Bipolar Therapy Client of Korean Descent/Ancestry Decision Point One B Begin Risperdal 1 mg orally BIDegin Risperdal 1 mg orally BID RESULTS OF DECISION POINT ONE Client returns to clinic in four weeks Client is accompanied today by her mother who must help the client into your office, the client looks very sedated and lethargic Client's mother explains that “she has been like this since about a week after the last office visit” Decision Point Two RESULTS OF DECISION POINT TWO Discontinue Risperdal and start Lithium sustained release 300 mg orally BID Client returns to clinic in four weeks Client no longer lethargic after the end of the first week Client has a slight decrease in her Young Mania Rating Scale (from 22 to 19) Client reports that her sleep is again decreasing, but that overall, she is happy Decision Point Three Make no changes at this time & reevaluate in 4 weeks Guidance to Student Recall that the client is of Korean descent and is positive for CYP2D6*10 allele. As a result, she may be demonstrating slower clearance of Risperdal from her system, resulting in higher than normal levels of Risperdal in the blood, resulting in sedation. The client responded well to the discontinuation of Risperdal and after about a week of drug cessation, she was no longer lethargic/sedate. However, in the following 3 weeks, she had experienced increased symptoms, although a slight improvement in YMSR score was noted. You could make no changes at this time and allow the lithium to remain at its current dose for an additional 4 weeks and reassess. Conversely, you can increase the lithium to 450 mg orally BID and then reassess in 4. The additional milligrams may hasten mood stabilization. Risperdal 0.5 mg orally BID may be appropriate if the clients’ symptoms are worsening, however, you would need to have the client return to the office sooner than 4 weeks for an interim visit to assess effects of drug and presence of somnolence/lethargy. Rubric Detail Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout. Content Name: NURS_6630_Week5_Assignment_Rubric Grid ViewList View Excellent Point range: 90–100 Good Point range: 80–89 Fair Point range: 70–79 Poor Point range: 0–69 Introduction to the case (1 page) Briefly explain and summarize the case for this Assignment. Be sure to include the specific patient factors that may impact your decision making when prescribing medication for this patient. Points: Points Range: 9 (9%) - 10 (10%) The response accurately, clearly, and fully summarizes in detail the case for the Assignment. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the specific patient factors that impact decision making when prescribing medication for this patient. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 8 (8%) - 8 (8%) ...

1. Bipolar Therapy
Client of Korean Descent/Ancestry
Decision Point One
B Begin Risperdal 1 mg orally BIDegin Risperdal 1 mg orally
BID
RESULTS OF DECISION POINT ONE
Client returns to clinic in four weeks
Client is accompanied today by her mother who must help the
client into your office, the client looks very sedated and
lethargic
Client's mother explains that “she has been like this since about
a week after the last office visit”
Decision Point Two
RESULTS OF DECISION POINT TWO
Discontinue Risperdal and start Lithium sustained release 300
mg orally BID
Client returns to clinic in four weeks
Client no longer lethargic after the end of the first week
Client has a slight decrease in her Young Mania Rating Scale
(from 22 to 19)
Client reports that her sleep is again decreasing, but that
overall, she is happy

2. Decision Point Three
Make no changes at this time & reevaluate in 4 weeks
Guidance to Student
Recall that the client is of Korean descent and is positive for
CYP2D6*10 allele. As a result, she may be demonstrating
slower clearance of Risperdal from her system, resulting in
higher than normal levels of Risperdal in the blood, resulting in
sedation. The client responded well to the discontinuatio n of
Risperdal and after about a week of drug cessation, she was no
longer lethargic/sedate. However, in the following 3 weeks, she
had experienced increased symptoms, although a slight
improvement in YMSR score was noted. You could make no
changes at this time and allow the lithium to remain at its
current dose for an additional 4 weeks and reassess. Conversely,
you can increase the lithium to 450 mg orally BID and then
reassess in 4. The additional milligrams may hasten mood
stabilization. Risperdal 0.5 mg orally BID may be appropriate if
the clients’ symptoms are worsening, however, you would need
to have the client return to the office sooner than 4 weeks for an
interim visit to assess effects of drug and presence of
somnolence/lethargy.
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6630_Week5_Assignment_Rubric
Grid ViewList View
Excellent
Point range: 90–100
Good

3. Point range: 80–89
Fair
Point range: 70–79
Poor
Point range: 0–69
Introduction to the case (1 page)
Briefly explain and summarize the case for this Assignment. Be
sure to include the specific patient factors that may impact your
decision making when prescribing medication for this patient.
Points:
Points Range:
9 (9%) - 10 (10%)

4. The response accurately, clearly, and fully summarizes in
detail the case for the Assignment.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the
specific patient factors that impact decision making when
prescribing medication for this patient.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
8 (8%) - 8 (8%)

5. The response accurately summarizes the case for the
Assignment.
The response accurately explains the specific patient factors
that impact decision making with prescribing medication for
this patient.
Feedback:
Points:

6. Points Range:
7 (7%) - 7 (7%)
The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the case for
the Assignment.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the specific
patient factors that impact decision making with prescribing
medication for this patient.
Feedback:

7. Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) - 6 (6%)
The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the case
for the Assignment, or is missing.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the specific
patient factors that impact decision making with prescribing
medication for this patient.
Feedback:

8. Decision #1 (1–2 pages)
• Which decision did you select?
• Why did you select this decision? Be specific and support your
response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources,
including the primary literature.
• Why did you not select the other two options provided in the
exercise? Be specific and support your response with clinically
relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary
literature.
• What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision?
Support your response with evidence and references to the
Learning Resources (including the primary literature).
• Explain how ethical considerations may impact your treatment
plan and communication with patients. Be specific and provide
examples.
Points:
Points Range:
18 (18%) - 20 (20%)

9. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the
decision selected.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the
decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant
resources that fully support the decision selected.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the
other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically
relevant resources that fully support the response.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the
outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected
decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully
support the response.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail how
ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and
communication with patients.
Examples provided fully support the decisions and responses

10. provided.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
16 (16%) - 17 (17%)
The response accurately explains the decision selected.

11. The response explains why the decision was selected, with
specific clinically relevant resources that support the decision
selected.
The response accurately explains why the other two responses
were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources
that support the response.
The response accurately explains the outcome the student was
hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific
clinically relevant resources that support the response.
The response accurately explains how ethical considerations
impact the treatment plan and communication with patients.
Examples provided support the decisions and responses
provided.
Feedback:

12. Points:
Points Range:
14 (14%) - 15 (15%)
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the decision
selected.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the decision
was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that
inaccurately or vaguely support the decision selected.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the other

13. two responses were not selected, with specific clinically
relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the
response.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the outcome the
student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with
specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or
vaguely support the response.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains how ethical
considerations impact the treatment plan and communication
with patients.
Examples provided may support the decisions and responses
provided.
Feedback:

14. Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) - 13 (13%)
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the decision
selected.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the
decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant
resources that do not support the decision selected, or is
missing.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the other
two responses were not selected, with specific clinically
relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or
is missing.

15. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the outcome the
student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with
specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the
response, or is missing.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains how ethical
considerations impact the treatment plan and communication
with patients, or is missing.
Examples provided do not support the decisions and responses
provided, or is missing.
Feedback:
Decision #2 (1–2 pages)
• Which decision did you select?
• Why did you select this decision? Be specific and support your
response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources,
including the primary literature.
• Why did you not select the other two options provided in the
exercise? Be specific and support your response with clinical ly

16. relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary
literature.
• What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision?
Support your response with evidence and references to the
Learning Resources (including the primary literature).
• Explain how ethical considerations may impact your treatment
plan and communication with patients. Be specific and provide
examples.
Points:
Points Range:
18 (18%) - 20 (20%)
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the
decision selected.

17. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the
decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant
resources that fully support the decision selected.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the
other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically
relevant resources that fully support the response.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the
outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected
decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully
support the response.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail how
ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and
communication with patients.
Examples provided fully support the decisions and responses
provided.
Feedback:

18. Points:
Points Range:
16 (16%) - 17 (17%)
The response accurately explains the decision selected.
The response explains why the decision was selected, with
specific clinically relevant resources that support the decision
selected.
The response accurately explains why the other two responses
were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources

19. that support the response.
The response accurately explains the outcome the student was
hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific
clinically relevant resources that support the response.
The response accurately explains how ethical considerations
impact the treatment plan and communication with patients.
Examples provided support the decisions and responses
provided.
Feedback:
Points:

20. Points Range:
14 (14%) - 15 (15%)
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the decision
selected.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the decision
was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that
inaccurately or vaguely support the decision selected.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the other
two responses were not selected, with specific clinically
relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the
response.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the outcome the
student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with
specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or
vaguely support the response.

21. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains how ethical
considerations impact the treatment plan and communication
with patients.
Examples provided may support the decisions and responses
provided.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) - 13 (13%)

22. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains in detail the
decision selected.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the
decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant
resources that do not support the decision selected, or is
missing.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the other
two responses were not selected, with specific clinically
relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or
is missing.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the outcome the
student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with
specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the
response, or is missing.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains how ethical
considerations impact the treatment plan and communication

23. with patients, or is missing.
Examples provided do not support the decisions and responses
provided, or is missing.
Feedback:
Decision #3 (1–2 pages)
• Which decision did you select?
• Why did you select this decision? Be specific and support your
response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources,
including the primary literature.
• Why did you not select the other two options provided in the
exercise? Be specific and support your response with clinically
relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary
literature.
• What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision?
Support your response with evidence and references to the
Learning Resources (including the primary literature).
• Explain how ethical considerations may impact your treatment
plan and communication with patients. Be specific and provide
examples.

24. Points:
Points Range:
18 (18%) - 20 (20%)
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the
decision selected.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the
decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant
resources that fully support the decision selected.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the
other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically
relevant resources that fully support the response.

25. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the
outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected
decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully
support the response.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail how
ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and
communication with patients.
Examples provided fully support the decisions and responses
provided.
Feedback:
Points:

26. Points Range:
16 (16%) - 17 (17%)
The response accurately explains the decision selected.
The response explains why the decision was selected, with
specific clinically relevant resources that support the decision
selected.
The response accurately explains why the other two responses
were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources
that support the response.
The response accurately explains the outcome the student was
hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific
clinically relevant resources that support the response.

27. The response accurately explains how ethical considerations
impact the treatment plan and communication with patients.
Examples provided support the decisions and responses
provided.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
14 (14%) - 15 (15%)

28. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the decision
selected.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the decision
was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that
inaccurately or vaguely support the decision selected.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the other
two responses were not selected, with specific clinically
relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the
response.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the outcome the
student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with
specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or
vaguely support the response.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains how ethical
considerations impact the treatment plan and communication
with patients.
Examples provided may support the decisions and responses

29. provided.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) - 13 (13%)
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains in detail the
decision selected.

30. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the
decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant
resources that do not support the decision selected, or is
missing.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the other
two responses were not selected, with specific clinically
relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or
is missing.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the outcome the
student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with
specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the
response, or is missing.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains how ethical
considerations impact the treatment plan and communication
with patients, or is missing.
Examples provided do not support the decisions and responses
provided, or is missing.

