DQ#8NRNP

  

To prepare for this Discussion:

Post:

1=Explain the Diagnostic Criteria for your assigned Neurocognitive Disorder (Alzheimer’s Disease).

2=Explain the Evidenced-Based Psychotherapy and Psychopharmacologic Treatment for your assigned Neurocognitive Disorder (Alzheimer’s Disease).

3=Identify the risks of different Types of Therapy and Explain HOW the Benefits of the Therapy that might be achieved might outweigh the risks.

4=Support your rationale with references to the Learning Resources or other academic resource.

Learning Resources

Required Readings

Acadia Pharmaceuticals. (2017). Transform the treatment of Parkinson’s disease psychosis with NUPLAZID. Retrieved from https://www.nuplazidhcp.com/?gclid=CIHS5auvwtMCFQkaaQodrU0FGQ

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

· “Neurocognitive Disorders”

Gabbard, G. O. (2014). Gabbard’s treatment of psychiatric disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publications.

· Chapter 63, “

Delirium

”

· Chapter 64, “Neurocognitive Disorder Due to Alzheimer’s Disease”

· Chapter 65, “Frontotemporal Neurocognitive Disorder”

· Chapter 66, “Vascular Neurocognitive Disorder”

· Chapter 67, “Neurocognitive Disorder Due to Parkinson’s Disease”

Hopkins, S. A., & Chan, D. (2016). Key emerging issues in frontotemporal dementia. Journal of Neurology, 263(2), 407–413. doi:10.1007/s00415-015-7880-7

Sadock, B. J., Sadock, V. A., & Ruiz, P. (2014). Kaplan & Sadock’s synopsis of psychiatry: Behavioral sciences/clinical psychiatry (11th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.

· Chapter 21, “Neurocognitive Disorders” (pp. 694–741)

Stahl, S. M. (2017). Prescriber’s Guide: Stahl’s Essential Psychopharmacology (6th ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
To access information on specific medications, click on
The Prescriber’s Guide, 6th Ed.
tab on the Stahl Online website and select the appropriate medication.

donepezil
galantamine
memantine
rivastigmine

Alzheimer disease	Delirium	Dementia	Parkinson’s disease dementia
caprylidene	donepezil galantamine memantine rivastigmine	haloperidol (adjunct) lorazepam (adjunct)	rivastigmine pimavanserin

Note:

 

For more information on Pimavanserin, see:

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n. d.). Highlights of prescribing information: Nuplazid. Retrieved from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2016/207318lbl

Walker, Z., Possin, K. L., Boeve, B. F., & Aarsland, D. (2015). Lewy body dementias. The Lancet, 386(10004), 1683-1697.  

Required Media

Bolin, P. (2015, December 31). Neurocognitive disorders – CRASH! Medical review series [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQXOPITY9XM

 

Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 57 minutes.

Optional Resources

Kota, L. N., Bharath, S., Purushottam, M., Moily, N. S., Sivakumar, P. T., Varghese, M., . . . Jain, S. (2015). Reduced telomere length in neurodegenerative disorders may suggest shared biology. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 27(2), e92–e96. doi:10.1176/appi.neuropsych.13100240

Lepkowsky, C. M. (2016). Neurocognitive disorder with Lewy bodies: Evidence-based diagnosis and treatment. Practice Innovations, 1(4), 234–242. doi:10.1037/pri0000031

Oltra-Cucarella, J., Pérez-Elvira, R., Espert, R., & Sohn McCormick, A. (2016). Are cognitive interventions effective in Alzheimer’s disease? A controlled meta-analysis of the effects of bias. Neuropsychology, 30(5), 631–652. doi:10.1037/neu0000283

Rubric Detail

 

Select Grid View or 

List View

 to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: NRNP_6670_Week8_Discussion_Rubric

·

Grid View

· List View

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

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

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

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

	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. * 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 (4%) – 5 (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%) – 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%) * does not meet requirement for full participation
Second Reponse: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
Second Reponse: Writing
Second Reponse: Timely and full participation
Total Points: 100

Name: NRNP_6670_Week8_Discussion_Rubric

Exit