| Course | NURS 6630 Neurobiology and Psychopharmacology for Psychiatric Mental Health Advanced Practice Nursing |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 11 |
| Paper type | Reflection on monitoring practice |
| Length | About 560 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NURS 6630 Week 11
From Follow Up in Two Weeks to What I Will Watch For: A Reflection on Monitoring, Written With Driscoll's What, So What, Now What
Student Name
College of Nursing, Walden University
NURS 6630: Neurobiology and Psychopharmacology for Psychiatric Mental Health Advanced Practice Nursing
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
From Follow Up in Two Weeks to What I Will Watch For: A Reflection on Monitoring, Written With Driscoll's What, So What, Now What
What
This reflection is organized by Driscoll's prompts of what, so what and now what, a model that moves from describing an experience to understanding it and then to action (Driscoll, 2007). What I looked at were two monitoring sections from my own work in this course. The first, from the draft of my mood disorder case in Week 4 before revision, read in full: "Follow up in two weeks to assess response and tolerability. Continue current plan if improving." The second, from my substance use case in Week 9, listed each predicted effect of the chosen medication and paired it with something to observe: precipitated withdrawal at the start, with a named time to check; sedation risk with alcohol or sedatives, with a question at every visit; mood, with the PHQ-9; and suicide risk, with an assessment at each visit and naloxone for the family.
So What
The difference between the two sections is that the first promised attention and the second said what the attention was for. Tolerability, in the first, could have meant anything; it gave no clinician a way to notice the specific adverse effect the mechanism predicted, and it gave the patient nothing to report. The second turned each receptor-level prediction into a question someone could ask or a measure someone could record. I can trace the change to two sources. My instructor's comment on the Week 4 draft asked, next to the word tolerability, "Which effect, and how would you know?" And the reading on measurement-based care argued that routinely measuring symptoms with standard tools, rather than relying on clinical impression, improves decisions about when to change treatment (Fortney et al., 2017). Together they showed me that a monitoring plan is where the mechanism analysis either becomes practice or stays on the page.
The revision also changed how I write the rest of a case. Once I knew each predicted effect would need an observation, I started writing mechanism sections with that question in mind, which made them shorter and more specific.
Now What
My working rule for future documentation is this: no predicted effect goes into a note without the observation that would detect it, the time it will be checked and what I will do if it appears. I tested the rule on my revised Week 4 case, and the monitoring section now pairs sexual function, activation, blood pressure and the PHQ-9 with a question or measure each.
There is one effect I still have no good way to monitor: emotional blunting on serotonergic antidepressants. Patients in a qualitative study described feeling emotionally flat, less able to cry or feel pleasure, and some found it hard to tell apart from their depression (Price et al., 2009). None of the standard depression scales I have used asks about it directly, and my usual question, how is your mood, can miss it entirely, because a patient who feels less sad may also feel less of everything. For now I will ask a specific question at each follow-up, whether the patient feels emotions such as happiness or sadness as strongly as before, and record the answer in the patient's own words. Finding a validated way to measure it is the next thing I want to learn.
References
Driscoll, J. (2007). Practising clinical supervision: A reflective approach for healthcare professionals (2nd ed.). Baillière Tindall Elsevier.
Fortney, J. C., Unützer, J., Wrenn, G., Pyne, J. M., Smith, G. R., Schoenbaum, M., & Harbin, H. T. (2017). A tipping point for measurement-based care. Psychiatric Services, 68(2), 179-188. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201500439
Price, J., Cole, V., & Goodwin, G. M. (2009). Emotional side-effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: Qualitative study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 195(3), 211-217. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.108.051110
Reading the NURS 6630 Week 11 instructions
The final assignment usually asks you to reflect on your learning in psychopharmacology using a named reflective model, drawing on examples from your coursework and relating them to evidence and future practice. Many prompts suggest Gibbs, Driscoll or a similar framework. Reflections usually run two to three pages in first person. Choose one focused area of change, compare earlier and later work directly, explain what caused the change, and state a specific rule or commitment for practice. Name something you still cannot do well, since honest limits are part of what the rubric rewards. Use the model's stages as headings if your prompt allows.
