mental health screening 3
mental health screening 3
Mental health screenings for Women
- Review this week’s media presentation, as well as Chapters 6 and 8 of the Tharpe et al. text and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services article in the Learning Resources.
- Use guidelines on screening for the following topics and reflect on strengths and limitations of the screening guidelines.
- Consider how the guidelines might support your clinical decision making.
- Research guidelines on screening procedures for the topic assigned to you by the course Instructor (e.g., guidelines on screening for domestic violence, safety, nutrition, osteoporosis, heart disease, mental health, eating disorders, thyroid disease, pap smear, mammogram, cancer, and sexually transmitted infections). Note: The course Instructor will assign a topic to you by Day 1 of this week.
- Reflect on strengths and limitations of the screening guidelines.
- Consider how the guidelines might support your clinical decision making.
Post an explanation of the guidelines on screening procedures for the topic assigned to you. Include an explanation of strengths and limitations of the guidelines. Then, explain how the guidelines might support your clinical decision making.
http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/N…https://class.content.laureate.net/cbeb13986072869…
3-4 pages. APA. at least 3 references.
https://www.hhs.gov/programs/prevention-and-wellne…
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6551_Week2_Discussion_Rubric
| 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. |
Points:
Points Range: 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 Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 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 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 post has exceptional depth and breadth supported by at least 3 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 cited with fewer than 2 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 1 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 Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 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 Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Written concisely May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 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 Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 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 Feedback: |
| Main Posting: Timely and full participation |
Points: Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely and full participation posts main discussion by due date Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirement for full participation 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: 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 6.5 (6.5%) – 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%) – 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 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: 4.5 (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 Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 4 (4%) Responses posted in the discussion lack effective Response 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 and full participation posts by due date Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirement for full participation 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: 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 6.5 (6.5%) – 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%) – 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 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: 4.5 (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 Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 4 (4%) Responses posted in the discussion lack effective Response 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 and full participation Posts by due date Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA Feedback: |
Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirement for full participation 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.—
Feedback:
Main Posting:
Writing—
Feedback:
Main Posting:
Timely and full participation—
Feedback:
First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.—
Feedback:
First Response:
Writing—
Feedback:
First Response:
Timely and full participation—
Feedback:
Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.—
Feedback: