mental health screenings for women examples of screening tools and how they are used

Mental health screenings for Women (examples of screening tools and how they are used)

Review this weekâ€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.
Content
Name: NURS_6551_Week2_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View
List 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 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:

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

Feedback:
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 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

Feedback:
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 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

Feedback:
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 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

Feedback:
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 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

Feedback:
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 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

Feedback:
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 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

Feedback:
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 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</lab

 
Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount! Use Discount Code “Newclient” for a 15% Discount!NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

The post mental health screenings for women examples of screening tools and how they are used appeared first on The Nursing TermPaper.

"Is this question part of your assignment? We will write the assignment for you. Click order now and get up to 40% Discount"