Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
Module 1: Foundations of Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
What’s Happening This Module?
This course is composed of three modules covered over the course of 11 weeks. Each module consists of an overarching topic, and each week within the module includes specific subtopics for learning. As you work through each module, you will have an opportunity to draw upon the knowledge you gain in various assignment components that are due throughout each of the modules.
ORDER NOW FOR FULL COURSE ASSIGNMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Module 1: Foundations of Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning, is a 2-week module that focuses on the theoretical basis for psychopathology and the foundations of assessing patients and applying diagnostic reasoning. In this module, you will learn more about historical and currently recognized biological, psychological, and sociocultural factors that inform the expression, course, and prevalence of psychopathology. You will also explore elements of the psychiatric interview, history, and examination as well as the appropriate uses of psychiatric rating scales.
| What do I have to do? | When do I have to do it? |
|---|---|
| Review your Learning Resources. | Days 1–7, Weeks 1 and 2 |
| Discussion: Factors That Influence the Development of Psychopathology | Post by Day 3 of Week 1 and respond to your colleagues by Day 6 of Week 1. |
| Discussion: The Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales | Post by Day 3 of Week 2 and respond to your colleagues by Day 6 of Week 2. |
Go to the Weekly Content
Week 1
Week 2
Week 1: History and Theories of Psychopathology
The history of the diagnosis of mental disorders is fraught with examples of how cultural norms and prejudices interfere with and warp a diagnosis. The result is that normal behavior and orientations have been pathologized as an illness or disease. An example of this would be the story of Alan Turing, the famous British computer scientist of the 20th century, who was instrumental in inventing modern computers and deciphering German code in World War II. He was convicted in 1952 in England of gross indecency for being gay. Turing was forced by the courts to undergo 12 months of hormone therapy and could no longer work for the British government. At the time, homosexuality was pathologized as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and was criminalized in most Western countries. It was not until 1973 that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) finally removed homosexuality from the DSM.
Historically, the process of rendering a diagnosis has been used to pathologize those who fell outside what was considered the cultural norm of human behavior. This process often marginalized diagnosed populations and prevented individuals from receiving appropriate care. It is of utmost importance to consider cultural issues that influence how you as a clinician interpret a client’s behavior and how cultural issues influence how a client may express behavior. This week, you explore the history of psychopathology and the evolution of theoretical perspectives in the field.
Learning Objective
Students will:
- Analyze historical and currently recognized biological, psychological, and sociocultural factors that inform the expression, course, and prevalence of psychopathology.
Learning Resources
Assignment
Practicum Manual Acknowledgment
The Practicum Manual describes the structure and timing of the classroom-based and practicum experiences and the policies students must follow to be successful in the nurse practitioner (NP) specialties.
Click here and follow the instructions to confirm you have downloaded and read the entire MSN Nurse Practitioner Practicum Manual and will abide by the requirements described in order to successfully complete this program.
Optional Discussion Forum: PMHNP Study Support Lounge
The PMHNP Study Support Lounge is offered throughout the course as a place of academic refuge, where you can ask questions, offer insights, and interact with your peers. Your Instructor may also weigh in to provide global feedback to the group based on trends, common problems, and common strengths in student posts.
As a peer, you are encouraged to provide constructive, helpful feedback to your peers. Advanced practice nurses always benefit from the feedback of others. Your Study Support Lounge posts may be procedural (“How do I attach a Kaltura video to a Discussion post?”), conceptual (“How does this relate to the other therapy approaches we have studied?”), or analytical (“What do these diagnostic results actually mean in the context of this specific patient case?”). Although not mandatory, this is an opportunity to interact and study together as you navigate the assignments, so you are highly encouraged to take part in this activity. Full participation in activities like these is a statistically significant predictor of success.
To Participate in this Optional Discussion:
PMHNP Study Support Lounge
Discussion: Factors That Influence the Development of Psychopathology
Photo Credit: Getty Images/Blend Images
In many realms of medicine, objective diagnoses can be made: A clavicula is broken. An infection is present. TSH levels meet the diagnostic criteria for hypothyroidism. Psychiatry, on the other hand, deals with psychological phenomena and behaviors. Can these, too, be “defined objectively and by scientific criteria (Gergen, 1985), or are they social constructions?” (Sadock et al., 2015).
Thanks to myriad advances during recent decades, we know that psychopathology is caused by many interacting factors. Theoretical and clinical contributions to the field have come from the neural sciences, genetics, psychology, and social-cultural sciences. How do these factors impact the expression, classification, diagnosis, and prevalence of psychopathology, and why might it be important for a nurse practitioner to take a multidimensional, integrative approach?
To Prepare:
- Review this week’s Learning Resources, considering the many interacting factors that contribute to the development of psychopathology.
- Consider how theoretical perspective on psychopathology impacts the work of the PMHNP.
By Day 3 of Week 1
Explain the biological (genetic and neuroscientific); psychological (behavioral and cognitive processes, emotional, developmental); and social, cultural, and interpersonal factors that influence the development of psychopathology.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses
By Day 6 of Week 1
Respond to at least two of your colleagues on 2 different days by explaining the implications of why, as an advanced practice nurse, it is important to adopt a multidimensional, integrative model of psychopathology.
Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link, and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Posting:
Response to the discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least 3 current credible sources. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least 3 credible references. |
31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s). One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references. |
0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only 1 or no credible references. |
| Main Posting:
Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Further adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
| Main Posting:
Timely and full participation |
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main discussion by due date. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Posts main discussion by due date. Meets requirements for full participation. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main discussion by due date.
|
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main discussion by due date. |
| First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. |
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
|
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth.
|
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
|
| First Response:
Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in Standard, Edited English. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in Standard, Edited English. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
| First Response:
Timely and full participation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
|
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
| Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. |
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
|
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth.
|
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
|
| Second Response:
Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in Standard, Edited English. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in Standard, Edited English. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
| Second Response:
Timely and full participation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
|
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
| Total Points: 100 |
|---|
Name: NRNP_6635_Week1_Discussion_Rubric
Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning Week 2: Assessment and Diagnosis of the Psychiatric Patient
A sensitively crafted intake assessment can be a powerful therapeutic tool. It can establish rapport between patient and therapist, further the therapeutic alliance, alleviate anxiety, provide reassurance, and facilitate the flow of information necessary for an accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment plan.
