Discussion: Foundational Neuroscience -NURS 6630

Discussion: Foundational Neuroscience -NURS 6630
As a psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner, it is essential for you to have a strong background in foundational neuroscience. In order to diagnose and treat clients, you must not only understand the pathophysiology of psychiatric disorders, but also how medications for these disorders impact the central nervous system. These concepts of foundational neuroscience can be challenging to understand. Therefore, this Discussion is designed to encourage you to think through these concepts, develop a rationale for your thinking, and deepen your understanding by interacting with your colleagues.
NURS 6630 – Psychopharmacologic Approaches to Treatment of Psychopathology Essay Assignment Week 1 Discussion: Foundational Neuroscience
Required Readings
Note: All Stahl resources can be accessed through the Walden Library using this link. This link will take you to a log-in page for the Walden Library. Once you log into the library, the Stahl website will appear.
Stahl, S. M. (2013). Stahl’s essential psychopharmacology: Neuroscientific basis and practical applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press *Preface, pp. ix–x
Note: To access the following chapters, click on the Essential Psychopharmacology, 4th ed tab on the Stahl Online website and select the appropriate chapter. Be sure to read all sections on the left navigation bar for each chapter.
Chapter 1, “Chemical Neurotransmission”
Chapter 2, “Transporters, Receptors, and Enzymes as Targets of Psychopharmacologic Drug Action”
Chapter 3, “Ion Channels as Targets of Psychopharmacologic Drug Action”
Document: Midterm Exam Study Guide (PDF)
Document: Final Exam Study Guide (PDF)
Required Media
Laureate Education (Producer). (2016i). Introduction to psychopharmacology [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
NURS 6630 – Psychopharmacologic Approaches to Treatment of Psychopathology Essay Week 1 Discussion: Foundational Neuroscience
Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 3 minutes.
Accessible player
Discussion: Foundational Neuroscience Optional Resources
Laureate Education (Producer). (2009). Pathopharmacology: Disorders of the nervous system: Exploring the human brain [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.NURS 6630 – Psychopharmacologic Approaches to Treatment of Psychopathology Essay Assignment
Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 15 minutes.
Dr. Myslinski reviews the structure and function of the human brain. Using human brains, he examines and illustrates the development of the brain and areas impacted by disorders associated with the brain.
Discussion: Foundational Neuroscience Accessible player
Laureate Education (Producer). (2012). Introduction to advanced pharmacology [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.NURS 6630 – Psychopharmacologic Approaches to Treatment of Psychopathology Essay Assignment
Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 8 minutes.
In this media presentation, Dr. Terry Buttaro, associate professor of practice at Simmons School of Nursing and Health Sciences, discusses the importance of pharmacology for the advanced practice nurse.
Accessible player
To prepare for this Discussion:
Review this week’s Learning Resources.
Reflect on concepts of foundational neuroscience.
Assignment: Assessing and Treating Clients With Dementia
The Alzheimer’s Association defines dementia as “a general term for a decline in mental ability severe enough to interfere with daily
Discussion Foundational Neuroscience -NURS 6630
life” (Alzheimer’s Association, 2016). This term encompasses dozens of cognitive disorders of impaired memory formation, recall, and communication. The care and treatment of clients with dementia is dependent on multiple factors, including the stage of dementia, comorbidities, family support, and even the care setting. In your role, as the psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner, you must be prepared to not only treat clients with these various cognitive disorders, but also the multiple behavioral issues that often accompany them. For this Assignment, as you examine the client case study in this week’s Learning Resources, consider how you might assess and treat clients presenting with dementia.
Reference: Alzheimer’s Association. (2016). What is dementia? Retrieved from http://www.alz.org/what-is-dementia.asp
To prepare for this Assignment:
· Review this week’s Learning Resources. Consider how to assess and treat clients requiring therapy for dementia.
The Assignment
Examine Case Study: An Elderly Iranian Man With Alzheimer’s Disease. You will be asked to make three decisions concerning the medication to prescribe to this client. Be sure to consider factors that might impact the client’s pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes. At each decision point stop to complete the following:
Introduction regarding disease state
High-level summary of patient case
Purpose of the essay statement
Decision #1
What options were listed?
Which decision did you select?
Why did you select this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
Why didn’t you select the other two options?
What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #1 and the results of the decision. Why were they different?
Decision #2
What options were listed?
What option did you choose?
Why did you select this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
Why didn’t you select the other two options?
What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #2 and the results of the decision. Why were they different?
Decision #3
What options were listed?
What option did you choose?
Why did you select this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
Why didn’t you select the other two options?
What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #3 and the results of the decision. Why were they different?
Also include how ethical considerations might impact your treatment plan and communication with clients.
Note : Support your rationale with a minimum of three academic resources. While you may use the course text to support your rationale, it will not count toward the resource requirement.
Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.
References
Stahl, S. M. (2013). Stahl’s essential psychopharmacology: Neuroscientific basis and practical applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
To access the following chapter, click on the Essential Psychopharmacology, 4th ed tab on the Stahl Online website and select the appropriate chapter. Be sure to read all sections on the left navigation bar for each chapter.
· Chapter 13, “Dementia and Its Treatment”
Stahl, S. M. (2014b). The prescriber’s guide (5th ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
To access information on the following medications, click on The Prescriber’s Guide, 5th ed tab on the Stahl Online website and select the appropriate medication.
Review the following medications:
For insomnia
· donepezil
· galantamine
· memantine
· rivastigmine
Bui, Q. (2012). Antidepressants for agitation and psychosis in patients with dementia. American Family Physician, 85(1), 20–22. Retrieved from http://www.aafp.org/journals/afp.html
Note: Retrieved from from the Walden Library databases.
Meltzer, H. Y., Mills, R., Revell, S., Williams, H., Johnson, A., Bahr, D., & Friedman, J. H. (2010). Pimavanserin, a serotonin receptor inverse agonist for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease psychosis. Neuropsychopharmacology, 35, 881–891. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v35/n4/pdf/npp2009176a.pdf
Required Media
Laureate Education. (2016h). Case study: An elderly Iranian man with Alzheimer’s disease [Interactive media file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Akkad is a 76 year old Iranian male who is brought to your office by his eldest son for “strange behavior.” Mr. Akkad was seen by his family physician who ruled out any organic basis for Mr. Akkad’s behavior. All laboratory and diagnostic imaging tests (including CT-scan of the head) were normal.