31. Feedback:
Conclusion (1 page)
• Summarize your recommendations on the treatment options
you selected for this patient. Be sure to justify your
recommendations and support your response with clinically
relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary
literature.
Points:
Points Range:
14 (14%) - 15 (15%)

32. The response accurately and clearly summarizes in detail the
recommendations on the treatment options selected for this
patient.
The response accurately and clearly explains a justification for
the recommendations provided, including clinically relevant
resources that fully support the recommendations provided.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
12 (12%) - 13 (13%)

33. The response accurately summarizes the recommendations on
the treatment options selected for this patient.
The response accurately explains a justification for the
recommendation provided, including clinically relevant
resources that support the recommendations provided.
Feedback:
Points:

34. Points Range:
11 (11%) - 11 (11%)
The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the
recommendations on the treatment options selected for this
patient.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains a justification for
the recommendations provided, including clinically relevant
resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the
recommendations provided.
Feedback:

35. Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) - 10 (10%)
The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the
recommendations on the treatment options selected for this
patient, or is missing.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains a justification
for the recommendations provided, including clinically relevant
resources that do not support the recommendations provided, or
is missing.
Feedback:

36. Written Expression and Formatting - Paragraph Development
and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas,
flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences
are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and
lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose
statement and introduction are provided that delineate all
required criteria.
Points:
Points Range:
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)

37. Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow,
continuity, and clarity.
A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and
conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
4 (4%) - 4 (4%)

38. Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow,
continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.
Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are
stated, yet they are brief and not descriptive.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%)

39. Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow,
continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time.
Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is
vague or off topic.
Feedback:
Points:

40. Points Range:
0 (0%) - 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow,
continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.
No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were
provided.
Feedback:
Written Expression and Formatting - English writing
standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation

41. Points:
Points Range:
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no
errors.
Feedback:

42. Points:
Points Range:
4 (4%) - 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation
errors.
Feedback:

43. Points:
Points Range:
3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation
errors.
Feedback:

44. Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) - 3 (3%)
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors
that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
Feedback:
Written Expression and Formatting - The paper follows correct
APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins,
indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and
reference list.

45. Points:
Points Range:
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
Feedback:

46. Points:
Points Range:
4 (4%) - 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.
Feedback:

47. Points:
Points Range:
3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.
Feedback:

48. Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) - 3 (3%)
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
Feedback:

49. Show Descriptions
Show Feedback
Introduction to the case (1 page)
Briefly explain and summarize the case for this Assignment. Be
sure to include the specific patient factors that may impact your
decision making when prescribing medication for this patient.--
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
Point range: 90–100
9 (9%) - 10 (10%)
The response accurately, clearly, and fully summarizes in detail
the case for the Assignment.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the
specific patient factors that impact decision making when
prescribing medication for this patient.
Good
Point range: 80–89
8 (8%) - 8 (8%)

50. The response accurately summarizes the case for the
Assignment.
The response accurately explains the specific patient factors
that impact decision making with prescribing medication for
this patient.
Fair
Point range: 70–79
7 (7%) - 7 (7%)
The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the case for
the Assignment.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the specific
patient factors that impact decision making with prescribing
medication for this patient.
Poor

51. Point range: 0–69
0 (0%) - 6 (6%)
The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the case for
the Assignment, or is missing.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the specific
patient factors that impact decision making with prescribing
medication for this patient.
Feedback:
Decision #1 (1–2 pages)
• Which decision did you select?
• Why did you select this decision? Be specific and support your
response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources,
including the primary literature.
• Why did you not select the other two options provided in the
exercise? Be specific and support your response with clinically
relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary

52. literature.
• What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision?
Support your response with evidence and references to the
Learning Resources (including the primary literature).
• Explain how ethical considerations may impact your treatment
plan and communication with patients. Be specific and provide
examples.--
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
Point range: 90–100
18 (18%) - 20 (20%)
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the
decision selected.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the
decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant
resources that fully support the decision selected.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the
other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically
relevant resources that fully support the response.

53. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the
outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected
decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully
support the response.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail how
ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and
communication with patients.
Examples provided fully support the decisions and responses
provided.
Good
Point range: 80–89
16 (16%) - 17 (17%)
The response accurately explains the decision selected.
The response explains why the decision was selected, with
specific clinically relevant resources that support the decision
selected.

