Assigment .Apa seven . All instructions attached.
7 months ago
25
discussionweek1.docx
CaseStudyonEthicalPrinciples.docx
discussionweek1.docx
The topic I selected for my practice change scholarly project is implementing a standardized regenerative protocol using Ariessence Pure Platelet-Derived Growth Factor (PDGF) to support tissue repair and improve thin, fragile under-eye skin in adult patients receiving aesthetic skin treatments. The under-eye area is one of the most delicate regions of the face due to thinner dermal tissue, reduced collagen support, and higher sensitivity. As a result, patients commonly experience concerns such as crepey texture, fine lines, dryness, and prolonged irritation after minimally invasive procedures. Although many under-eye interventions focus on cosmetic improvement, this project emphasizes a therapeutic goal by strengthening skin integrity and promoting tissue recovery through regenerative support.
The population for this practice change will include adult patients (ages 30 and older) who present with thin, fragile under-eye skin and are receiving skin rejuvenation services such as microneedling or other controlled skin-stimulation treatments. The proposed intervention is the use of Ariessence Pure PDGF as a consistent post-treatment application, combined with standardized patient education and follow-up. PDGF is recognized for its role in tissue repair through cellular signaling, stimulation of fibroblast activity, and support of extracellular matrix remodeling. Evidence supports that recombinant pure PDGF can improve aesthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction when used after procedures such as radiofrequency microneedling, demonstrating measurable benefits in skin quality and recovery (Lynch et al., 2025). In addition, a review of pure recombinant PDGF highlights its growing relevance in regenerative medicine, reinforcing its therapeutic potential for tissue repair and rejuvenation (Younan et al., 2025).
At present, the clinical problem is that under-eye rejuvenation care often lacks a standardized regenerative protocol, and post-procedure recommendations may vary among providers. Patients may report slow recovery, persistent irritation, or limited improvement in skin quality. The desired outcomes of this project include improved under-eye skin texture and resilience, higher patient satisfaction, and fewer post-treatment complaints related to prolonged irritation. These outcomes will be measured using patient satisfaction scores, standardized photo comparisons, and simple symptom tracking such as dryness, sensitivity, or swelling. While regenerative therapies can include multiple approaches, current research comparing autologous and allogeneic regenerative cell-based therapies highlights the importance of immunologic considerations and therapeutic efficacy when selecting biologic interventions, supporting the broader need for evidence-based regenerative protocols in clinical practice (Fodor Duric et al., 2024).
The planned time frame for this intervention is 8 weeks, which will allow implementation of the protocol, monitoring of patient response, and evaluation of early improvements in tissue repair and patient-reported outcomes.
Fodor Duric, L., Basic Jukic, N., & Vujicic, B. (2024). Comparison of Autologous and Allogeneic Adipose-Derived Stem Cells in Kidney Transplantation: Immunological Considerations and Therapeutic Efficacy. Journal of clinical medicine, 13(19), 5763.
Lynch, S. E., Huxel, S. T., Bond, R., Biron, J., & Gold, M. (2025). Recombinant Pure PDGF Improves Aesthetic Results and Patient Satisfaction Following RF Microneedling: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial. Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 24(9), e70425. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.70425
Younan, S. A., Ueland, T. E., Savitz, B. L., Jerome, R. N., Budine, T. D., Hawkins, A. T., Thayer, W. P., Wu, D. T., Lynch, S. E., & Clark, C. R. (2025). "Pure Recombinant Platelet-Derived Growth Factor in Tissue Repair and Rejuvenation: A Review Exploring Frontiers in Regenerative Medicine". Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 10.1097/PRS.0000000000012426. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000012426
CaseStudyonEthicalPrinciples.docx
Case Study on Ethical Principles
Instructions:
Using the following link:
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1979). The Belmont report. Office for Human Research Protections. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.htmlLinks to an external site.
Read the Belmont’s Report: Using the topic selected for your practice change project, create a case study that describes how the ethical principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice will be protected during your project.
Contribute a minimum of 5-6 pages. It should include at least 3 academic sources, formatted and cited in APA.
Be sure to review the academic expectations for your submission.
