Mental health screenings for Women (examples of screening tools and how they are used)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…2-3 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. ContentName: NURS_6551_Week2_Discussion_Rubric Grid ViewList View 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: Show Descriptions Show FeedbackMain 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: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 sourcesExcellent 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 referencesCompetent 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 referencesProficient 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 referencesRoom 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 referencesFeedback:Main Posting: Writing–Levels of Achievement: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 styleExcellent 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 styleCompetent Performance 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Written concisely May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and styleProficient 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 errorsRoom 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 styleFeedback:Main Posting: Timely and full participation–Levels of Achievement:Outstanding Performance 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely and full participation posts main discussion by due dateExcellent Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NACompetent Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NAProficient Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NARoom for Improvement 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirement for full participationFeedback:First Response:Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.–Levels of Achievement: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 objectivesExcellent Performance 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settingsCompetent Performance 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice settingProficient Performance 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic, may have some depthRoom for Improvement 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic, lacks depthFeedback:First Response: Writing–Levels of Achievement: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 EnglishExcellent 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 EnglishCompetent 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 EnglishProficient 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 citedRoom for Improvement 0 (0%) – 4 (4%) Responses posted in the discussion lack effective Response to faculty questions are missing No credible sources are citedFeedback:First Response: Timely and full participation–Levels of Achievement:Outstanding Performance 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely and full participation posts by due dateExcellent Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NACompetent Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NAProficient Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NARoom for Improvement 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirement for full participationFeedback:Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.–Levels of Achievement: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 objectivesExcellent Performance 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settingsCompetent Performance 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice settingProficient Performance 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic, may have some depthRoom for Improvement 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic, lacks depthFeedback:Second Response: Writing–Levels of Achievement: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 EnglishExcellent 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 EnglishCompetent 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 EnglishProficient 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 citedRoom for Improvement 0 (0%) – 4 (4%) Responses posted in the discussion lack effective Response to faculty questions are missing No credible sources are citedFeedback:Second Response: Timely and full participation–Levels of Achievement:Outstanding Performance 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely and full participation Posts by due dateExcellent Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NACompetent Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NAProficient Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NARoom for Improvement 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirement for full participationFeedback: Total Points: 100
Are you having trouble with the above assignment or one similar?
We offers 100% original papers that are written from scratch.We also have a team of editors who check each paper for plagiarism before it is sent to you.