PROFESSIONAL ACADEMIC STUDY RESOURCES WEBSITE 
+1 813 434 1028 
proexpertwritings@hotmail.com
Pharmacotherapy for Cardiovascular Disorders
Assignment: Pharmacotherapy for Cardiovascular Disorders
heart disease remains the No. 1 killer in America; nearly half of all Americans have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or smoke—some of the leading risk factors for heart disease…
—Murphy et al., 2018
Despite the high mortality rates associated with cardiovascular disorders, improved treatment options do exist that can help address those risk factors that afflict the majority of the population today.
As an advanced practice nurse, it is your responsibility to recommend appropriate treatment options for patients with cardiovascular disorders. To ensure the safety and effectiveness of drug therapy, advanced practice nurses must consider aspects that might influence pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes such as medical history, other drugs currently prescribed, and individual patient factors.
Reference: Murphy, S. L., Xu, J., Kochanek, K. D., & Arias, E. (2018). Mortality in the United States, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db328.htm
To Prepare
Review the Resources for this module and consider the impact of potential pharmacotherapeutics for cardiovascular disorders introduced in the media piece.
Review the case study assigned by your Instructor for this Assignment.
Select one the following factors: genetics, gender, ethnicity, age, or behavior factors.
Reflect on how the factor you selected might influence the patient’s pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes.
Consider how changes in the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes might impact the patient’s recommended drug therapy.
Think about how you might improve the patient’s drug therapy plan based on the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes. Reflect on whether you would modify the current drug treatment or provide an alternative treatment option for the patient.
CASE STUDY BELOW FOR WEEK 2 ASSIGNMENT……….
This week, you will examine the impact of patient factors that may lead to changes in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes on patient drug therapy for cardiovascular disorders. You will also explore ways to improve drug therapy plans for cardiovascular disorders based on patient factors and overall health needs.
Students will:
Analyze the influence of patient factors on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes
Analyze the impact of changes in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes on patient drug therapies
Evaluate drug therapy plans for cardiovascular disorders
Patient CB has a history of strokes. The patient has been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Drugs currently prescribed include the following:
Glipizide 10 mg po daily
HCTZ 25 mg daily
Atenolol 25 mg po daily
Hydralazine 25 mg qid
Simvastatin 80 mg daily
Verapamil 180 mg CD daily
Assignment
Write a 2- to 3-page that addresses the following:
Explain how the factor you selected might influence the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes in the patient from the case study you were assigned.
Describe how changes in the processes might impact the patient’s recommended drug therapy. Be specific and provide examples.
Explain how you might improve the patient’s drug therapy plan and explain why you would make these recommended improvements.
Due Date: 11:59 p.m. EST, Sunday of Unit 1 Points: 100
Overview:
In litigation, lawyers need to rely on case law to support the outcome they are asking the court take. Lawyers will often “brief” a case to obtain a better understanding of the case. In other words, lawyers will use a specific format to outline the most important points in a court’s decision. This activity will also assist you in understanding the cases discussed in this class.
Instructions:
Listen to the oral arguments in the Olympic Airways v. Husain case. Read about the case.
Read about how to brief a case. • Using the template provided, complete a “brief” about the case, including the
following: o Who are the parties to the case? o What is the citation of the case? o What are the basic facts of the case? o What did Dr. Hanson’s estate argue? o What did Olympic Air argue? o What did the court decide? o Did the court apply statutory law, case law or both in reaching its decision?
Requirements:
Use APA format for non-legal sources such as the textbook. Use Bluebook citation format for any legal citations.
Include the resource to the case and oral arguments. o You do not need to use any sources other than your text and the audio
recording of the oral arguments. • Submit a Word document using the case brief template. • Maximum two pages in length, excluding the Reference page.
Be sure to read the criteria below by which your work will be evaluated before you write and again after you write.
