Explain the agonist-to-antagonist spectrum of action of psychopharmacologic agents.
2. Compare and contrast the actions of g couple proteins and ion gated channels.
3. Explain the role of epigenetics in pharmacologic action.
4. Explain how this information may impact the way you prescribe medications to clients. Include a specific example of a situation or case with a client in which the psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner must be aware of the medication’s action.

Assignment: Foundational Neuroscience Discussion

Discussion: Foundational Neuroscience

As a psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner, it is essential for you to have a strong background in foundational neuroscience. In order to diagnose and treat clients, you must not only understand the pathophysiology of psychiatric disorders, but also how medications for these disorders impact the central nervous system. according to Assignment: Foundational Neuroscience Discussion, these concepts of foundational neuroscience can be challenging to understand. Therefore, this Discussion is designed to encourage you to think through these concepts, develop a rationale for your thinking, and deepen your understanding by interacting with your colleagues.

Learning Objectives

Students will:

Analyze the agonist-to-antagonist spectrum of action of psychopharmacologic agents
Compare the actions of g couple proteins to ion gated channels
Analyze the role of epigenetics in pharmacologic action
Analyze the impact of foundational neuroscience on the prescription of medications

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: Assignment: Foundational Neuroscience Discussion

Learning Resources

Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus as needed in Assignment: Foundational Neuroscience Discussion.

Required Readings

Note: All Stahl resources can be accessed through the Walden Library using this link. This link will take you to a log-in page for the Walden Library. Once you log into the library, the Stahl website will appear.

Stahl, S. M. (2013). Stahl’s essential psychopharmacology: Neuroscientific basis and practical applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press *Preface, pp. ix–x

Note: To access the following chapters, click on the Essential Psychopharmacology, 4th ed tab on the Stahl Online website and select the appropriate chapter. Be sure to read all sections on the left navigation bar for each chapter.

Chapter 1, “Chemical Neurotransmission”
Chapter 2, “Transporters, Receptors, and Enzymes as Targets of Psychopharmacologic Drug Action”
Chapter 3, “Ion Channels as Targets of Psychopharmacologic Drug Action”
Required Media for Discussion: Foundational Neuroscience Assignment

Laureate Education (Producer). (2016i). Introduction to psychopharmacology [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 3 minutes.

Optional Resources

Laureate Education (Producer). (2009). Pathopharmacology: Disorders of the nervous system: Exploring the human brain [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 15 minutes.

Dr. Myslinski reviews the structure and function of the human brain. Assignment: Foundational Neuroscience Discussion states that, using human brains, he examines and illustrates the development of the brain and areas impacted by disorders associated with the brain.

Laureate Education (Producer). (2012). Introduction to advanced pharmacology [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 8 minutes.

In this media presentation, Dr. Terry Buttaro, associate professor of practice at Simmons School of Nursing and Health Sciences, discusses the importance of pharmacology for the advanced practice nurse.

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

 

Name: NURS_6630_Week2_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View

List View

Excellent

 

Point range: 90–100           Good

 

Point range: 80–89  Fair

 

Point range: 70–79  Poor

 

Point range: 0–69

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.

40 (40%) – 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.

 

No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

 

Supported by at least three current credible sources.

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 as stated in Assignment: Foundational Neuroscience Discussion.

 

50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth.

 

Supported by at least three 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 two 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 one or no credible references.

Main Posting:

 

Writing

6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely.

 

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.

 

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Written concisely.

 

May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors.

 

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Written somewhat concisely.

 

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Contains some APA formatting errors.

0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

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

9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

 

Posts main Discussion by due date.

8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Posts main Discussion by due date.

 

Meets requirements for full participation.

7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Posts main Discussion by due date.

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation.

 

Does not post main Discussion by due date.

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 according to Assignment: Foundational Neuroscience Discussion.

8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.

7 (7%) – 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%)

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 (4%) – 4 (4%)

According to Assignment: Foundational Neuroscience Discussion, response posed 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%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

 

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, full, and active participation.

 

Posts by due date.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation.

 

Posts by due date.

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date.

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation.

 

Does not post by due date.

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 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.

7 (7%) – 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 as stated in Assignment: Foundational Neuroscience Discussion.

 

Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources as required in Assignment: Foundational Neuroscience Discussion.

 

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 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Response posed 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%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

 

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, full, and active participation.

 

Posts by due date.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation.

 

Posts by due date.

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date.

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation.

Does not post by due date.

Total Points: 100

Name: NURS_6630_Week2_Discussion_Rubric

Place your order now for a similar paper and have exceptional work written by our team of experts to guarantee you A Results

ordernowcc-green