—Pamela Bjorklund, clinical psychologist
Whether you are treating patients for physical ailments or clients for mental health issues, the assessment process is an inextricable part of health care. To properly diagnose clients and develop treatment plans, you must have a strong foundation in assessment. This includes a working knowledge of assessments that are available to aid in diagnosis, how to use these assessments, and how to select the most appropriate assessment based on a client’s presentation.
This week, as you explore assessment and diagnosis of patients in mental health settings, you examine assessment tools, including their psychometric properties and appropriate uses. You also familiarize yourself with the DSM-5 classification system.
Reference: Bjorklund, P. (2013). Assessment and diagnosis. In K. Wheeler (Ed.), Psychotherapy for the advanced practice psychiatric nurse: A how-to guide for evidence-based practice (2nd ed.) (pp. 95–168). Springer Publishing Company.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
- Evaluate elements of the psychiatric interview, history, and examination
- Analyze psychometric properties of psychiatric rating scales
- Justify appropriate use of psychiatric rating scales in advanced practice nursing
Learning Resources
Getting Started With the DSM-5
If you were to give a box of 100 different photographs to 10 people and ask them to sort them into groups, it is very unlikely that all 10 people would sort them into the exact same groups. However, if you were to give them a series of questions or a classification system to use, the chances that all 10 people sort them exactly the same increases depending on the specificity of the system and the knowledge of those sorting the photographs.
Photo Credit: [Peter Polak]/[iStock / Getty Images Plus]/Getty Images
This is not unlike what has occurred in the process of classifying mental disorders. A system that provides enough specificity to appropriately classify a large variety of mental disorders while also attempting to include all of the possible symptoms, many of which can change over time, is a daunting task when used by a variety of specialists, doctors, and other professionals with varied experience, cultures, expertise, and beliefs. The DSM has undergone many transformations since it was first published in 1952. Many of these changes occurred because the uses for the DSM changed. However, the greatest changes began with the use of extensive empirical research to guide the creation of the classification system and its continued revisions.
In order to assess and diagnose patients, you must learn to use the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, usually abbreviated as the DSM-5, to render a diagnosis. In this second week of the course, you will examine how DSM-5 is organized and how clinicians use it to render diagnoses.
Review the Learning Resources this week, with special emphasis on viewing the Diagnostic Criteria video. This video explains the purpose and organization of the DSM-5 classification system, the purpose of the ICD-10 coding system, their relationship to one another, and the importance to the PMHNP role.
Discussion: The Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales
Assessment tools have two primary purposes: 1) to measure illness and diagnose clients, and 2) to measure a client’s response to treatment. Often, you will find that multiple assessment tools are designed to measure the same condition or response. Not all tools, however, are appropriate for use in all clinical situations. You must consider the strengths and weaknesses of each tool to select the appropriate assessment tool for your client. For this Discussion, as you examine the assessment tool assigned to you by the Course Instructor, consider its use in psychotherapy.
Photo Credit: [shironosov]/[iStock / Getty Images Plus]/Getty Images
To Prepare:
- Review this week’s Learning Resources and reflect on the insights they provide regarding psychiatric assessment and diagnosis.
- Consider the elements of the psychiatric interview, history, and examination.
- Consider the assessment tool assigned to you by the Course Instructor.
By Day 3 of Week 2
Post a brief explanation of three important components of the psychiatric interview and why you consider these elements important. Explain the psychometric properties of the rating scale you were assigned. Explain when it is appropriate to use this rating scale with clients during the psychiatric interview and how the scale is helpful to a nurse practitioner’s psychiatric assessment. Support your approach with evidence-based literature.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.
By Day 6 of Week 2
Respond to at least two of your colleagues on 2 different days by comparing your assessment tool to theirs.
Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link, and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 2 Discussion Rubric
Post by Day 3 of Week 2 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 2
To Participate in this Discussion:
Week 2 Discussion
Week 2 Discussion Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Posting:
Response to the discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least 3 current credible sources. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least 3 credible references. |
31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s). One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references. |
0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only 1 or no credible references. |
| Main Posting:
Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Further adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
| Main Posting:
Timely and full participation |
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main discussion by due date. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Posts main discussion by due date. Meets requirements for full participation. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main discussion by due date.
|
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main discussion by due date. |
| First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. |
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
|
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth.
|
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
|
| First Response:
Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in Standard, Edited English. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in Standard, Edited English. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
| First Response:
Timely and full participation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
|
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning |
| Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. |
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
|
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth.
|
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
|
| Second Response:
Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in Standard, Edited English. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in Standard, Edited English. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
| Second Response:
Timely and full participation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
|
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
| Total Points: 100 |
|---|
Name: NRNP_6635_Week2_Discussion_Rubric
ORDER NOW FOR ORIGINAL, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPERS
Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning Module 2: Diagnosis of Disorders 1
What’s Happening This Module?
Module 2: Diagnosis of Disorders 1 is a 4-week module focusing on applying diagnostic criteria and diagnostic reasoning skills to patients presenting with symptoms of various categories of disorders. Week 3 focuses on assessing and diagnosing mood disorders; Week 4 examines anxiety disorders, PTSD, and OCD; Week 5 centers around disruptive, conduct, impulse-control, dissociative, and somatic symptom-related disorders; and finally, Week 6 delves into eating, sleeping, and elimination disorders. The module culminates with a midterm exam.
| What do I have to do? | When do I have to do it? |
|---|---|
| Review your Learning Resources. | Days 1–7, Weeks 3, 4, 5, and 6 |
| Assignment: Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Mood Disorders | Submit by Day 7 of Week 3. |
| Assignment: Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Anxiety Disorders, PTSD, and OCD | Submit by Day 7 of Week 4. |
| Assignment: Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Disruptive, Impulse-Control, Conduct, Dissociative, and Somatic Symptom-Related Disorders | Submit by Day 7 of Week 5. |
| Midterm Exam | Complete by Day 7 of Week 6. |
Go to the Weekly Content
To go to the next week:
Week 3
To go to the next week:
Week 4
To go to the next week:
Week 5
To go to the next week:
Week 6
Week 3: Mood Disorders
While most people experience the sadness or grief at some point in their lives, it is typically of short duration and may occur in response to some type of loss. Clinically significant depression, on the other hand, is more disruptive and serious. It lasts longer and has more symptoms that interfere with daily functioning.
