Case-Discussion: Foundational Neuroscience
Case-Discussion: Foundational Neuroscience
Case-Discussion: Foundational Neuroscience
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.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
Analyze the agonist-to-antagonist spectrum of action of psychopharmacologic agents
Compare the actions of g couple proteins to ion gated channels
Analyze the role of epigenetics in pharmacologic action
Analyze the impact of foundational neuroscience on the prescription of medication
BY DAY 3
Post a response to each of the following:
Explain the agonist-to-antagonist spectrum of action of psychopharmacologic agents.
Compare and contrast the actions of g couple proteins and ion gated channels.
Explain the role of epigenetics in pharmacologic action.
Explain how this information may impact the way you prescribe medications to clients. Include a specific example of a situation or case with a client in which the psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner must be aware of the medication’s action.
You must proofread your paper. But do not strictly rely on your computer’s spell-checker and grammar-checker; failure to do so indicates a lack of effort on your part and you can expect your grade to suffer accordingly. Papers with numerous misspelled words and grammatical mistakes will be penalized. Read over your paper – in silence and then aloud – before handing it in and make corrections as necessary. Often it is advantageous to have a friend proofread your paper for obvious errors. Handwritten corrections are preferable to uncorrected mistakes.
Use a standard 10 to 12 point (10 to 12 characters per inch) typeface. Smaller or compressed type and papers with small margins or single-spacing are hard to read. It is better to let your essay run over the recommended number of pages than to try to compress it into fewer pages.
Likewise, large type, large margins, large indentations, triple-spacing, increased leading (space between lines), increased kerning (space between letters), and any other such attempts at “padding” to increase the length of a paper are unacceptable, wasteful of trees, and will not fool your professor.
The paper must be neatly formatted, double-spaced with a one-inch margin on the top, bottom, and sides of each page. When submitting hard copy, be sure to use white paper and print out using dark ink. If it is hard to read your essay, it will also be hard to follow your argument.
| 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 |
|---|
