NURS 6630 Assessing and Treating Patients With ADHD
Sample Answer for NURS 6630 Assessing and Treating Patients With ADHD Included After Question
Not only do children and adults have different presentations for ADHD, but males and females may also have vastly different clinical presentations. Different people may also respond to medication therapies differently. For example, some ADHD medications may cause children to experience stomach pain, while others can be highly addictive for adults. In your role, as a psychiatric nurse practitioner, you must perform careful assessments and weigh the risks and benefits of medication therapies for patients across the life span. For this Assignment, you consider how you might assess and treat patients presenting with ADHD.
NURS 6630 Assessing and Treating Patients With ADHD
Resources
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
WEEKLY RESOURCES
To prepare for this Assignment:
Review this week’s Learning Resources, including the Medication Resources indicated for this week.
Reflect on the psychopharmacologic treatments you might recommend for the assessment and treatment of patients with ADHD.
The Assignment: 5 pages
Examine Case Study: A Young Caucasian Girl with ADHD. You will be asked to make three decisions concerning the medication to prescribe to this patient. Be sure to consider factors that might impact the patient’s pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes.
At each decision point, you should evaluate all options before selecting your decision and moving throughout the exercise. Before you make your decision, make sure that you have researched each option and that you evaluate the decision that you will select. Be sure to research each option using the primary literature.
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.
Decision #1 (1 page)
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.
Decision #2 (1 page)
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.
Decision #3 (1 page)
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.
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.
Note: Support your rationale with a minimum of five academic resources. While you may use the course text to support your rationale, it will not count toward the resource requirement. You should be utilizing the primary and secondary literature.
Reminder : The College of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references. The Sample Paper provided at the Walden Writing Center provides an example of those required elements (available at https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templates/general#s-lg-box-20293632). All papers submitted must use this formatting
Links to an external site..
By Day 7
Submit your Assignment.
submission information
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.
To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK9Assgn_LastName_Firstinitial
Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.
NURS 6630 Assessing and Treating Patients With ADHD Rubric
NURS_6630_Week9_Assignment_Rubric
NURS_6630_Week9_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 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.
10 to >8.0 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
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.
8 to >7.0 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
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.
7 to >6.0 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
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.
6 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
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.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 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.
20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
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 provided.
17 to >15.0 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
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…. Examples provided support the decisions and responses provided.
15 to >13.0 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
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.
13 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
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.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 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.
20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
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 provided.
17 to >15.0 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
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…. Examples provided support the decisions and responses provided.
15 to >13.0 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
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.
13 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
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 with patients, or is missing…. Examples provided do not support the decisions and responses provided, or is missing.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 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.
20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
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 provided.
17 to >15.0 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
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…. Examples provided support the decisions and responses provided.
15 to >13.0 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
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.
13 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
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 with patients, or is missing…. Examples provided do not support the decisions and responses provided, or is missing.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 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.
15 to >13.0 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
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.
13 to >11.0 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
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.
11 to >10.0 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
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.
10 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
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.
15 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 are provided that delineate all required criteria.
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent Point range: 90–100
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.
4 to >3.5 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
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.
3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
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.
3 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time…. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were 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 Point range: 90–100
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
4 to >3.5 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 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 Point range: 90–100
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
4 to >3.5 pts
Good Point range: 80–89
Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.
3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair Point range: 70–79
Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.
3 to >0 pts
Poor Point range: 0–69
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
5 pts
Total Points: 100
A Sample Answer For the Assignment: NURS 6630 Assessing and Treating Patients With ADHD
Title: NURS 6630 Assessing and Treating Patients With ADHD
ADHD is a disease common among children and often continues to adulthood. This chronic condition includes the combination of various persisting problems in a patient. Such problems include impulsive behavior, difficulty in sustaining attention, and always hyperactivity. Children diagnosed with ADHD would as well struggle with low self-esteem, poor performance in academics, and trouble relating with others (Enriquez-Geppert et al., 2019). The treatment of ADHD has taken various dimensions, with different drugs chosen for the treatment depending on the underlying conditions of a patient. While another patient may be treated using Wellbutrin XL or Ritalin chewable tablets, others may be treated using intuniv extended release 1mg orally. All these medications are approved to use in patients who have ADHD. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to assess and treat Katie, who has been diagnosed with ADHD.
Introduction to the Case
The case involves an 8-year-old Caucasian girl called Katie. The patient is presented for mental examination by her parents. Katie’s educator had earlier mentioned that she might have ADHD. The parents have also carried the Conner’s Teacher Rating Scale-Revised (CTRS-R) system completed and approved by her teacher. CTRSR is a professional method used to assess the learner’s attention in class. The result from the CTRSR shows that Katie is sometimes not attentive, easily confused, and troubled in remembering things told. Her reading, spelling, and arithmetic scores are below average. She struggles in completing assigned tasks, including homework. Sometimes she starts her homework but fails to complete it and rarely follows the assignment in the order provided by the instructor. The parents oppose the teacher’s assessment that Katie might have ADHD.