This week, you will explore the differences among mood disorders such as depressive, bipolar, and related disorders, and you will examine challenges in properly differentiating among them for the purpose of accurately rendering a diagnosis. You also will look at steps that can be taken to increase the likelihood that patients who are diagnosed with these disorders benefit from treatment and refrain from physically harming themselves or others. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
Learning Objectives
Students will:
- Apply concepts, theories, and principles related to patient interviewing, diagnostic reasoning, and recording patient information
- Formulate differential diagnoses using DSM-5 criteria for patients with mood disorders across the lifespan
Learning Resources
Assignment: Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Mood Disorders
Photo Credit: Getty Images
Accurately diagnosing depressive disorders can be challenging given their periodic and, at times, cyclic nature. Some of these disorders occur in response to stressors and, depending on the cultural history of the client, may affect their decision to seek treatment. Bipolar disorders can also be difficult to properly diagnose. While clients with a bipolar or related disorder will likely have to contend with the disorder indefinitely, many find that the use of medication and evidence-based treatments have favorable outcomes. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
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 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 and Grading Information
To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:
- Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK3Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
- Click the Week 3 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
- Click the Week 3 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
- Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK3Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
- If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
- Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 3 Assignment Rubric
Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity
To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:
Submit your Week 3 Assignment draft and review the originality report.
Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 3
To participate in this Assignment:
Week 3 Assignment
Assessing and Diagnosing Patients with Anxiety Disorders, PTSD, and OCD Example Paper
Subjective
CC (chief complaint): “I have some questions that I can answer. Sadness. Fear, I guess. But other, other questions I can’t find the answers to”.
HPI:
D.J., a 19-year-old male, came to a psychiatrist’s office after experiencing depression and anxiety for six weeks after learning that he would be activated with the Navy reserves and sent off to Iraq for another tour. There are specific issues he did not have explanations for, and he expressed feeling unhappy and guessing that his fears were justified. He acknowledged having trouble deciding whether to disclose his sexual orientation when he returns. He said he did not want his coworkers to treat him differently because of his sexual orientation, so he kept it a secret. He said he is worried they will not feel safe being comfortable with him in the shower, on the bed, or even patting him on the back. He feels hopeless because he constantly worries about the worst-case scenarios that could result from coming out as gay. He had suicidal ideations, low self-esteem, confusion, and a sleep schedule of roughly 8 hours per night. However, he claims he does not suffer from poor attention, sleeplessness, aggression, or disruptive behaviors.
Past Psychiatric History: No past psychiatric history.
General Statement: The patient visited the psychiatrist at the clinic since he cannot disclose his sexual orientation to everyone.
- Caregivers (if applicable): None
- Hospitalizations: Although he has no history of being hospitalized or engaging in self-harm acts, he has a history of suicidal thoughts.
- Medication trials: He has no history of psychiatric medication use.
- Psychotherapy or Previous Psychiatric Diagnosis: There is no history of previous psychiatric illnesses.
Substance Current Use and History: He claims that he has no history of using alcohol, smoking, caffeinated beverages, or using illegal drugs.
Family Psychiatric/Substance Use History: There is no history of mental illness in either parent’s family, nor is there any evidence that either parent abused drugs in the past.
Psychosocial History: He was born in Columbus, Ohio, and was raised by both parents as an only child. He is not currently partnered. A portion of his time is spent working in the construction industry. His hobbies include mountain climbing and fishing; he has never been in trouble with the law, claims to have no history of traumatic experiences, and has a history of being involved in violent incidents while serving in Iraq.
Medical History: He says he has not suffered from any long-term problems or injuries but had surgery to remove a bullet stuck in his left thigh.
Current Medications: Currently, he is not taking any medications.
Allergies: NKDA
Reproductive Hx: He has been sexually active, engaging intimately with females and males.
ROS
- GENERAL: He claims he has no symptoms, such as profuse perspiration, sudden weight gain or loss, intolerance to cold or heat, pyrexia, chills, headache, disorientation, or lack of appetite.
- HEENT:
- Head- He claims he has not had any head injury or experiencing headaches, photophobia, dizziness, or syncope.
- Eyes- He asserts that his eyes are healthy and that he has not experienced any problems with his vision, including pain, blurry eyesight, loss of sight, or yellowing of the sclera.
- Ears- He says he is not experiencing any ear issues, including pain, discharge, infection, deafness, or tinnitus.
- Nose- He denies experiencing epistaxis, nose stuffiness, loss of sense of smell, or runny nose.
- Throat- No sore throat or pain on swallowing was reported.
- SKIN: No skin rashes, color changes, or itchiness reported.
- CARDIOVASCULAR: No history of shortness of breath, palpitations, easy fatiguability, limb edema, orthopnea, or chest pains reported.
- RESPIRATORY: No history of chronic cough, sputum production, or breathing difficulties. Lungs produce a resonant sound on percussion.
- GASTROINTESTINAL: No history of nausea, loss of appetite, constipation, diarrhea, heartburn, or abdominal pains reported.
- GENITOURINARY: No history of hematuria, painful sensation on urination, incontinence, increased urgency, or sexually transmitted infections reported.
- NEUROLOGICAL: No history of numbness, headache, dizziness, photophobia, or paralysis was reported.
- MUSCULOSKELETAL: No history of stiffness of the joints, muscle pains, back pain, or joint pain reported.
- HEMATOLOGIC: No history of bleeding, anemia, or bruising tendencies reported.
- LYMPHATICS: No history of painful lymph nodes was reported or observed on examination.
- ENDOCRINOLOGIC: No history of intolerance to cold or heat, excessive sweating, polyuria, or polydipsia.
Objective:
Vital signs: T- 97.0 P- 70 R 18 116/68 Ht 5’9 Wt 175lbs
Physical exam: This patient does not require any physical examination.
Assessment
Mental Status Examination:
D.J., now 19, is a single male born and raised in Columbus, Ohio and raised by his parents. There is nothing abnormal about his appearance or movement; he is well-groomed, dressed appropriately, and appears in good health. He is conscious, aware, and oriented to time, person, and place. His eye contact is poor during the evaluation, but his thought process is logical. His voice volume and pitch are appropriate, and his sentences make sense. His short- and long-term memories are unimpaired, he can focus for extended periods without distraction, and he was generally upbeat throughout the evaluation. Although he possesses sound judgment and judgment, he has a history of suicidal ideation.
Diagnostic results:
The history of the patient, as well as his family history, a mental status examination, a psychiatric evaluation, and the use of DSM 5 criteria, are all required to arrive at a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety.
Differential Diagnosis
Adjustment disorder with anxiety
This is a psychiatric ailment in which the patient feels anxious, worried, or fearful long after experiencing a traumatic event (Morgan et al., 2021). The onset of symptoms occurs after experiencing stressful events, such as money, marriage, and losing a relationship. While the exact etiology is unknown, it is speculated that an imbalance of the neurotransmitters in the brain that regulate cognition, emotion, and behavior may be at the root of the problem. Mental diseases, experiencing substantial stress in childhood, and stressful events such as divorce or near-death experiences are risk factors for this condition (Morgan et al., 2021). Those suffering from this illness may experience anxiety, apprehension, hopelessness, and a sense of being completely unable to cope.
Adjustment disorder
Adjustment disorders, as defined by O’Donnell et al. (2019), manifest themselves during the process of responding to a significant change or stressful event in one’s life by causing an individual to experience subjective distress and emotional disturbance, which can have adverse effects on one’s ability to function socially and academically. The typical onset of symptoms occurs within three months of the stressful incident, and resolution occurs within six months as the individual adjusts to the new normal (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). Adolescents with adjustment problems often exhibit symptoms including depression, worry, anxiety, uncertainty in their capacity to handle stressful situations, a noticeable impairment in day-to-day activities, and even dramatic or violent outbursts. Genetics, preexisting personality, personal history, developmental stage, psychological traits, and overall health all play a role in the etiology of the illness.
Generalized anxiety disorder
Individuals with this disorder worry excessively about everyday things, even those that do not warrant such concern (Showraki et al., 2020). Genetic predisposition, elevated levels of stress, history of trauma (physical or psychological), substance abuse, unemployment, and medical conditions or disabilities all enhance the likelihood that an individual would develop a generalized anxiety disorder. Constant worry, a sense that the anxiety is out of regulation, intrusive ideas about things that cause anxiety, an inability to tolerate uncertainty, a failure to relax, difficulty focusing, avoiding things that cause anxiety, procrastination because of feelings of being overwhelmed, nausea, diarrhea, and sleeplessness, are some of the symptoms of this condition.
Reflection
What I Would do Differently
If I had the chance to conduct the evaluation, I would briefly introduce myself to the patient, make him feel comfortable, and welcome him into the room. At the outset of the assessment, I would extend a warm welcome, initiate small talk to put him at ease and request an introduction. I would also ensure that he is assured of the confidentiality of the assessment’s contents before we begin and that he understands that he must consent for any assessment-related materials to be made public. He must feel safe talking to me during the evaluation, and if I can show him empathy, I can make sure that happens. However, the assessment was fruitful because I could collect all the necessary information in as little time as possible, and the patient agreed to schedule a follow-up session.
Ethical Consideration
Ethical difficulties that must be addressed are obtaining informed consent, deceit, confidentiality, debriefing, withdrawal, and patient safety. Adjustment disorder with an anxiety diagnosis requires a thorough evaluation, detailed health history, and mental status exam. Moreover, the DSM-5 criteria are used to assist with validating the diagnosis.
Health Promotion
The adjustment disorder with anxiety patients’ health promotion comprises a visit to a counselor following exposure to psychological pressures. Moreover, the patient and families should be assured that traumatic events’ psychological and physiological repercussions are temporary and self-limited. They should provide emotional support to the patient to promote fast recuperation.
Cultural Considerations
It has been demonstrated that cultural elements play an essential part in the process since a client’s cultural background can influence their feelings and how they express them.
Collaborative resources
There will also be communication with his parents, who will be asked to provide unwavering emotional and material support for their son psychologically. He will be directed toward a local community support group for those with anxiety, where he can feel safe opening up about his struggles without fear of reprimand or criticism.
Conclusion
Anxiety and other mood and psychiatric symptoms often reveal themselves in people with adjustment disorder anxiety after they have gone through a traumatic life event. Men are more likely than women to suffer from this condition. Patients are sometimes encouraged to talk to a psychiatrist or confide in close friends and family about their struggles to lessen or prevent future episodes. Furthermore, the patient’s loved ones should be informed about the illness and taught to provide the client with both emotional and psychological support as they cope.
References
Morgan, A., Kelber, S., Workman, E., Beech, H., Garvey Wilson, L., Edwards-Stewart, A., Belsher, E., Evatt, P., Otto, J., Skopp, A., Bush, E., & Campbell, M. (2021). Adjustment disorders: A research gaps analysis. Psychological Services. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000517
O’Donnell, L., Agathos, A., Metcalf, O., Gibson, K., & Lau, W. (2019). Adjustment disorder: Current developments and future directions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(14), 2537. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142537
Showraki, M., Showraki, T., & Brown, K. (2020). Generalized anxiety disorder: Revisited. Psychiatric Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-020-09747-0
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787
Week 3 Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Create documentation in the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Template about the patient you selected.
In the Subjective section, provide: |
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
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.
|
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
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.
|
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
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. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
|
0 (0%) – 13 (13%)
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.
|
| In 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. |
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
The response thoroughly and accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are thoroughly and accurately documented.
|
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
The response accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are accurately documented.
|
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
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.
|
0 (0%) – 13 (13%)
The response provides incomplete or inaccurate documentation of the patient’s physical exam. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed, or, objective documentation is missing.
|
| In 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 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. |
23 (23%) – 25 (25%)
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. |
20 (20%) – 22 (22%)
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. |
18 (18%) – 19 (19%)
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. |
0 (0%) – 17 (17%)
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.
|
| Reflect 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!), 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.). |
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking.
|
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Reflections demonstrate critical thinking.
|
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking.
|
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Reflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing.
|
| Provide 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). |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
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.
|
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
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 (11%) – 11 (11%)
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.
|
0 (0%) – 10 (10%)
Two or fewer resources are provided to support assessment and diagnosis decisions. The resources may not be current or evidence based.
|
| Written 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 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet they are brief and not descriptive. |
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided. |
| Written Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and punctuation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors
|
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors
|
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors
|
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (≥ five) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding
|
| Total Points: 100 |
|---|
Name: NRNP_6635_Week3_Assignment_Rubric
Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning Week 4: Anxiety Disorders, PTSD, and OCD
Your own experiences might tell you that expectations from family, friends, and work—as well as your own expectations regarding achievement, success, and happiness—can create stress. Stressors are a normal part of life, and stress traditionally has been viewed as an adaptive function with a set of physiological responses to a stressor. In a situation where stress is perceived, the organism is physiologically prepared to attack or flee from the threat. Those with effective fight or flight responses tended to survive long enough to reproduce, so we are descended from those who are genetically hardwired for self-protection. When you experience stress, your biology, emotions, social support, motivation, environment, attitude, immune function, and wellness all feel the ripple effect.
