Five (5) evidence-based, peer- reviewed scholarly references outside of course resources
MOOD STABILIZER
This
Assignment is designed to help you analyze the many considerations for
prescribing mood stabilizers, as well as organizing the many different lab
components to consider when prescribing to a patient.
TO PREPARE
·
Review the Required
Learning Resources.
·
Review indications and
considerations for traditional mood stabilizer
psychopharmacology treatments, including carbamazepine, lamotrigine, lithium,
and valproate products.
THE ASSIGNMENT
Construct
a 5- to 6-page paper discussing each of the four traditional mood stabilizer
medications: carbamazepine, lamotrigine, lithium, and valproate products.
Support your answers with five (5) evidence-based,
peer-reviewed scholarly literature.
Note: APA style format will apply.
Your
paper should include the following for each:
·
Proposed mechanism of
action
·
Baseline assessment,
laboratory considerations, and frequency of ongoing labs and assessments
Note: Discuss the importance of assessment and labs.
·
Special population
considerations (birth assigned gender, age, other medical comorbidity
considerations)
·
FDA approval indications
·
Typical dosing with
discussion on therapeutic endpoints for psychiatric use
·
Major drug–drug
interaction considerations
o
For each of these
medications, please review potential drug–drug interactions listed below.
Consider alternative dosing schedules, clinical implications for the drug
interactions, additional patient education needed, any additional monitoring
recommended, or collaboration needed with other medical professions (such as,
primary care providers)
§ Lamotrigine + Valproate
§ Lamotrigine + Rifampin
§ Valproate + Estrogen containing birth control.
§ Valproate + Amitriptyline
§ Lithium + Furosemide
§ Lithium + Lisinopril
§ Carbamazepine + Lurasidone
§ Carbamazepine + Grapefruit juice
o
Discuss the ethical,
legal, and social implications related to prescribing bipolar and other related
mood-disorder diagnoses therapy for patients.
NURS_6630_Week8_Assignment_Rubric
NURS_6630_Week8_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
For
each of the four (4) traditional mood stabilizers, response includes proposed
mechanism of action, baseline assessment, laboratory considerations, and
frequency of ongoing. Discusses the importance of assessment and labs.
Indication of special population considerations FDA approval. Discusses
typical dosing with focus on therapeutic endpoints for psychiatric use of
major drug-drug interaction considerations.
50 to >36.0 pts
Excellent
The response comprehensively and clearly describes all
of the elements for each of the four (4) mood stabilizers.
36 to >24.0 pts
Good
The response clearly describes at least 75% the
Assignment elements for three to four (3–4) mood stabilizers.
24 to >11.0 pts
Fair
The response describes at least 50% the Assignment
elements for each mood stabilizer or only two (2) mood stabilizers
discussed.
11 to >0 pts
Poor
The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that
describe 25% or less of the Assignment elements for one (1) mood
stabilizer, or some or all are missing.
50 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Reviews
the potential drug–drug interactions of the following: *Lamotrigine +
Valproate; *Lamotrigine + Rifampin; *Valproate + Estrogen containing birth
control; *Valproate + Amitriptyline; *Lithium + Furosemide; *Lithium +
Lisinopril; *Carbamazepine + Lurasidone; *Carbamazepine + Grapefruit juice.
Consider alternative dosing schedules, clinical implications for the drug
interactions, additional patient education needed, any additional monitoring
recommended, or collaboration needed with other medical professions.
20 to >18.0 pts
Excellent
Reviews all
seven (7) of the potential drug–drug interactions with clear and accurate
Discussion of alternative dosing, patient education, monitoring
recommendation, and when to collaborate.
18 to >15.0 pts
Good
Reviews five to
six (5–6) of the potential drug–drug interactions with clear and accurate
Discussion of alternative dosing, patient education, monitoring
recommendation, and when to collaborate.
15 to >10.0 pts
Fair
Reviews three to
four (3–4) of the potential drug–drug interactions with some Discussion and
minor inaccuracies of alternative dosing, patient education, monitoring
recommendation, and when to collaborate.
10 to >0 pts
Poor
Reviews all
seven (7) of the potential drug–drug interactions with vague and major
inaccuracies noted in Discussion including alternative dosing, patient
education, monitoring recommendation, and when to collaborate.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Discusses
ethical, legal, and social implications related to prescribing these
medications to patients.
10 to
>7.0 pts
Excellent
The
response accurately and clearly discusses ethical, legal and social
implications. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate
examples that fully support the Discussion.
7 to
>4.0 pts
Good
The
response accurately discusses ethical, legal and social implications. The
response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support
the Discussion.
4 to
>1.0 pts
Fair
The
response inaccurately or vaguely discusses ethical, legal and social
implications. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that
may support the Discussion.
1 to
>0 pts
Poor
The
response inaccurately and vaguely discusses ethical, legal and social
implications, or it is missing. The response includes inaccurate and vague
examples that do not support the Discussion, or it is missing.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome The
paper is succinct and is 5–6 pages. Five (5) evidence-based, peer- reviewed
scholarly references outside of course resources.
5 to
>4.0 pts
Excellent
The
paper is succinct and is 5–6 pages. Five (5) evidence-based, peer- reviewed
scholarly references outside of course resources
4 to
>3.0 pts
Good
The
paper is succinct and is 7–8 pages. Four (4) evidence-based, peer- reviewed
scholarly references outside of course resources
3 to
>1.0 pts
Fair
The
paper is somewhat succinct and is 8–9 pages. Two or three (2 or 3)
evidence-based, peer- reviewed scholarly references outside of course
resources
1 to
>0 pts
Poor
The
paper is not succinct and is 10+ pages. One (1) or no evidence-based, peer-
reviewed scholarly references outside of course resources
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 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 is provided which delineates all required
criteria.
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Paragraphs and
sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A
clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is
provided which delineates all required criteria.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Paragraphs and
sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of
the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the Assignment is stated
yet is brief and not descriptive.
3 to >1.0 pts
Fair
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.
1 to >0 pts
Poor
Paragraphs and
sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less
than 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was
provided.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Written
Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar,
mechanics, and proper punctuation.
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct
grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Contains one or
two grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3 to >1.0 pts
Fair
Contains three
or four grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
1 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains five or
more grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the
reader’s understanding.
5 pts
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.
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Contains one or two APA format errors.
3 to >1.0 pts
Fair
Contains three or four APA format errors.
1 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains five or more APA format errors.
5 pts
Total Points: 100
