Discussion: certification and licensure plan

If you are looking for affordable, custom-written, high-quality, and non-plagiarized papers, your student life just became easier with us. We are the ideal place for all your writing needs.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTION BELOW, ZERO PLAGIARISM, FIVE REFERENCES NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, FOLLOW 7TH APA FORMAT 

Rubric Detail

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

Content

Name: NRNP_6675_Week1_Discussion_Rubric

  Excellent

90%–100%

Good

80%–89%

Fair

70%–79%

Poor

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.

Points:

Points Range:
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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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 the post has exceptional depth and breadth

Supported by at least three credible references

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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 supported by fewer than two credible references

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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

Feedback:

Main Posting:

Writing

Points:

Points Range:
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Written concisely

May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style with minor errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Written somewhat concisely

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Contains some APA formatting errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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

Feedback:

Main Posting:

Timely and full participation

Points:

Points Range:
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

Posts main Discussion by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Posts main Discussion by due date

Meets requirements for full participation

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Posts main Discussion by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation

Does not post main Discussion by due date

Feedback:

First Response:

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

Feedback:

First Response:

Writing

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Response 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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

First Response:

Timely and full participation

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

Posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation

Posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation

Does not post by due date

Feedback:

Second Response:

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

Feedback:

Second Response:

Writing

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

Second Response:

Timely and full participation

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

Posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation

Posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation

Does not post by due date

Feedback:

Show Descriptions

Show Feedback

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.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
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

Good

80%–89%
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 the post has exceptional depth and breadth

Supported by at least three credible references

Fair

70%–79%
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 supported by fewer than two credible references

Poor

0%–69%
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

Feedback:

Main Posting:

Writing–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

Good

80%–89%
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Written concisely

May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style with minor errors

Fair

70%–79%
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Written somewhat concisely

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Contains some APA formatting errors

Poor

0%–69%
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

Feedback:

Main Posting:

Timely and full participation–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

Posts main Discussion by due date

Good

80%–89%
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Posts main Discussion by due date

Meets requirements for full participation

Fair

70%–79%
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Posts main Discussion by due date

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation

Does not post main Discussion by due date

Feedback:

First Response:

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
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.

Good

80%–89%
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

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

Fair

70%–79%
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

Feedback:

First Response:

Writing

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
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.

Good

80%–89%
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.

Fair

70%–79%
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Response 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.

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

First Response:

Timely and full participation

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

Posts by due date

Good

80%–89%
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation

Posts by due date

Fair

70%–79%
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation

Does not post by due date

Feedback:

Second Response:

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
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.

Good

80%–89%
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

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

Fair

70%–79%
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

Feedback:

Second Response:

Writing

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
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.

Good

80%–89%
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.

Fair

70%–79%
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.

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

Second Response:

Timely and full participation

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

Posts by due date

Good

80%–89%
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation

Posts by due date

Fair

70%–79%
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation

Does not post by due date

Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NRNP_6675_Week1_Discussion_Rubric

Discussion: Certification and Licensure Plan

Now that you are in the final course in your program, it is time to turn in earnest to preparing for certification and licensure. You will need to take and pass the national PMHNP certification exam. Once certified, you will then be eligible to apply for licensure as an advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) in the state desired. It will be up to you to ensure you are knowledgeable about the practice agreements, scope of practice, and prescriptive authority in your state.

Although a movement called the APRN Consensus Model is attempting to standardize NP regulations nationally, it is still the case that requirements vary state to state. In some states, NPs may establish an independent practice without the supervision of an MD. Additionally, states are currently categorized as either allowing full practice, reduced practice, or restricted practice. Full practice states allow NPs to evaluate, order diagnostics, diagnose, and treat patients. They are licensed under the exclusive authority of the state board of nursing for the appropriate state. Many states may require prescriptive authority protocols in addition to collaborative agreement.

Another important area to consider and plan for is prescriptive authority. The appropriate board, which may be the medical board, state board of pharmacy, or nursing board, grants prescriptive authority under state law for the appropriate state licensure. The federal government grants the authority to write for a controlled substance, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) verifies this action through by the appropriate state board. Drug Enforcement Agency registration is granted at the federal level and has additional requirements/fees for the registration process.

In this Discussion, you will locate and review the practice agreements in the state in which you plan to practice, identify potential collaboration requirements in your state, and understand the certification and licensing process that you will need to follow.

To Prepare:

· Review practice agreements in your state.

· Identify whether your state requires physician collaboration or supervision for nurse practitioners, and if so, what those requirements are.

· Research the following:

· How do you get certified and licensed as an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) in your state?

· What is the application process for certification in your state?

· What is your state’s board of nursing website?

· How does your state define the scope of practice of a nurse practitioner?

· What is included in your state practice agreement?

· How do you get a DEA license?

· Does your state have a prescription monitoring program (PMP)?

· How does your state describe a nurse practitioner’s controlled-substance prescriptive authority, and what nurse practitioner drug schedules are nurse practitioners authorized to prescribe?

Are you stuck with another assignment? Use our paper writing service to score better grades and meet your deadlines. We are here to help!


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper
Writerbay.net