This stress response is an adaptive response the human body has to threats; however, stress can also be difficult to handle and—depending upon the nature and intensity of the stress—can result in anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorders, or trauma- and stressor-related disorders. This week, you will focus on these disorders and explore strategies to accurately assess and diagnose them.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
- Apply concepts, theories, and principles related to patient interviewing, diagnostic reasoning, and recording patient information
- Formulate differential diagnoses using DSM-5 criteria for patients with anxiety disorders, PTSD, and OCD across the lifespan
Learning Resources
Assignment: Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Anxiety Disorders, PTSD, and OCD
“Fear,” according to the DSM-5, “is the emotional response to real or perceived imminent threat, whereas anxiety is anticipation of future threat” (APA, 2013). All anxiety disorders contain some degree of fear or anxiety symptoms (often in combination with avoidant behaviors), although their causes and severity differ. Trauma-related disorders may also, but not necessarily, contain fear and anxiety symptoms, but their primary distinguishing criterion is exposure to a traumatic event. Trauma can occur at any point in life. It might not surprise you to discover that traumatic events are likely to have a greater effect on children than on adults. Early-life traumatic experiences, such as childhood sexual abuse, may influence the physiology of the developing brain. Later in life, there is a chronic hyperarousal of the stress response, making the individual vulnerable to further stress and stress-related disease. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
Photo Credit: Hill Street Studios / Blend Images / Getty Images
For this Assignment, you practice assessing and diagnosing patients with anxiety disorders, PTSD, and OCD. Review the DSM-5 criteria for the disorders within these classifications before you get started, as you will be asked to justify your differential diagnosis with DSM-5 criteria.
To Prepare:
- Review this week’s Learning Resources and consider the insights they provide about assessing and diagnosing anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and trauma- and stressor-related 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 4
Complete and submit your Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation, including your differential diagnosis and critical-thinking process to formulate 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 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 and Grading Information
ORDER NOW FOR ORIGINAL, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPERS
To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:
- Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK4Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
- Click the Week 4 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
- Click the Week 4 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
- Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK4Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
- If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
- Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 4 Assignment Rubric
Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity
To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:
Submit your Week 4 Assignment draft and review the originality report.
Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 4
To participate in this Assignment:
Week 4 Assignment
Week 4 Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Create documentation in the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Template about the patient you selected.
In the Subjective section, provide: |
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
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.
|
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
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.
|
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
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. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
|
0 (0%) – 13 (13%)
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.
|
| In 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. |
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
The response thoroughly and accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are thoroughly and accurately documented.
|
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
The response accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are accurately documented.
|
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
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.
|
0 (0%) – 13 (13%)
The response provides incomplete or inaccurate documentation of the patient’s physical exam. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed, or, objective documentation is missing.
|
| In 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 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. |
23 (23%) – 25 (25%)
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. |
20 (20%) – 22 (22%)
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. |
18 (18%) – 19 (19%)
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. |
0 (0%) – 17 (17%)
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.
|
| Reflect 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!), 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.). |
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
|
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Reflections demonstrate critical thinking.
|
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking.
|
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Reflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing.
|
| Provide 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). |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
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.
|
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
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 (11%) – 11 (11%)
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.
|
0 (0%) – 10 (10%)
Two or fewer resources are provided to support assessment and diagnosis decisions. The resources may not be current or evidence based.
|
| Written 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 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet they are brief and not descriptive. |
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided. |
| Written Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and punctuation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors
|
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors
|
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors
|
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (≥ five) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding
|
| Total Points: 100 |
|---|
Name: NRNP_6635_Week4_Assignment_Rubric
Week 5: Disruptive, Impulse-Control, and Conduct Disorders; Dissociative and Somatic Symptom-Related Disorders
Consider the following two scenarios:
Tim is a 6-year-old boy brought to the family medicine clinic for an initial visit. On entering the examination room, the physician observed Tim spinning in circles on the stool while his mother pled, “If I have to tell you one more time to sit down….” Tim was not permitted to begin first grade until his immunizations were updated. His mother explained that Tim had visited several physicians for immunization but was so disruptive that the physicians and nurses always gave up. She hoped that with a new physician, Tim might comply. The mother described a several-year history of aggressive and destructive behavior as well as four school suspensions during kindergarten. He often becomes “uncontrollable” at home and has broken dishes and furniture. Last year, Tim was playing with the gas stove and started a small fire. Tim frequently pulls the family dog around by its tail. Tim’s older sisters watched him in the past but have refused to do so since he threw a can of soup at one of them. Tim’s father is a long-haul truck driver who sees Tim every 3 to 4 weeks (Searight et al., 2001).
Wallace is a recently retired 55-year-old man and is the primary caregiver for his wife, who is currently undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. As his wife became weaker from the treatment, Wallace became increasingly anxious about his own ability to care for his wife and his sense of agency in the situation. After a serious infection led his wife to be hospitalized, Wallace’s symptoms grew worse. He stopped eating and lost 25 pounds during a matter of weeks. On a trip to the grocery store to purchase food for the household, Wallace had to stop and ask directions to get back to the house at which he had lived for 15 years. This further exacerbated his depression and anxiety and he grew fearful of leaving the home, often sitting in one chair for hours without moving. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
This week, you explore three disparate groupings of disorders. With the first—disruptive, impulse-control and conduct disorders—patients experience issues with self-control of emotions or behavior that involve aggression, destruction/violating others’ rights, defiance, or violating societal norms. Secondly, dissociative disorders involve a disconnection from elements in a person’s life, such as sense of identity, memories, environment, or perception of time. Lastly, somatic symptom-related disorders deal with excessive thoughts, feelings, or behaviors related to physical symptoms (e.g., pain, gastrointestinal issues) that cannot be fully explained by diagnosed medical conditions.
