Post an explanation of the disease highlighted in the scenario you were provided.
Post an explanation of the disease highlighted in the scenario you were provided.
Post an explanation of the disease highlighted in the scenario you were provided.
Post an explanation of the disease highlighted in the scenario you were provided. Include the following in your explanation:
- The role genetics plays in the disease.
- Why the patient is presenting with the specific symptoms described.
- The physiologic response to the stimulus presented in the scenario and why you think this response occurred.
- The cells that are involved in this process.
- How another characteristic (e.g., gender, genetics) would change your response. Post an explanation of the disease highlighted in the scenario you were provided.
Scenario: A 16-year-old boy comes to clinic with chief complaint of sore throat for 3 days. Denies fever or chills. PMH negative for recurrent colds, influenza, ear infections or pneumonias. NKDA or food allergies. Physical exam reveals temp of 99.6 F, pulse 78 and regular with respirations of 18. HEENT normal with exception of reddened posterior pharynx with white exudate on tonsils that are enlarged to 3+. Positive anterior and posterior cervical adenopathy. Rapid strep test performed in office was positive. His HCP wrote a prescription for amoxicillin 500 mg po q 12 hours x 10 days disp #20. He took the first capsule when he got home and immediately complained of swelling of his tongue and lips, difficulty breathing with audible wheezing. 911 was called and he was taken to the hospital, where he received emergency treatment for his allergic reaction.
-
Discussionquestionsrubix.html
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6501_Discussion_Rubric
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Posting | Points: Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the Discussion question(s) with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Supported by at least three current, credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the Discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One or 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 two credible sources. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the Discussion question(s) adequately. 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 sources. Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback: |
| Main Post: Timeliness | Points: Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by Day 3. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post main post by Day 3. Feedback: |
| First Response | Points: Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses 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. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback: |
| Second Response | Points: Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses 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. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback: |
| Participation | Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. Feedback: |
Show Descriptions Show Feedback
Main Posting–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the Discussion question(s) with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Supported by at least three current, credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Good 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the Discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Fair 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One or 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 two credible sources. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. Poor 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the Discussion question(s) adequately. 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 sources. Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback:
Main Post: Timeliness–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by Day 3. Good 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A Fair 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A Poor 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post main post by Day 3. Feedback:
First Response–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Good 15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses 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. Fair 13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Poor 0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback:
ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPERS
Second Response–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Good 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses 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. Fair 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Poor 0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback:
Participation–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. Good 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A Fair 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A Poor 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. Feedback:
Name: NURS_6501_Discussion_Rubric
Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100
Use the following coupon code :
NURSING10
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
