Discussion: Hormone Replacement Therapy
38759Discussion: Hormone Replacement Therapy
In recent years, hormone replacement therapy has become a controversial issue. When prescribing therapies, advanced practice nurses must weigh the strengths and limitations of the prescribed supplemental hormones. If advanced practice nurses determine that the limitations outweigh the strengths, then they might suggest alternative treatment options such as herbs or other natural remedies, changes in diet, and increase in exercise.
Consider the following scenario:
As an advanced practice nurse at a community health clinic, you often treat female (and sometimes male patients) with hormone deficiencies. One of your patients requests that you prescribe supplemental hormones. This poses the questions: How will you determine what kind of treatment to suggest? What patient factors should you consider? Are supplemental hormones the best option for the patient, or would they benefit from alternative treatments?
To prepare:
Review Chapter 56 of the Arcangelo and Peterson text, as well as the Holloway and Makinen and Huhtaniemi articles in the Learning Resources.
Review the provided scenario and reflect on whether or not you would support hormone replacement therapy.
Locate and review additional articles about research on hormone replacement therapy for women and/or men. Consider the strengths and limitations of hormone replacement therapy.
Based on your research of the strengths and limitations, again reflect on whether or not you would support hormone replacement therapy.
Consider whether you would prescribe supplemental hormones or recommend alternative treatments to patients with hormone deficiencies.
With these thoughts in mind:
By Day 3
Post a description of the strengths and limitations of hormone replacement therapy. Based on these strengths and limitations, explain why you would or why you would not support hormone replacement therapy. Explain whether you would prescribe supplemental hormones or recommend alternative treatments to patients with hormone deficiencies and why.
By Day 6
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days who provided a different rationale than you did, in one or more of the following ways:
Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.
Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.
Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!
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.–
Outstanding Performance 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
Excellent Performance 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
Competent Performance 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
Proficient Performance 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
Room for Improvement 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
Main Posting:
Writing–
Outstanding Performance 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely
Contains no grammatical or spelling errors
Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
Excellent Performance 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
Competent Performance 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely
May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
Proficient Performance 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
Room for Improvement 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
Main Posting:
Timely and full participation–
Outstanding Performance 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely and full participation
posts main discussion by due date
Excellent Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Competent Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Proficient Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Room for Improvement 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participation
First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.–
Outstanding Performance 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
Excellent Performance 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings
Competent Performance 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting
Proficient Performance 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth
Room for Improvement 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth
First Response:
Writing–
Outstanding Performance 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
Excellent Performance 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
Competent Performance 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
Proficient Performance 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
Room for Improvement 0 (0%) – 4 (4%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective
Response to faculty questions are missing
No credible sources are cited
First Response:
Timely and full participation–
Outstanding Performance 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely and full participation
posts by due date
Excellent Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Competent Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Proficient Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Room for Improvement 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participation
Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.–
Outstanding Performance 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
Excellent Performance 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings
Competent Performance 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting
Proficient Performance 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth
Room for Improvement 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth
Second Response:
Writing–
Outstanding Performance 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
Excellent Performance 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
Competent Performance 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
Proficient Performance 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
Room for Improvement 0 (0%) – 4 (4%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective
Response to faculty questions are missing
No credible sources are cited
Second Response:
Timely and full participation–
Outstanding Performance 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely and full participation
Posts by due date
Excellent Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Competent Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Proficient Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Room for Improvement 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participation
Total Points: 100
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