Conduct Disorder: Diagnosis and Treatment in Primary Care by Searight, H. R., Rottnek, F., Abby, S. L., in American Family Physician, Vol. 63/ Issue 8. Copyright 2001 by American Academy of Family Physicians. Reprinted by permission of American Academy of Family Physicians via the Copyright Clearance Center.
Learning Resources
Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Disruptive, Impulse-Control, Conduct, Dissociative, and Somatic Symptom-Related Disorders
Assessing patients with symptoms related to the disorders you are exploring this week pose some particular challenges for which the PMHNP should be prepared. Disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorders may involve aggressive outbursts, anger, deceitfulness, and unpredictability. Eliciting the needed interview and history data requires special care, self-control, and deliberateness on the part of the clinician. Several structured or semi-structured clinical interview tools exist for patients and, in the case of minors, for parents as well.
There is no Assignment due this week. Use this quiet week to work on your practicum Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation and Case Presentation if you are taking the two courses concurrently.
Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning Week 6: Eating, Sleeping, and Elimination Disorders
The process of assessment and diagnosis is complex. At the initial meeting, clients may want to vent about multiple areas in their lives, and they may not necessarily understand the assessment process or what kind of information the advanced practice nurse needs to elicit to diagnose. PMHNPs must strike a balance between keeping the assessment focused and structuring it in such a way that clients are encouraged to paint a complete picture of their chief complaint and history of present illness. If a client says that he or she is having a hard time dealing with family, difficulty in relationships, not eating regularly, or not sleeping, counselors must know how to listen and ask questions that can pull more information needed for an accurate diagnosis.
You are now at the halfway point of the course and have explored the assessment and diagnosis of many categories of disorder from the DSM-5. This week, you put your knowledge of concepts related to psychopathology and diagnostic reasoning to the test by completing a midterm exam. Your Learning Resources this week focus on eating, sleeping, and elimination disorders. Although you will not complete a comprehensive client assessment on a patient with these disorders, be sure to review the resources on them because they are included on the midterm.
Learning Objective
Students will:
- Apply concepts related to psychopathology and diagnostic reasoning in advanced practice nursing care in psychiatric and mental health settings
Learning Resources
Midterm Exam
This exam will cover the following topics relevant to assessment and diagnosis across the lifespan:
- History and theories of psychopathology
- The psychiatric interview, history, and examination
- Rating scales
- Mood disorders
- Anxiety disorders, PTSD, OCD
- Disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorders
- Eating, sleeping, and elimination disorders
Photo Credit: [Vergeles_Andrey]/[iStock / Getty Images Plus]/Getty Images
Prior to starting the exam, you should review all of your materials. There is a 2.5-hour time limit to complete this 100-question exam. You may only attempt this exam once.
This exam is a test of your knowledge in preparation for your certification exam. No outside resources—including books, notes, websites, or any other type of resource—are to be used to complete this exam. You are expected to comply with Walden University’s Code of Conduct. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
By Day 7 of Week 6
Complete your exam.
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your Exam:
Week 6 Midterm Exam
Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning Module 3: Diagnosis of Disorders 2
What’s Happening This Module?
Module 3: Diagnosis of Disorders 2 is a 5-week module. Like Module 2, it focuses on refining your assessment and diagnosis skills related to various categories of mental health disorders. Week 7 covers schizophrenia, other psychotic disorders, and medication-induced movement disorders. Week 8 covers substance-related and addictive disorders. Week 9 examines personality and paraphilic disorders. Week 10 looks at neurocognitive and neurodevelopmental disorders. And finally, Week 11 covers gender identity disorders and psychiatric emergencies. The course culminates with a final exam.
| What do I have to do? | When do I have to do it? |
|---|---|
| Review your Learning Resources. | Days 1–7, Weeks 7–11 |
| Assignment: Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Schizophrenia, Other Psychotic Disorders, and Medication-Induced Movement Disorders | Submit your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 7. |
| Assignment: Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders | Submit your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 8. |
| Assignment: Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Personality and Paraphilic Disorders | Submit your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 9. |
| Assignment: Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Neurocognitive and Neurodevelopmental Disorders | Submit your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 10. |
| Final Exam | Complete by Day 7 of Week 11. |
Go to the Weekly Content
To go to the next week:
Week 7
To go to the next week:
Week 8
To go to the next week:
Week 9
To go to the next week:
Week 10
To go to the next week:
Week 11
Week 7: Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders; Medication-Induced Movement Disorders
At age 18, Rose rented her first apartment in the city. Although she had a short commute to work, Rose did not enjoy the chaos and noise of the city. Within months, Rose left her apartment in the city for a small, rural cabin in the country. It was then that Rose began to withdraw from family and friends. Generally, she avoided contact with others. Her co-workers noticed random, obscure drawings on scrap paper at her desk. Additionally, her co-workers noticed other strange behaviors. Frequently, Rose would whisper to herself, appear startled when people approached her desk, and stare at the ceiling at various times throughout the day.
For individuals with disorders such as schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, the development of mental disorder seldom occurs with a singular, defining symptom. Rather, many who experience such disorders show a range of unique symptoms. This range of symptoms may impede an individual’s ability to function in daily life. As a result, clinicians address a patient’s ability or inability to function in life.
This week, you explore psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia. You also explore medication-induced movement disorders and formulate a diagnosis for a patient in a case study. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
ORDER NOW
Learning Objectives
Students will:
- Apply concepts, theories, and principles related to patient interviewing, diagnostic reasoning, and recording patient information
- Formulate differential diagnoses using DSM-5 criteria for patients with schizophrenia, other psychotic disorders, and medication-induced movement disorders across the life span
Learning Resources
Assignment: Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Schizophrenia, Other Psychotic Disorders, and Medication-Induced Movement Disorders
Photo Credit: [Hero Images]/[Hero Images]/Getty Images
Psychotic disorders and schizophrenia are some of the most complicated and challenging diagnoses in the DSM. The symptoms of psychotic disorders may appear quite vivid in some patients; with others, symptoms may be barely observable. Additionally, symptoms may overlap among disorders. For example, specific symptoms, such as neurocognitive impairments, social problems, and illusions may exist in patients with schizophrenia but are also contributing symptoms for other psychotic disorders. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
For this Assignment, you will analyze a case study related to schizophrenia, another psychotic disorder, or a medication-induced movement disorder.
