Walden Discussion: Impact of Pharmacokinetics on Medication Selection and Administration

Permalink: https://ulcius.com/walden-discussio…d-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? Walden Discussion: Impact of Pharmacokinetics on Medication Selection and Administration

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!

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

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: NRNP_6566_Week1_Discussion_Rubric

	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. Walden Discussion: Impact of Pharmacokinetics on Medication Selection and Administration • 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	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