Assignment Prompt & Instructions
Follow rubric
– ## MoodStabilizer.docx
**## MoodStabilizer.docx**
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.
Resources
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/172199/modules/items/7087863)
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
· 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
· Discuss the ethical, legal, and social implications related to prescribing bipolar and other related mood-disorder diagnoses therapy for patients.
**Reminder:** The College of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references. For this Assignment, you are only required to include a title page. The
[Walden Writing Center Sample PaperLinks to an external site.](https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templates/general) provides an example of those required elements.
**NURS_6630_Week8_Assignment_Rubric**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_6630_Week8_Assignment_Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFor 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 ptsExcellent** The response comprehensively and clearly describes all of the elements for each of the four (4) mood stabilizers.<br> <br>**36 to >24.0 ptsGood** The response clearly describes at least 75% the Assignment elements for three to four (3–4) mood stabilizers.<br> <br>**24 to >11.0 ptsFair** The response describes at least 50% the Assignment elements for each mood stabilizer or only two (2) mood stabilizers discussed.<br> <br>**11 to >0 ptsPoor** 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 OutcomeReviews 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 professionals. | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** Reviews all seven to eight (7-8) of the potential drug-drug interactions with clear and accurate Discussion of alternative dosing, patient education, monitoring recommendation, and when to collaborate.<br> <br>**18 to >15.0 ptsGood** 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.<br> <br>**15 to >10.0 ptsFair** 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.<br> <br>**10 to >0 ptsPoor** Reviews up to eight (8) of the potential drug-drug interactions with vague and major inaccuracies noted in the Discussion, including alternative dosing, patient education, monitoring recommendation, and when to collaborate. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscusses ethical, legal, and social implications related to prescribing these medications to patients. | **10 to >7.0 ptsExcellent** The response accurately and clearly discusses ethical, legal and social implications. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the Discussion.<br> <br>**7 to >4.0 ptsGood** The response accurately discusses ethical, legal and social implications. The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the Discussion.<br> <br>**4 to >1.0 ptsFair** The response inaccurately or vaguely discusses ethical, legal and social implications. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the Discussion.<br> <br>**1 to >0 ptsPoor** 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 OutcomeThe paper is succinct and is 5–6 pages. Five (5) evidence-based, peer- reviewed scholarly references outside of course resources. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** The paper is succinct and is 5–6 pages. Five (5) evidence-based, peer- reviewed scholarly references outside of course resources<br> <br>**4 to >3.0 ptsGood** The paper is succinct and is 7–8 pages. Four (4) evidence-based, peer- reviewed scholarly references outside of course resources<br> <br>**3 to >1.0 ptsFair** 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<br> <br>**1 to >0 ptsPoor** 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 OutcomeWritten 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 ptsExcellent** 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.<br> <br>**4 to >3.0 ptsGood** 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.<br> <br>**3 to >1.0 ptsFair** 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.<br> <br>**1 to >0 ptsPoor** 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 OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.0 ptsGood** Contains one or two grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**3 to >1.0 ptsFair** Contains three or four grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**1 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains five or more grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten 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 ptsExcellent** Uses correct APA format with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.0 ptsGood** Contains one or two APA format errors.<br> <br>**3 to >1.0 ptsFair** Contains three or four APA format errors.<br> <br>**1 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains five or more APA format errors. | 5 pts |
Total Points: 100
**## MoodStabilizer.docx**
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.
Resources
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/172199/modules/items/7087863)
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
· 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
· Discuss the ethical, legal, and social implications related to prescribing bipolar and other related mood-disorder diagnoses therapy for patients.
**Reminder:** The College of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references. For this Assignment, you are only required to include a title page. The
[Walden Writing Center Sample PaperLinks to an external site.](https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templates/general) provides an example of those required elements.
**NURS_6630_Week8_Assignment_Rubric**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_6630_Week8_Assignment_Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFor 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 ptsExcellent** The response comprehensively and clearly describes all of the elements for each of the four (4) mood stabilizers.<br> <br>**36 to >24.0 ptsGood** The response clearly describes at least 75% the Assignment elements for three to four (3–4) mood stabilizers.<br> <br>**24 to >11.0 ptsFair** The response describes at least 50% the Assignment elements for each mood stabilizer or only two (2) mood stabilizers discussed.<br> <br>**11 to >0 ptsPoor** 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 OutcomeReviews 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 professionals. | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** Reviews all seven to eight (7-8) of the potential drug-drug interactions with clear and accurate Discussion of alternative dosing, patient education, monitoring recommendation, and when to collaborate.<br> <br>**18 to >15.0 ptsGood** 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.<br> <br>**15 to >10.0 ptsFair** 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.<br> <br>**10 to >0 ptsPoor** Reviews up to eight (8) of the potential drug-drug interactions with vague and major inaccuracies noted in the Discussion, including alternative dosing, patient education, monitoring recommendation, and when to collaborate. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscusses ethical, legal, and social implications related to prescribing these medications to patients. | **10 to >7.0 ptsExcellent** The response accurately and clearly discusses ethical, legal and social implications. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the Discussion.<br> <br>**7 to >4.0 ptsGood** The response accurately discusses ethical, legal and social implications. The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the Discussion.<br> <br>**4 to >1.0 ptsFair** The response inaccurately or vaguely discusses ethical, legal and social implications. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the Discussion.<br> <br>**1 to >0 ptsPoor** 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 OutcomeThe paper is succinct and is 5–6 pages. Five (5) evidence-based, peer- reviewed scholarly references outside of course resources. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** The paper is succinct and is 5–6 pages. Five (5) evidence-based, peer- reviewed scholarly references outside of course resources<br> <br>**4 to >3.0 ptsGood** The paper is succinct and is 7–8 pages. Four (4) evidence-based, peer- reviewed scholarly references outside of course resources<br> <br>**3 to >1.0 ptsFair** 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<br> <br>**1 to >0 ptsPoor** 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 OutcomeWritten 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 ptsExcellent** 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.<br> <br>**4 to >3.0 ptsGood** 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.<br> <br>**3 to >1.0 ptsFair** 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.<br> <br>**1 to >0 ptsPoor** 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 OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.0 ptsGood** Contains one or two grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**3 to >1.0 ptsFair** Contains three or four grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**1 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains five or more grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten 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 ptsExcellent** Uses correct APA format with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.0 ptsGood** Contains one or two APA format errors.<br> <br>**3 to >1.0 ptsFair** Contains three or four APA format errors.<br> <br>**1 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains five or more APA format errors. | 5 pts |
Total Points: 100