LAW204 – Business Law I
Briefing a Case
Evaluation Rubric for Briefing a Case Assignment
CRITERIA Deficient Needs Improvement
Proficient Exemplary
0 – 44 Points 45 – 59 Points 60 – 74 Points
75 Points
Case Brief Does not concisely and clearly answer questions about the case. Case brief is not succinct.
Somewhat concisely and clearly answers some questions about the case. Case brief is not overly succinct.
Mostly concisely, succinctly, and clearly answers all questions about the case.
Concisely, succinctly, and clearly answers all questions about the case.
0 – 5 points 6 – 7 points 8 – 9 points 10 points Paper Length More than 2
pages n/a n/a 2 pages or less
0 – 8 points 9 – 11 points 12 – 14 points
15 points
Clear and Professional Writing and APA/Bluebook Format
Errors impede professional presentation; guidelines not followed.
Significant errors that do not impede professional presentation.
Few errors that do not impede professional presentation.
Writing and format are clear, professional, APA/Bluebook compliant, and error free.
Overview:
Instructions:
Requirements:
Evaluation Rubric for Briefing a Case Assignment
19
The Global Business Environment Husain Case Brief
Olympic Airways v. Husain Case Brief
Just as statutes may require judicial interpretation when a dispute arises, so may treaties. The techniques that court use in interpreting treaties correspond closely to the statutory interpretation techniques discussed in this chapter. Olympic Airways v. Husain, 540 U.S. 644 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 2004), furnishes a useful example.
In Olympic Airways, the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with an interpretation question regarding a treaty, the Warsaw Convention, which deals with airlines’ liability for passenger deaths or injuries on international flights. Numerous nations (including the United States) subscribe to the Warsaw Convention, a key provision of which provides that in regard to international flights, the airline “shall be liable for damages sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger, if the accident which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.” A separate provision imposes limits on the amount of money damages to which a liable airline may be subjected.
The Olympic Airways case centered around the death of Dr. Abid Hanson, a severe asthmatic, on an international flight operated by Olympic. Smoking was permitted on the flight. Hanson was given a seat in the nonsmoking section, but his seat was only three rows in front of the smoking section. Because Hanson was extremely sensitive to secondhand smoke, he and his wife, Rubina Husain, requested various times that he be allowed, for health reasons, to move to a seat farther away from the smoking section. Each time, the request was denied by an Olympic flight attendant. When smoke from the smoking section began to give Hanson difficulty, he used a new inhaler and walked toward the front of the plane to get some fresher air. Hanson went into respiratory distress, whereupon his wife and a doctor who was on board gave him shots of epinephrine from an emergency kit that Hanson carried. Although the doctor administered CPR and oxygen when Hanson collapsed, Hanson died. Husain, acting as personal representative of her late husband’s estate, sued Olympic in federal court on the theory that the Warsaw Convention made Olympic liable for Hanson’s death. The federal district court and the court of appeals ruled in favor of Husain.
In considering Olympic’s appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that the key issue was one of treaty interpretation: whether the flight attendant’s refusals to reseat Hanson constituted an “accident which caused” the death of Hanson. Noting that the Warsaw Convention itself did not define “accident” and that different dictionary definitions of “accident”
29
exist, the Court looked to a precedent case, Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1985), for guidance. In the Air France case, the Court held that the term “accident” in the Warsaw Convention means “an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger.” Applying that definition to the facts at hand, the Court concluded in Olympic Airways that the repeated refusals to reseat Hanson despite his health concerns amounted to unexpected and unusual behavior for a flight attendant. Although the refusals were not the sole reason why Hanson died (the smoke itself being a key factor), the refusals were nonetheless a significant link in the causation chain that led to Hanson’s death. Given the definition of “accident” in the Court’s earlier precedent, the phrasing, the Warsaw Convention, and the underlying public policies supporting it, the Court concluded that the refusals to reseat Hanson constituted an “accident” covered by the Warsaw Convention.