54. The response accurately explains why the other two responses
were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources
that support the response.
The response accurately explains the outcome the student was
hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific
clinically relevant resources that support the response.
The response accurately explains how ethical considerations
impact the treatment plan and communication with patients.
Examples provided support the decisions and responses
provided.
Fair
Point range: 70–79
14 (14%) - 15 (15%)
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the decision
selected.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the decision

55. was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that
inaccurately or vaguely support the decision selected.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the other
two responses were not selected, with specific clinically
relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the
response.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the outcome the
student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with
specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or
vaguely support the response.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains how ethical
considerations impact the treatment plan and communication
with patients.
Examples provided may support the decisions and responses
provided.
Poor
Point range: 0–69
0 (0%) - 13 (13%)

56. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the decision
selected.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the
decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant
resources that do not support the decision selected, or is
missing.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the other
two responses were not selected, with specific clinically
relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or
is missing.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the outcome the
student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with
specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the
response, or is missing.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains how ethical
considerations impact the treatment plan and communication
with patients, or is missing.
Examples provided do not support the decisions and responses
provided, or is missing.

57. Feedback:
Decision #2 (1–2 pages)
• Which decision did you select?
• Why did you select this decision? Be specific and support your
response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources,
including the primary literature.
• Why did you not select the other two options provided in the
exercise? Be specific and support your response with clinically
relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary
literature.
• What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision?
Support your response with evidence and references to the
Learning Resources (including the primary literature).
• Explain how ethical considerations may impact your treatment
plan and communication with patients. Be specific and provide
examples.--
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
Point range: 90–100

58. 18 (18%) - 20 (20%)
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the
decision selected.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the
decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant
resources that fully support the decision selected.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the
other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically
relevant resources that fully support the response.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the
outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected
decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully
support the response.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail how
ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and
communication with patients.
Examples provided fully support the decisions and responses

59. provided.
Good
Point range: 80–89
16 (16%) - 17 (17%)
The response accurately explains the decision selected.
The response explains why the decision was selected, with
specific clinically relevant resources that support the decision
selected.
The response accurately explains why the other two responses
were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources
that support the response.
The response accurately explains the outcome the student was
hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific
clinically relevant resources that support the response.
The response accurately explains how ethical considerations
impact the treatment plan and communication with patients.

60. Examples provided support the decisions and responses
provided.
Fair
Point range: 70–79
14 (14%) - 15 (15%)
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the decision
selected.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the decision
was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that
inaccurately or vaguely support the decision selected.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the other
two responses were not selected, with specific clinically
relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the
response.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the outcome the
student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with

61. specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or
vaguely support the response.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains how ethical
considerations impact the treatment plan and communication
with patients.
Examples provided may support the decisions and responses
provided.
Poor
Point range: 0–69
0 (0%) - 13 (13%)
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains in detail the
decision selected.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the
decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant
resources that do not support the decision selected, or is
missing.

62. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the other
two responses were not selected, with specific clinically
relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or
is missing.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the outcome the
student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with
specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the
response, or is missing.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains how ethical
considerations impact the treatment plan and communication
with patients, or is missing.
Examples provided do not support the decisions and responses
provided, or is missing.
Feedback:
Decision #3 (1–2 pages)

63. • Which decision did you select?
• Why did you select this decision? Be specific and support your
response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources,
including the primary literature.
• Why did you not select the other two options provided in the
exercise? Be specific and support your response with clinically
relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary
literature.
• What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision?
Support your response with evidence and references to the
Learning Resources (including the primary literature).
• Explain how ethical considerations may impact your treatment
plan and communication with patients. Be specific and provide
examples.--
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
Point range: 90–100
18 (18%) - 20 (20%)
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the
decision selected.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the
decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant
resources that fully support the decision selected.

64. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the
other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically
relevant resources that fully support the response.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the
outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected
decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully
support the response.
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail how
ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and
communication with patients.
Examples provided fully support the decisions and responses
provided.
Good
Point range: 80–89
16 (16%) - 17 (17%)
The response accurately explains the decision selected.

65. The response explains why the decision was selected, with
specific clinically relevant resources that support the decis ion
selected.
The response accurately explains why the other two responses
were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources
that support the response.
The response accurately explains the outcome the student was
hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific
clinically relevant resources that support the response.
The response accurately explains how ethical considerations
impact the treatment plan and communication with patients.
Examples provided support the decisions and responses
provided.
Fair
Point range: 70–79
14 (14%) - 15 (15%)

66. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the decision
selected.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the decision
was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that
inaccurately or vaguely support the decision selected.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the other
two responses were not selected, with specific clinically
relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the
response.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the outcome the
student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with
specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or
vaguely support the response.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains how ethical
considerations impact the treatment plan and communication
with patients.
Examples provided may support the decisions and responses
provided.

67. Poor
Point range: 0–69
0 (0%) - 13 (13%)
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains in detail the
decision selected.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the
decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant
resources that do not support the decision selected, or is
missing.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the other
two responses were not selected, with specific clinically
relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or
is missing.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the outcome the
student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with
specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the
response, or is missing.

68. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains how ethical
considerations impact the treatment plan and communication
with patients, or is missing.
Examples provided do not support the decisions and responses
provided, or is missing.
Feedback:
Conclusion (1 page)
• Summarize your recommendations on the treatment options
you selected for this patient. Be sure to justify your
recommendations and support your response with clinically
relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary
literature.--
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
Point range: 90–100
14 (14%) - 15 (15%)

69. The response accurately and clearly summarizes in detail the
recommendations on the treatment options selected for this
patient.
The response accurately and clearly explains a justification for
the recommendations provided, including clinically relevant
resources that fully support the recommendations provided.
Good
Point range: 80–89
12 (12%) - 13 (13%)
The response accurately summarizes the recommendations on
the treatment options selected for this patient.
The response accurately explains a justification for the
recommendation provided, including clinically relevant
resources that support the recommendations provided.
Fair

70. Point range: 70–79
11 (11%) - 11 (11%)
The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the
recommendations on the treatment options selected for this
patient.
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains a justification for
the recommendations provided, including clinically relevant
resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the
recommendations provided.
Poor
Point range: 0–69
0 (0%) - 10 (10%)
The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the
recommendations on the treatment options selected for this
patient, or is missing.
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains a justification
for the recommendations provided, including clinically relevant

71. resources that do not support the recommendations provided, or
is missing.
Feedback:
Written Expression and Formatting - Paragraph Development
and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas,
flow logically, and demonstr ate continuity of ideas. Sentences
are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and
lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose
statement and introduction are provided that delineate all
required criteria.--
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
Point range: 90–100
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow,

72. continuity, and clarity.
A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and
conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria.
Good
Point range: 80–89
4 (4%) - 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow,
continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.
Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are
stated, yet they are brief and not descriptive.
Fair
Point range: 70–79
3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow,
continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time.

73. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is
vague or off topic.
Poor
Point range: 0–69
0 (0%) - 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow,
continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.
No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were
provided.
Feedback:
Written Expression and Formatting - English writing standards:

74. Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation--
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
Point range: 90–100
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
Good
Point range: 80–89
4 (4%) - 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation
errors.
Fair
Point range: 70–79
3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%)

75. Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation
errors.
Poor
Point range: 0–69
0 (0%) - 3 (3%)
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors
that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
Feedback:
Written Expression and Formatting - The paper follows correct
APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins,
indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and
reference list.--

76. Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
Point range: 90–100
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
Good
Point range: 80–89
4 (4%) - 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.
Fair
Point range: 70–79
3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.

77. Poor
Point range: 0–69
0 (0%) - 3 (3%)
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
Feedback:
Total Points:
100
Name: NURS_6630_Week5_Assignment_Rubric