ASSESSMENT: ASSESSING AND DIAGNOSING PATIENTS WITH SUBSTANCE-RELATED AND ADDICTIVE DISORDERS

Excellent

The response throughly and accurately describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, past psychiatric history, medication trials and current medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, pertinent histories, allergies, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis.

Good

The response accurately describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, past psychiatric history, medication trials and current medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, pertinent histories, allergies, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis.

Fair

The response describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, past psychiatric history, medication trials and current medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, pertinent histories, allergies, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis, but is somewhat vague or contains minor innacuracies.

Poor

The response provides an incomplete or inaccurate description of the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, past psychiatric history, medication trials and current medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, pertinent histories, allergies, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Or, subjective documentation is missing.

Excellent

The response thoroughly and accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are thoroughly and accurately documented.

Good

The response accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are accurately documented.

Fair

Documentation of the patient’s physical exam is somewhat vague or contains minor innacuracies. Diagnostic tests and their results are documented but contain minor innacuracies.

Poor

The response provides incomplete or inaccurate documentation of the patient’s physical exam. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed, or, objective documentation is missing.

Excellent

The response thoroughly and accurately documents the results of the mental status exam…. Response lists at least three distinctly different and detailed possible disorders in order of priority for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, and it provides a thorough, accurate, and detailed justification for each of the disorders selected.

Good

The response accurately documents the results of the mental status exam…. Response lists at least three distinctly different and detailed possible disorders in order of priority for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, and it provides an accurate justification for each of the disorders selected.

Fair

The response documents the results of the mental status exam with some vagueness or innacuracy…. Response lists at least three different possible disorders for a differential diagnosis of the patient and provides a justification for each, but may contain some vaguess or innacuracy.

Poor

The response provides an incomplete or inaccurate description of the results of the mental status exam and explanation of the differential diagnoses. Or, assessment documentation is missing.

Excellent

Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking.

Good

Reflections demonstrate critical thinking.

Fair

Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking.

Poor

Reflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing.

Excellent

The response provides at least three current, evidence-based resources from the literature to support the assessment and diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study. The resources reflect the latest clinical guidelines and provide strong justification for decision making.

Good

The response provides at least three current, evidence-based resources from the literature that appropriately support the assessment and diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study.

Fair

Three evidence-based resources are provided to support assessment and diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, but they may only provide vague or weak justification.

Poor

Two or fewer resources are provided to support assessment and diagnosis decisions. The resources may not be current or evidence based.

Excellent

A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria. …Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

Good

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet they are brief and not descriptive. …Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Fair

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. … Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%-79% of the time.

Poor

No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided. … Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time.

Excellent

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors

Good

Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

Fair

Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

Poor

Contains many (≥ five) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding