • The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%) • Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%) • Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%) • Response is on topic, may have some depth 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) • Response may not be on topic, lacks depth Second Reponse: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) • Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues • Response to faculty questions are fully 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 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%) • Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues • Response 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 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) • Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues • Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed • Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources • Response is written in Standard Edited English 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%) • Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication • Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed • Few or no credible sources are cited 0 (0%) – 4 (4%) >• Responses posted in the discussion lack effective • Response to faculty questions are missing • No credible sources are cited Second Reponse: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) • Meets requirements for timely and full participation • Posts by due date 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) • Does not meet requirement for full participation Total Points: 100 NRNP 6566 Week 1: Principles of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10