Consider the principles of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics

Consider the principles of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics

This is just a discussion no title page needed, 350 words. Will attempt to upload chapter 2 Arcangelo, V. P., Peterson, A. M., Wilbur, V., & Reinhold, J. A. (Eds.). (2017). Pharmacotherapeutics for advanced practice: A practical approach (4th ed.). Ambler, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. • Chapter 2, “Pharmacokinetic Basis of Therapeutics and Pharmacodynamic Principles” (pp. 17-31) This chapter examines concepts related to pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. It also explores patient factors that health care providers consider when prescribing drug therapy to patients. and there is on recommended article listed at the bottom. All instructors are strict, and wants all students to follow the rubic. I will attach an example discussion. Discussion: Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics As an advanced practice nurse assisting physicians in the diagnosis and treatment of disorders, it is important to not only understand the impact of disorders on the body, but also the impact of drug treatments on the body. The relationships between drugs and the body can be described by pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Pharmacokinetics describes what the body does to the drug through absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion, whereas pharmacodynamics describes what the drug does to the body. When selecting drugs and determining dosages for patients, it is essential to consider individual patient factors that might impact the patient’s pharmacokinetic and pharamcodynamic processes. These patient factors include genetics, gender, ethnicity, age, behavior (i.e., diet, nutrition, smoking, alcohol, illicit drug abuse), and/or pathophysiological changes due to disease. In this Discussion, you reflect on a case from your past clinical experiences and consider how a particular patient’s pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes altered his or her response to a drug. To prepare: • Review this week’s media presentation with Dr. Terry Buttaro, as well as Chapter 2 of the Arcangelo and Peterson text, and the Weitzel et al (2014) article in the Learning Resources. Consider the principles of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. • Reflect on your experiences, observations, and/or clinical practices from the last five years. Select a case from the last five years that involves a patient whose individual differences in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors altered his or her anticipated response to a drug. When referring to your patient, make sure to use a pseudonym or other false form of identification. This is to ensure the privacy and protection of the patient. • Consider factors that might have influenced the patient’s pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes such as genetics (including pharmacogenetics), gender, ethnicity, age, behavior, and/or possible pathophysiological changes due to disease. • Think about a personalized plan of care based on these influencing factors and patient history in your case study. Recommended article Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Approaches, Successes, and Challenges KRISTIN W. WEITZEL, PharmD, AMANDA R. ELSEY, M.H.A., TAIMOUR Y. LANGAEE, M.S.P.H., Ph.D., BENJAMIN BURKLEY, M.S., DAVID R. NESSL, P.M.P., M.B.A., ANIWAA OWUSU OBENG, PharmD, BENJAMIN J. STALEY, PharmD, HUI-JIA DONG, Ph.D., H.C.L.D., (A.B.B.), ROBERT W. ALLAN, M.D., J. FELIX LIU, Ph.D., RHONDA M. COOPER-DEHOFF, PharmD, M.S., R. DAVID ANDERSON, M.D., MICHAEL CONLON, Ph.D., MICHAEL J. CLARE-SALZLER, M.D., DAVID R. NELSON, M.D., and JULIE A. JOHNSON, PharmD https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4076109/ Rubric Detail Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout. Name: NURS_6521_Week1_Discussion_Rubric • Grid View • List View Outstanding Performance Excellent Performance Competent Performance Proficient Performance Room for Improvement 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. 44 (44%) - 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. supported by at least 3 current, credible sources 40 (40%) - 43 (43%) Responds to the discussion question(s) is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge 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 discussion question(s) is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge 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 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 2 credible references 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 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 4.5 (4.5%) - 4.5 (4.5%) Written somewhat concisely May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors Contains some APA formatting errors 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%) NA 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) Does not meet requirement for full participation First Response: 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%) Response may not be on topic, lacks depth First Response: 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 Response: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely and full participation posts by due date 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) Does not meet requirement for full participation Second Response: 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%) Response may not be on topic, lacks depth Second Response: 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 Second Response: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely and full participation Posts by due date 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) Does not meet requirement for full participation Total Points: 100 Name: NURS_6521_Week1_Discussion_Rubric

ANSWER.

PAPER DETAILS
Academic Level Masters
Subject Area Nursing
Paper Type  Assignment
Number of Pages 2 Page(s)/550 words
Sources 3
Paper Format APA
Spacing Double Spaced

If the sample didn't load click the reload button below
If this is not the paper you were searching for, you can order your 100% plagiarism free, custom written paper now!

Item Details

Price: $13.00