WEEK 3 ASSIGNMENT: ASSESSING AND DIAGNOSING PATIENTS WITH MOOD DISORDERS

WEEK 3 ASSIGNMENT: ASSESSING AND DIAGNOSING PATIENTS WITH MOOD DISORDERS

WEEK 3 ASSIGNMENT: ASSESSING AND DIAGNOSING PATIENTS WITH MOOD DISORDERS

Starting Week 3, your assignments will be conducting and documenting psychiatric evaluations using pre-selected video vignettes.

The purpose of psychiatric evaluation is to formulate a psychiatric diagnosis. To learn this process is the main objective of this class.

In preparation for this week’s assignment, familiarize yourself with the DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for mood disorders. Use the most recent DSM edition (e.g. DSM-5-TR). You will need to study the full DSM version to fully understand the diagnostic criteria and the differential diagnoses. I am expecting you to cite DSM-5-TR in the text of your paper and in your References.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE WEEK 3 ASSIGNMENT: ASSESSING AND DIAGNOSING PATIENTS WITH MOOD DISORDERS
HERE

Thanks for stopping by this assessment. We can assist you in completing it and other subsequent ones. Our expert writers will comprehensively review instructions, synthesize external evidence sources, and customize an A-grade paper for YOU!!!

Select a video vignette of your choosing from Week 3 Learning Resources.

By the end of Sunday, March 17th, submit Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation for your selected case. Submit in Canvas.

Note on the top of your paper, which video have you selected (Training title #).

Follow the structure of the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Template (found in Learning Resources) as a guide.

The video may not give you all the information you need for a complete an evaluation. You are expected to add the missing information. You can formulate the missing information as a discussion of what do you need to know to make an accurate diagnosis. In the evaluation sections, do not say information “not provided” or “N/A”. You will lose points for this. For example, the Objective section of the evaluation contains physical exam and diagnostic results. You will have very little information about this in the videos. However, this section is worth 20 points, and to earn these points you are expected to document a full physical examination and the diagnostic tests you would have needed for each case.

Learning to accurately diagnose psychiatric disorders is the main learning objective of this course. Be as precise as possible with your differential diagnoses. “Depression,” “anxiety,” or “psychosis” are not diagnoses. Use DSM-5-TR to formulate valid differential diagnoses. Be as specific as possible in your diagnostic formulations. Include ICD-10 diagnostic codes.

List three qualitatively different differential diagnoses. Two subtypes of one diagnosis (such as MDD with psychotic features and MDD without psychotic features) do not count as two differential diagnoses.

Prior submission, review the Grading Rubric under Week 3: Assignment to ascertain that your paper meets all the expectations.

Ensure that your paper has a Title Page and follows the most current APA format.

SELECT VIDEO: TRAINING TITLE 2

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://video.alexanderstreet.com/watch/training-title-2

TO PREPARE:

Review this week’s Learning Resources. Consider the insights they provide about assessing and diagnosing mood disorders.

Download the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Template, which you will use to complete this Assignment. Also review the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Exemplar to see an example of a completed evaluation document.

By Day 1 of this week, select a specific video case study to use for this Assignment from the Video Case Selections choices in the Learning Resources. View your assigned video case and review the additional data for the case in the “Case History Reports” document, keeping the requirements of the evaluation template in mind.

Consider what history would be necessary to collect from this patient.

Consider what interview questions you would need to ask this patient.

Identify at least three possible differential diagnoses for the patient.

BY DAY 7 OF WEEK 3

Complete and submit your Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation, including your differential diagnosis and critical-thinking process to formulate a primary diagnosis. Incorporate the following into your responses in the template:

Subjective: What details did the patient provide regarding their chief complaint and symptomology to derive your differential diagnosis? What is the duration and severity of their symptoms? How are their symptoms impacting their functioning in life?

Objective: What observations did you make during the psychiatric assessment??

Assessment: Discuss the patient’s mental status examination results. What were your differential diagnoses? Provide a minimum of three possible diagnoses with supporting evidence, listed in order from highest priority to lowest priority. Compare the DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for each differential diagnosis and explain what DSM-5 criteria rules out the differential diagnosis to find an accurate diagnosis. Explain the critical-thinking process that led you to the primary diagnosis you selected. Include pertinent positives and pertinent negatives for the specific patient case.

Reflection notes: What would you do differently with this client if you could conduct the session over??Also include in your reflection a discussion related to legal/ethical considerations (demonstrate critical thinking beyond confidentiality and consent for treatment!), health promotion and disease prevention taking into consideration patient factors (such as age, ethnic group, etc.), PMH, and other risk factors (e.g., socioeconomic, cultural background, etc.).

SUBMISSION INFORMATION

Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.

To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK3Assgn_LastName_Firstinitial

Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.

Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.

NRNP_6635_Week3_Assignment_Rubric

NRNP_6635_Week3_Assignment_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCreate documentation in the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Template about the patient you selected. In the Subjective section, provide: • Chief complaint• History of present illness (HPI)• Past psychiatric history• Medication trials and current medications• Psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis• Pertinent substance use, family psychiatric/substance use, social, and medical history• Allergies• ROS
20 to >17.0 pts

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.

17 to >15.0 pts

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.

15 to >13.0 pts

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.

13 to >0 pts

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.
20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn the Objective section, provide:• Physical exam documentation of systems pertinent to the chief complaint, HPI, and history• Diagnostic results, including any labs, imaging, or other assessments needed to develop the differential diagnoses.
20 to >17.0 pts

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.

17 to >15.0 pts

Good

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

15 to >13.0 pts

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.

13 to >0 pts

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.
20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn the Assessment section, provide:• Results of the mental status examination, presented in paragraph form.• At least three differentials with supporting evidence. List them from top priority to least priority. Compare the DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for each differential diagnosis and explain what DSM-5-TR criteria rules out the differential diagnosis to find an accurate diagnosis. Explain the critical-thinking process that led you to the primary diagnosis you selected. Include pertinent positives and pertinent negatives for the specific patient case.

25 to >22.0 pts

Excellent

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE WEEK 3 ASSIGNMENT: ASSESSING AND DIAGNOSING PATIENTS WITH MOOD DISORDERS
HERE

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.

22 to >19.0 pts

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.

19 to >17.0 pts

Fair

The response documents the results of the mental status exam with some vagueness or inaccuracy. … 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 vagueness or inaccuracy.

17 to >0 pts

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.
25 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReflect on this case. Discuss what you learned and what you might do differently. Also include in your reflection a discussion related to legal/ethical considerations (demonstrate critical thinking beyond confidentiality and consent for treatment!), social determinates of health, health promotion and disease prevention taking into consideration patient factors (such as age, ethnic group, etc.), PMH, and other risk factors (e.g., socioeconomic, cultural background, etc.).

10 to >8.0 pts

Excellent

Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking.

8 to >7.0 pts

Good

Reflections demonstrate critical thinking.

7 to >6.0 pts

Fair

Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking.

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Reflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing.
10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProvide at least three evidence-based, peer-reviewed journal articles or evidenced-based guidelines that relate to this case to support your diagnostics and differential diagnoses. Be sure they are current (no more than 5 years old).
15 to >13.0 pts

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.

13 to >11.0 pts

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.

11 to >10.0 pts

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.

10 to >0 pts

Poor

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

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—Paragraph development and organization:Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria.
5 to >4.0 pts

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.

4 to >3.5 pts

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.

3.5 to >3.0 pts

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.

3 to >0 pts

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.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and punctuation
5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors

4 to >3.0 pts

Good

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

3 to >2.0 pts

Fair

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

2 to >0 pts

Poor

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

Total Points: 100

PreviousNext