According to his son, he has been demonstrating some strange thoughts and behaviors for the past two years, but things seem to be getting worse. Per the client’s son, the family noticed that Mr. Akkad’s personality began to change a few years ago. He began to lose interest in religious activities with the family and became more “critical” of everyone. They also noticed that things he used to take seriously had become a source of “amusement” and “ridicule.”
Over the course of the past two years, the family has noticed that Mr. Akkad has been forgetting things. His son also reports that sometimes he has difficult “finding the right words” in a conversation and then will shift to an entirely different line of conversation.
SUBJECTIVE
During the clinical interview, Mr. Akkad is pleasant, cooperative and seems to enjoy speaking with you. You notice some confabulation during various aspects of memory testing, so the PMHNP performs a Mini-Mental State Exam. Mr. Akkad scores 18 out of 30 with primary deficits in orientation, registration, attention & calculation, and recall. The score suggests moderate dementia.
MENTAL STATUS EXAM
Mr. Akkad is 76 year old Iranian male who is cooperative with today’s clinical interview. His eye contact is poor. Speech is clear, coherent, but tangential at times. He makes no unusual motor movements and demonstrates no tic. Self-reported mood is euthymic. Affect however is restricted. He denies visual or auditory hallucinations. No delusional or paranoid thought processes noted. He is alert and oriented to person, partially oriented to place, but is disoriented to time and event [he reports that he thought he was coming to lunch but “wound up here”- referring to your office, at which point he begins to laugh]. Insight and judgment are impaired. Impulse control is also impaired as evidenced by Mr. Akkad’s standing up during the clinical interview and walking towards the door. When the PMHNP asked where he was going, he stated that he did not know. Mr. Akkad denies suicidal or homicidal ideation.
Diagnosis: Major neurocognitive disorder due to Alzheimer’s disease (presumptive)
RESOURCES
§ Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (2002). Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Decision Point One
Select what the PMHNP should do:
https://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/NURS/6630/10/mm/alzheimers_disease/img/pill-red.pngBegin Exelon (rivastigmine) 1.5 mg orally BID with an increase to 3 mg orally BID in 2 weeks
https://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/NURS/6630/10/mm/alzheimers_disease/img/pill-blue.png Begin Aricept (donepezil) 5 mg orally at BEDTIME
https://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/NURS/6630/10/mm/alzheimers_disease/img/pill-yellow.pngBegin Razadyne (galantamine) 4 mg orally BID
Decision Point One
https://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/NURS/6630/10/mm/alzheimers_disease/img/pill-blue.pngBegin 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
Select what the PMHNP should do next:
https://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/NURS/6630/10/mm/alzheimers_disease/img/pill-red.pngIncrease Aricept to 10 mg orally at BEDTIME
https://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/NURS/6630/10/mm/alzheimers_disease/img/pill-blue.pngDiscontinue Aricept and begin Razadyne (galantamine) extended release 24 mg orally daily
https://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/NURS/6630/10/mm/alzheimers_disease/img/pill-yellow.pngDiscontinue Aricept and begin Namenda (memantine) extended release, 28 mg orally daily
Decision Point Two https://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/NURS/6630/10/mm/alzheimers_disease/img/pill-red.pngIncrease 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
Select what the PMHNP should do next:
https://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/NURS/6630/10/mm/alzheimers_disease/img/pill-red.pngContinue Aricept 10 mg orally at BEDTIME
https://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/NURS/6630/10/mm/alzheimers_disease/img/pill-blue.pngIncrease Aricept to 15 mg orally at BEDTIME x 6 weeks, then increase to 20 mg orally at BEDTIME
https://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/NURS/6630/10/mm/alzheimers_disease/img/pill-yellow.pngDiscontinue Aricept and begin Namenda 5 mg orally daily
Decision Point Three
https://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/NURS/6630/10/mm/alzheimers_disease/img/pill-red.pngContinue Aricept 10 mg orally at BEDTIME
Guidance to Student
At this point, it would be prudent for the PMHNP 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 the PMHNP 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.a
NURS_6630_Week2_Discussion_Rubric
Excellent
Point range: 90–100
Good
Point range: 80–89
Fair
Point range: 70–79
Poor
Point range: 0–69
Main Posting:
Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s).
Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three current credible sources.
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the Discussion question(s).
Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible references.
31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the Discussion question(s).
One to 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 fewer than two credible references.
0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the Discussion 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 one or no credible references.
Main Posting:
Writing
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely.
Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely.
May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely.
May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
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
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts main Discussion by due date.
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Posts main Discussion by due date.
Meets requirements for full participation.
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main Discussion by due date.
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post main Discussion by due date.
First Response:
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 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth.
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
First Response:
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%)
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 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed 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%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
First Response:
Timely and full participation
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date.
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.
Second Response:
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 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth.
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
Second Response:
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%)
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 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed 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%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Second Response:
Timely and full participation
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date.
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6630_Week2_Discussion_Rubric

Read more
Enjoy affordable prices and lifetime discounts
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Order Now Order in Chat

Start off on the right foot this semester. Get expert-written solutions at a 20% discount