To Prepare:
- Review this week’s Learning Resources and consider the insights they provide about assessing and diagnosing psychotic disorders. Consider whether experiences of psychosis-related symptoms are always indicative of a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Think about alternative diagnoses for psychosis-related symptoms.
- 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 7
Complete and submit your Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation, including your differential diagnosis and critical-thinking process to formulate 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 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 and Grading Information
To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:
- Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK7Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
- Click the Week 7 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
- Click the Week 7 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
- Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK7Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
- If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
- Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 7 Assignment Rubric
Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity
To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:
Submit your Week 7 Assignment draft and review the originality report.
Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 7
To participate in this Assignment:
Week 7 Assignment
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Create documentation in the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Template about the patient you selected.
In the Subjective section, provide: |
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
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.
|
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
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.
|
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
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.
|
0 (0%) – 13 (13%)
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.
|
| In 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. |
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
The response thoroughly and accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are thoroughly and accurately documented.
|
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
The response accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are accurately documented.
|
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
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.
|
0 (0%) – 13 (13%)
The response provides incomplete or inaccurate documentation of the patient’s physical exam. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed, or, objective documentation is missing.
|
| In 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 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. |
23 (23%) – 25 (25%)
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. |
20 (20%) – 22 (22%)
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. |
18 (18%) – 19 (19%)
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. |
0 (0%) – 17 (17%)
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. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
|
| Reflect 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!), 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.). |
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking.
|
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Reflections demonstrate critical thinking.
|
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking.
|
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Reflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing.
|
| Provide 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). |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
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.
|
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
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 (11%) – 11 (11%)
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.
|
0 (0%) – 10 (10%)
Two or fewer resources are provided to support assessment and diagnosis decisions. The resources may not be current or evidence based.
|
| Written 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 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet they are brief and not descriptive. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning |
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided. |
| Written Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and punctuation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors
|
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors
|
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors
|
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (≥ five) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding
|
| Total Points: 100 |
|---|
Name: NRNP_6635_Week7_Assignment_Rubric
Week 8: Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders
Many individuals seeking treatment meet the criteria for both mental health and substance-related disorders. Regardless of whether you specialize in substance-related disorders, all advanced practice nurses should know their signs and symptoms and how to assess and diagnose them. There are assessment and screening tools available to clinicians, and a plethora of information can be obtained through the diagnostic interview. It takes time and experience to know what types of questions to ask to gain the most information, in addition to a basic knowledge of the substances and behaviors you are trying to assess. It can be complicated to sort out substance use disorders from other mental health disorders, but most clients seeking treatment have comorbidities.
This week, you apply DSM-5 substance use and addictive criteria as you formulate a diagnosis for a patient in a case study.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
- Apply concepts, theories, and principles related to patient interviewing, diagnostic reasoning, and recording patient information
- Formulate differential diagnoses using DSM-5 criteria for patients with substance-related and addictive disorders across the lifespa
Learning Resources
Assignment: Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders
An important consideration when working with patients is their cultural background. Understanding an individual’s culture and personal experiences provides insight into who the person is and where he or she may progress in the future. Culture helps to establish a sense of identity, as well as to set values, behaviors, and purpose for individuals within a society. Culture may also contribute to a divide between specific interpretations of cultural behavior and societal norms. What one culture may deem as appropriate another culture may find inappropriate. As a result, it is important for advanced practice nurses to remain aware of cultural considerations and interpretations of behavior for diagnosis, especially with reference to substance-related disorders. At the same time, PMHNPs must balance their professional and legal responsibilities for assessment and diagnosis with such cultural considerations and interpretations. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
For this Assignment, you will practice assessing and diagnosing a patient in a case study who is experiencing a substance-related or addictive disorder. With this and all cases, remember to consider the patient’s cultural background.
To Prepare:
- Review this week’s Learning Resources and consider the insights they provide.
- Review the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation template, which you will use to complete this Assignment.
- 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 8
Complete and submit your Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation, including your differential diagnosis and critical-thinking process to formulate 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 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 and Grading Information
To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:
- Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK8Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
- Click the Week 8 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
- Click the Week 8 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
- Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK8Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
- If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
- Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 8 Assignment Rubric
Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity
To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:
Submit your Week 8 Assignment draft and review the originality report.
Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 8
To participate in this Assignment:
Week 8 Assignment
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
ORDER NOW FOR ORIGINAL, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPERS
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Create documentation in the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Template about the patient you selected.
In the Subjective section, provide: |
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
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.
|
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
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.
|
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
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.
|
0 (0%) – 13 (13%)
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.
|
| In 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. |
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
The response thoroughly and accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are thoroughly and accurately documented.
|
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
The response accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are accurately documented.
|
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
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.
|
0 (0%) – 13 (13%)
The response provides incomplete or inaccurate documentation of the patient’s physical exam. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed, or, objective documentation is missing.
|
| In 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 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. |
23 (23%) – 25 (25%)
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. |
20 (20%) – 22 (22%)
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. |
18 (18%) – 19 (19%)
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. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning |
0 (0%) – 17 (17%)
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.
|
| Reflect 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!), 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.). |
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking.
|
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Reflections demonstrate critical thinking.
|
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking.
|
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Reflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing.
|
| Provide 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). |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
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.
|
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
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 (11%) – 11 (11%)
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.
|
0 (0%) – 10 (10%)
Two or fewer resources are provided to support assessment and diagnosis decisions. The resources may not be current or evidence based.
|
| Written 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 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet they are brief and not descriptive. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning |
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided. |
| Written Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and punctuation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors
|
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors
|
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors
|
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (≥ five) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding
|
| Total Points: 100 |
|---|
Name: NRNP_6635_Week8_Assignment_Rubric
Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning Week 9: Personality and Paraphilic Disorders
What is the difference between observed patterns of personality and a personality disorder? Although some patterns of behavior may contribute to an individual’s personality, not all personality patterns may be disorders. For example, if a person is described as cold, cerebral, and rigid, these are patterns that might affect his or her personality but may not lead to a diagnosed disorder. As defined in the DSM, “A personality disorder is an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of one’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment” (APA, 2013, p. 645).
Specifically, personality disorders, such as antisocial personality disorders and borderline personality disorders, present a pervasive, maladaptive pattern of inner experience and behavior that violate social norms such as trust, honesty, and personal value.
