NURS 6630 Foundational Neuroscience Discussion

Want create site? With you can do it easy.

NURS 6630 Foundational Neuroscience Discussion
As a psychiatric nurse practitioner, it is essential for you to have a strong background in foundational neuroscience. In order to diagnose and treat patients, 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.

Photo Credit: Getty Images/Cultura RF
For this Discussion, review the Learning Resources and reflect on the concepts of foundational neuroscience as they might apply to your role as the psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner in prescribing medications for patients.
By Day 3 of Week 2
Post a response to each of the following:
1. Explain the agonist-to-antagonist spectrum of action of psychopharmacologic agents, including how partial and inverse agonist functionality may impact the efficacy of psychopharmacologic treatments.
2. Compare and contrast the actions of g couple proteins and ion gated channels.
3. Explain how the role of epigenetics may contribute to pharmacologic action.
4. Explain how this information may impact the way you prescribe medications to patients. Include a specific example of a situation or case with a patient in which the psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner must be aware of the medication’s action.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.
By Day 6 of Week 2
Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days in one of the following ways:
• If your colleagues’ posts influenced your understanding of these concepts, be sure to share how and why. Include additional insights you gained.
• If you think your colleagues might have misunderstood these concepts, offer your alternative perspective and be sure to provide an explanation for them. Include resources to support your perspective.
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!
Submission and Grading Information
NURS 6630 Foundational Neuroscience DiscussionGrading Criteria

To access your rubric:
Week 2 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 of Week 2 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 2

To Participate in this Discussion:
Week 2 Discussion

________________________________________
What’s Coming Up in Week 3?

Photo Credit: [BrianAJackson]/[iStock / Getty Images Plus]/Getty Images
Next week, you will explore medication adherence and strategies to help overcome non-adherence to pharmacotherapeutics. You will also complete a Quiz that addresses the content covered throughout this module.
Next Week

To go to the next week:
Week 3
Week 2: Neurotransmitters and Receptor Theory
Receptors and neurotransmitters are like a lock-and-key system. Just as it takes the right key to open a specific lock, it takes the right neurotransmitter to bind to a specific receptor. Not surprisingly, as it concerns psychopharmacology, the pharmacotherapeutics that are prescribed must trigger the release of certain neurotransmitters that bind to the correct receptors in order to elicit a favorable response for the patient. The mechanism of this binding and the response that follows reflects receptor theory and lies at the foundation of pharmacology.
This week, you will continue your examination of neuroanatomy and neuroscience as you engage with you colleagues in a Discussion. You will also explore the potential impacts of foundational neuroscience on the prescription of pharmacotherapeutics.
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 medications
________________________________________
Learning Resources

Required Readings (click to expand/reduce)

Camprodon, J. A., & Roffman, J. L. (2016). Psychiatric neuroscience: Incorporating pathophysiology into clinical case formulation. In T. A. Stern, M. Favo, T. E. Wilens, & J. F. Rosenbaum. (Eds.), Massachusetts General Hospital psychopharmacology and neurotherapeutics (pp. 1–19). Elsevier.

Required Media (click to expand/reduce)

The University of British Columbia. (n. d.). Neuroanatomy videos. http://neuroanatomy.ca/videos.html
Note: Please review all of the media under the neuroanatomy series.

Optional Resources (click to expand/reduce)

Pathopharmacology: Disorders of the Nervous System: Exploring the Human Brain
Dr. Norbert 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. (15m)
Introduction to Advanced Pharmacology
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. (6m)
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6630_Week2_Discussion_Rubric
• Grid View
• List View
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. Points Range: 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. Points Range: 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. Points Range: 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. Points Range: 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 Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely.

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely.

May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors.

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely.

NURS 6630 Foundational Neuroscience Discussion

NURS 6630 Foundational Neuroscience Discussion

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors. Points Range: 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 Points Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts main Discussion by due date. Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Posts main Discussion by due date.

Meets requirements for full participation. Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main Discussion by due date. Points Range: 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. Points Range: 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. Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
First Response:
Writing Points Range: 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. Points Range: 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. Points Range: 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. Points Range: 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 Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts by due date. Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts by due date. Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date. Points Range: 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. Points Range: 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. Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
Second Response:
Writing Points Range: 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. Points Range: 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. Points Range: 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. Points Range: 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 Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts by due date. Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts by due date. Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date. Points Range: 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

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%) – 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%)
Written clearly and concisely.

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

(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%)
Written somewhat concisely.

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.

(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%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts main Discussion by due date.

(8%) – 8 (8%)
Posts main Discussion by due date.

Meets requirements for full participation.

(7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main Discussion by due date.
(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%)
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%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
(7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth.
(0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
First Response:
Writing
(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%)
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%)
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%) – 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%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts by due date.

(4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts by due date.

(3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
(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%)
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%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
(7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth.
(0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
Second Response:
Writing
(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%)
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%)
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%) – 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%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts by due date.

(4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts by due date.

(3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
(0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.

Does not post by due date.

Total Points: 100
Did you find apk for android? You can find new and apps.

Calculate the price
Make an order in advance and get the best price
Pages (550 words)
$0.00
*Price with a welcome 15% discount applied.
Pro tip: If you want to save more money and pay the lowest price, you need to set a more extended deadline.
We know how difficult it is to be a student these days. That's why our prices are one of the most affordable on the market, and there are no hidden fees.

Instead, we offer bonuses, discounts, and free services to make your experience outstanding.
How it works
Receive a 100% original paper that will pass Turnitin from a top essay writing service
step 1
Upload your instructions
Fill out the order form and provide paper details. You can even attach screenshots or add additional instructions later. If something is not clear or missing, the writer will contact you for clarification.
Pro service tips
How to get the most out of your experience with CheapNursingWriter
One writer throughout the entire course
If you like the writer, you can hire them again. Just copy & paste their ID on the order form ("Preferred Writer's ID" field). This way, your vocabulary will be uniform, and the writer will be aware of your needs.
The same paper from different writers
You can order essay or any other work from two different writers to choose the best one or give another version to a friend. This can be done through the add-on "Same paper from another writer."
Copy of sources used by the writer
Our college essay writers work with ScienceDirect and other databases. They can send you articles or materials used in PDF or through screenshots. Just tick the "Copy of sources" field on the order form.
Testimonials
See why 20k+ students have chosen us as their sole writing assistance provider
Check out the latest reviews and opinions submitted by real customers worldwide and make an informed decision.
Business Studies
Thank you!
Customer 452451, November 27th, 2022
Psychology
Thanks a lot the paper was excellent
Customer 452453, October 26th, 2022
English 101
Very good job. I actually got an A
Customer 452443, September 25th, 2022
Anthropology
Excellent services will definitely come back
Customer 452441, September 23rd, 2022
Theology
Job well done and completed in a timely fashioned!
Customer 452451, November 18th, 2022
Business Studies
Job well done. Finish paper faster than expected. Thank you!
Customer 452451, October 3rd, 2022
Nursing
The paper was EXCELLENT. Thank you
Customer 452449, September 23rd, 2022
Architecture, Building and Planning
The assignment was well written and the paper was delivered on time. I really enjoyed your services.
Customer 452441, September 23rd, 2022
Anthropology
excellent loved the services
Customer 452443, September 23rd, 2022
11,595
Customer reviews in total
96%
Current satisfaction rate
3 pages
Average paper length
37%
Customers referred by a friend
OUR GIFT TO YOU
15% OFF your first order
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Claim my 15% OFF Order in Chat