Official Rubric for Case Study Rubric
|
- Official Rubric for Case Study Rubric |
||
|
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Thinking and Logical Reasoning Development of Ideas |
40 to >36.0 ptsExcellentThe case study provided all basic and complex details are considered, and the situation, problem, or diagnosis is identified. Next, the thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents excellent evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information. 36 to >32.0 ptsGoodThe case study provided the most basic and complex details are considered, and the situation, problem, or diagnosis is identified. Next, the thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents good evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information. 32 to >28.0 ptsFairThe case study provided some basic and complex details, identifying the situation, problem, or diagnosis. Next, the thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents limited evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information. 28 to >24.0 ptsPoorThe case study provided only minimal details and lacked a clear identification of the situation, problem, or diagnosis. The thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is not linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents weak or no evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information. 24 to >0 ptsUnacceptableThe assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. |
40 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent Mastery |
25 to >23.0 ptsExcellentThe response shows exemplary mastery of the theoretical concepts applicable to the situation, recognizing all basic and complex factors. Furthermore, based on the case study presented, the response exceeds the requested information. 23 to >20.0 ptsGoodThe response shows good mastery of the theoretical concepts applicable to the situation, recognizing the most basic and complex factors. Based on the situation presented, the response complies with the information requested. 20 to >18.0 ptsFairThe response shows fair mastery of the theoretical concepts applicable to the situation, recognizing the basic factors. However, based on the situation presented, the response minimally complies with the information requested. 18 to >15.0 ptsPoorThe response does not show mastery of the professional theoretical concepts applicable to the situation. Analysis misses many factors and details. The response does not comply with the information requested. 15 to >0 ptsUnacceptableThe assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. |
25 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInformation Literacy Quality of Resources |
15 to >14.0 ptsExcellentSupporting information is pertinent to the topic, up to date (depending on what is acceptable in the field), from credible and trusted sources, and the number of sources meets the requested amount. 14 to >12.0 ptsGoodSupporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 1 source is not a credible and trusted source; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount. 12 to >11.0 ptsFairSupporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 2 or more sources are not credible and trusted sources; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount. 11 to >9.0 ptsPoorThe following criteria would apply, supporting information is not pertinent to the topic, none of the sources are from credible or trusted sources, or the number of sources requested was not met. 9 to >0 ptsUnacceptableResources did not reflect the requested outcomes, were off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. |
15 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting Mechanics, Grammar, and APA |
10 to >9.0 ptsExcellentExcellence in grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. Sentences are not too long and are complete sentences. 9 to >8.0 ptsGoodMinimal (1 - 3) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors. 8 to >7.0 ptsFairMultiple (4 -7) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors. 7 to >6.0 ptsPoorSevere (8 - 10) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors. 6 to >0 ptsUnacceptableUnacceptable (11 or more) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors. |
10 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFormat Organization and Presentation of Information |
10 to >9.0 ptsExcellentThe document has a high level of professional appearance. Material is formatted exceptionally well, presented in a highly organized fashion, and aligned with assignment requirements. Includes sections and subtitles as required. 9 to >8.0 ptsGoodThe document has a good, professional appearance. Overall, the material is formatted and presented in an organized fashion, aligned with assignment requirements. Includes sections and subtitles as required. 8 to >7.0 ptsFairThe presentation of information does not appear professional or approaching proficiency. For example, the assignment missed required sections, subtitles, or other elements. 7 to >6.0 ptsPoorThe presentation of information lacks a clear demonstration of a professional appearance. The assignment is missing several required sections, subtitles, or other elements. 6 to >0 ptsUnacceptableThe assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. |
10 pts |
Total Points: 100
- Tutor Faith
- 1 - These rules deal with advertising and commissions, respectively. Do you think rules regarding advertising are too strict? Why do you think few CPAs advertise in the media, compared to attorneys, for example? Are rules regarding commissions too rest
- Leader Profile
- communications skills for leaders
- Individual: Dreamweaver Lessons
- Creating a Process-Driven Organization at AgCredit
- Biology Exam
- SCI/201 What are your thougths on how the Flexner report changed our healthcare delivery and access? How can the average person impact...
- HR Department
- please help!!