how much detail is necessary in regards to pathophysiology?
1-Australian Medical Association. (2016). Australian medicines handbook. Adelaide, SA: Author.
2-Broyles, B., Reiss, B., Evans, M., McKenzie, G., Pleunik, S., & Page, R. (2013). Pharmacology in nursing (A&NZ
ed.). South Melbourne: Cengage.
3- journal academic reference ( peer reviewed)
)(These some disscussion some of the student with the lecturer
so it is as question and the lecturer answer
Q1-I’m just wondering with question one, when identifying a risk, does it just need to be the risk, or can I write ‘drug induced……’ and then the risk? for example ‘drug induced liver failure
Q2- In terms of explaining how exactly a medication is causing Mr Buchanan to be at risk of something, how much detail is necessary in regards to pathophysiology?
For example, if the renin-angiotensin mechanism is mentioned, should we breifly explain how it works so that we can then expand on how the medication is affecting that specifically? Or can we assume our reader will know the basics of the renin-angiotensin system to understand the connection between that and a certain medication and the risk?
Q3-Just wondering if we are required or suggested to go into the pharmacology of any potential medication interactions? or do we just discuss the risk (what is is etc) and provide a brief explannation of each to equate to 600 words?