How this NURS 6630 Week 11 example is built
The what section quotes an early monitoring section and describes a later one in detail, citing Driscoll's model. The so what section explains the difference between promising attention and naming what it is for, traces the change to a specific instructor comment and to measurement-based care research, and notes how it changed the writer's mechanism sections. The now what section states a documentation rule and tests it on the revised case, then names emotional blunting as an unsolved monitoring problem, cites a qualitative study of patients' experiences and describes the interim question the writer will ask. The revised Week 4 case is used to test the new documentation rule, which shows the change in practice, not only in intention.
Where the marks sit in the NURS 6630 Week 11 rubric
Reflection rubrics usually score use of a reflective model, depth of analysis, use of specific examples, connection to evidence, plan for future practice and writing. Model use earns credit when each stage is visibly applied. Depth rewards explaining why change occurred, not just that it did. Examples are judged on specificity, and quoting earlier work is strong evidence. Evidence should support general claims. A future plan is rewarded when someone could check whether it happened, and naming a remaining limitation often lifts the grade. Writing covers first person with discipline and APA citations. Some rubrics also reward tracing a change to a specific source, such as feedback or a reading, rather than to general experience. Quoting your own earlier sentence is often the strongest evidence.
Common NURS 6630 Week 11 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Reflections often lose marks by summarizing the course week by week instead of examining one change in depth. Another is claiming growth without showing earlier and later work side by side. Some reflections name a model in the introduction and then ignore it. Others end with a vague promise to keep learning. Pick one area, quote your own earlier sentence, explain what changed it, state a rule you will follow and name what you still do not know how to do. Also connect the limit you name to a next step, so the reflection ends in action.
Get a NURS 6630 Week 11 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 11 prompt and rubric, naming whichever reflective framework is required, and the reflection is built around monitoring or whatever theme your prompt sets, anchored in the kinds of coursework a term produces. The first custom sample is free, back inside 24-48 hours, and nothing from your placement is retold in it.
More NURS 6630 papers and MSN samples
- NURS 6630 Week 1: Discussion post
- NURS 6630 Week 2: Neurotransmission brief
- NURS 6630 Week 3: Case analysis
- NURS 6630 Week 4: Mood disorder case
- NURS 6630 Week 5: Decision tree case
- NURS 6630 Week 6: Anxiety treatment plan
- NURS 6630 Week 7: Psychosis case analysis
- NURS 6630 Week 8: Discussion post
- NURS 6630 Week 9: Substance use case
- NURS 6630 Week 10: Patient education plan
- NURS 6521 Week 11: Multisystem prescribing synthesis
- NURS 6512 Week 11: Full-system adult history and physical
- NURS 6501 Week 11: Multisystem cascade synthesis
- NURS 6451 Week 11: Reflection
NURS 6630 Week 11 questions, answered
What is Driscoll's model?
Driscoll's model asks the reflector to describe the event, then weigh its significance, then commit to a change, usually shortened to what, so what and now what. John Driscoll adapted it for clinical reflection in nursing. In the example the three questions set the order of the reasoning, not just the headings. Your section may name Gibbs or another model instead, and the custom version adopts that one.
Why reflect on monitoring specifically?
Because the final week in many sections asks what the author will monitor differently, and because monitoring is where predictions from mechanism meet what a patient actually experiences. The example chooses one narrow theme so the reflection can show evidence rather than generalities. A broader prompt covering the whole term still benefits from a single thread running through it, and the sample can be framed that way.
Can the reflection mention patients from practicum?
Not in the example, and many rubrics warn against it. The reflection draws only on documents the author wrote for the course: cases, plans and the feedback attached to them. Encounters from placement stay with your preceptor and your clinical log. A prompt about monitoring can be answered in full from coursework, and the sample demonstrates exactly that using two of its own earlier cases.
Where can I find a free NURS 6630 Week 11 sample paper?
The complete reflection, all three stages and the references, can be read here free. A reflection built on your own coursework can be drafted on request.
Why reflect on monitoring in NURS 6630?
Because monitoring is where predictions from mechanism meet what patients actually experience, and it is the part of a plan most easily left vague.