In the subjective assessment, Katie seems unconcerned about the issue and claims that school life is fine. She likes art and playing. She also claims that some subjects are boring and difficult to understand. She accepts that her mind sometimes wanders off issues she finds amusing. Again, she claims that she has perfect friends and family and has never been bullied at school. On the mental state assessment, she is oriented to date, occurrence, and location and has dressed appropriately for her age and temperature. Her voice is rational and simple and fails to make any noticeable mannerisms. She claims she has never had any auditory or sensory problems.
Decision #1
Initiate the treatment by giving Ritalin (methylphenidate) chewable tablets 10mg in the morning.
The selected decision
Based on the available choices, the first decision was Ritalin-10mg chewable tablets in the morning. Ritalin is one of the best medications for treating severe ADHD. Ritalin is a methylphenidate that stimulates the central nervous system (CNS), as highlighted by Caye et al. (2019). This drug is the first-line treatment for ADHD in children and adolescents.
What I was Hoping Achieve by Making this Decision
I hope that prescribing Ritalin 10mg chewable tablets would improve the patient’s condition and increase her concentration in class. The drug has been found to eb effective in improving the general attention and performance of students (Antshel & Russo, 2019). I would as well seek the consent of the parents before administering the medication.
Why the Other Two Decisions were Not Selected
The other two decisions were to use Wellbutrin XL and intuniv extended release 1mg orally. Wellbutrin is an antidepressant that is not commonly used to treat ADHD. The drug has immense side effects, such as suicidal ideation, which are risky for children who might not understand the best ways of dealing with such emotions (Antshel & Russo, 2019). On the other hand, Intuniv is not a stimulant primarily used to control oppositional habits among ADHD patients. Katie’s condition is described by lack of attention. However, this medication would not be effective in correcting her condition.
How Ethical Considerations May Impact the Treatment Plan
While my selected treatment plan focuses on improving Katie’s condition, it would trigger beneficence and nonmaleficence ethical principles. Choosing Ritalin over provided drugs would trigger these two ethical principles (Caye et al., 2019). Ritalin appears to provide the patient with more medicinal benefits with reduced side effects (harm) on the patient.
Decision #2
Switch to Ritalin LA 20 mg PO in the morning.
Reasons for Selecting this Decision
When the patient came for her second appointment after four weeks, her instructor reported that her problems were more intense in the morning. However, she would begin her episodes of fantasy in the afternoon. Her academic success improved, but her parents were worried about her abnormal heart rate, and her pulse rate was 130 BPM. In my second option, I will switch to Ritalin 20mg PO taken in the morning. The patient heat was strange because Ritalin chewable tablets 10 mg PO is an immediate-release form that can even induce tachycardia (Antshel & Russo, 2019).
Why the Other Two Decisions were Not Selected
Proceeding with a similar dosage of Ritalin on the patient after the four-week assessment is not the correct option because it does not eliminate the afternoon lapse in her attention. Again, Ritalin does not resolve the tachycardia effect on the patient (Antshel & Russo, 2019). In her case, it would be better to switch to Ritalin LA 20mg PO taken in the morning if chewable tablets 10mg had been proven inactive after four weeks.
What I Was Hoping to Achieve by Making This Decision
I hoped changing to Ritalin LA 20mg PO in the morning would solve the drug’s side effects. The patient would record an increased concentration span throughout the day. I also hoped that the LA formulation would have no side effects and solve the tachycardia effect (Ghanaatgar et al., 2022).
How Ethical Considerations May Impact the Treatment Plan
In this case, one of the ethical concerns is nonmaleficence (do not harm) and beneficence because the patient already shows a positive response to the given drug. Again, shifting Katie to an extended-release form is another better choice for offering a long-term medicinal benefit to the patient (Ghanaatgar et al., 2022). Switching to Ritalin LA 20mg PO taken in the morning of Ritalin also aims to solve the patient’s tachycardia problem (reducing harm).
Decision #3
The decision at this point is to continue giving the patient Ritalin LA 20mg dosage in the morning.
Reasons for Selecting this Decision
The patient is back to the clinic after four weeks with the reports on her enhanced academic performance and improved symptoms. The patient also noted that the funny heart rate has also vanished. Her tests showed a heart rate of 92 beats per minute, improving. At this stage, I agreed to maintain Ritalin LA 20mg PO taken in the morning on the patient and re-evaluate her condition after another four weeks to determine her progress. The patient’s condition has changed daily, and the adverse effects have vanished (Caye et al., 2019). This shows that the choice of changing the medication on the patient was warranted.
Why the Other Two Decisions were Not Selected
Increasing the dosage of Ritalin LA to 30mg is not warranted at this stage because the effects of ADHD seem to disappear with the Ritalin LA 20mg dosage in the morning. Besides, it is recommended to use a lower
Cheap essays, research papers, dissertations.