This week, you explore the assessment and diagnosis of personality and paraphilic disorders in patients across the lifespan.
Learning Resources
Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Personality and Paraphilic Disorders
This week’s introduction explained that not all personality patterns represent disorders; it is pervasive patterns that lead to life impairment that meet the criteria for a disorder. Similarly, paraphilic, or sexual, behaviors fall on a spectrum and may or may not meet the criteria for a disorder. Sexual behaviors that could be a symptom of a disorder (e.g., enacting specific fantasies or integrating a fetish object into sexual activity) would only meet the criteria if they were present for more than six months and significantly impacted social or occupational functioning.
There is no Assignment due this week. Use this quiet week to work on your practicum Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation and Case Presentation if you are taking the two courses concurrently.
Photo Credit: [shiron
Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning Week 10: Neurocognitive and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
The human brain only constitutes approximately 2% of an individual’s total body weight, a percentage that pales in comparison to the brain’s level of importance in human development (Koch, 2016). Although externally protected by layers of membranes as well as the skull, the brain is not very resistant to damage. Damage to the brain may compromise its functionality, which may, in turn, lead to neurodevelopmental disorders in childhood and adolescence or neurocognitive disorders for any number of reasons across the lifespan. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
This week, you practice assessing and diagnosing neurocognitive and neurodevelopmental disorders across the lifespan.
Reference: Koch, C. (2016, January 1). Does brain size matter? Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-brain-size-matter1/
Learning Objectives
Students will:
- Apply concepts, theories, and principles related to patient interviewing, diagnostic reasoning, and recording patient information
- Formulate differential diagnoses using DSM-5 criteria for patients with neurocognitive and neurodevelopmental disorders across the lifespan
Learning Resources
ORDER NOW FOR ORIGINAL, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPERS
Assignment: Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Neurocognitive and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Photo Credit: Getty Images
Neurodevelopmental disorders begin in the developmental period of childhood and may continue through adulthood. They may range from the very specific to a general or global impairment, and often co-occur (APA, 2013). They include specific learning and language disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorders, and intellectual disabilities. Neurocognitive disorders, on the other hand, represent a decline in one or more areas of prior mental function that is significant enough to impact independent functioning. They may occur at any time in life and be caused by factors such brain injury; diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, or Huntington’s; infection; or stroke, among others. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
For this Assignment, you will assess a patient in a case study who presents with a neurocognitive or neurodevelopmental disorder.
To Prepare:
- Review this week’s Learning Resources and consider the insights they provide. Consider how neurocognitive impairments may have similar presentations to other psychological disorders.
- Review the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation template, which you will use to complete this Assignment.
- 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 10
Complete and submit your Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation, including your differential diagnosis and critical-thinking process to formulate 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 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 and Grading Information
To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:
- Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK10Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
- Click the Week 10 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
- Click the Week 10 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
- Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK10Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
- If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
- Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 10 Assignment Rubric
Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity
To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:
Submit your Week 10 Assignment draft and review the originality report.
Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 10
To participate in this Assignment:
Week 10 Assignment
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Create documentation in the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Template about the patient you selected.
In the Subjective section, provide: |
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
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.
|
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
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.
|
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
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.
|
0 (0%) – 13 (13%)
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.
|
| In 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. |
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
The response thoroughly and accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are thoroughly and accurately documented.
|
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
The response accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are accurately documented. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
|
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
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.
|
0 (0%) – 13 (13%)
The response provides incomplete or inaccurate documentation of the patient’s physical exam. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed, or, objective documentation is missing.
|
| In 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 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. |
23 (23%) – 25 (25%)
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. |
20 (20%) – 22 (22%)
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. |
18 (18%) – 19 (19%)
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. |
0 (0%) – 17 (17%)
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.
|
| Reflect 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!), 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.). |
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking.
|
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Reflections demonstrate critical thinking.
|
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking.
|
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Reflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing.
|
| Provide 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). |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
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.
|
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
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. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
|
11 (11%) – 11 (11%)
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. ORDER NOW
|
0 (0%) – 10 (10%)
Two or fewer resources are provided to support assessment and diagnosis decisions. The resources may not be current or evidence based.
|
| Written 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 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet they are brief and not descriptive. |
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided. |
| Written Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and punctuation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors
|
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors
|
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors
|
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (≥ five) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding
|
| Total Points: 100 |
|---|
Name: NRNP_6635_Week10_Assignment_Rubric
Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning Week 11: Gender Identity Disorders; Psychiatric Emergencies
In the past, popular culture tended to present gender as an attribute that was dichotomous; that is, it was either/or. To a certain extent, our culture, as well as many others, still portrays gender as equivalent to biological sex assignment. We may still encounter this when we fill out forms or are otherwise asked to identify ourselves, but nonbinary choices are increasingly common, as is the widespread acceptance of a person’s choice of personal pronoun.
Current psychological and biological science sees gender as a continuum, and it is viewed as a cultural attribute, not a biological one. As a cultural construct, gender and its expression vary widely. An individual’s gender identify refers to whether they identify as male, female, or some other category. Everyone has a gender identity. To meet the criteria for a gender identity disorder, however, a patient must not only have gender manifestations that do not conform to their culture’s gender norms (e.g., wearing opposite sex clothing), but also experience significant distress and negative impact on their life because of the gender incongruence. Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning
Through the Learning Resources this week, you explore the assessment and diagnosis of gender identity disorders and psychiatric emergencies. You will also complete your final exam, which will cover the topics presented in Weeks 7–11.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
- Apply concepts related to psychopathology and diagnostic reasoning in advanced practice nursing care in psychiatric and mental health setting
Learning Resources
Walden NRNP 6635 Psychopathology and Diagnostic Reasoning Final Exam
This exam will cover assessment and diagnosis of the following across the lifespan:
- Schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders
- Medication-induced movement disorders
- Substance related disorders
- Personality disorders
- Dissociative and somatic symptom-related disorders
- Paraphilic disorders
- Neurocognitive and neurodevelopmental disorders
- Sexuality and gender identity disorders
- Psychiatric emergencies
Photo Credit: [Vergeles_Andrey]/[iStock / Getty Images Plus]/Getty Images
Prior to starting the exam, you should review all of your materials. There is a 2.5-hour time limit to complete this 100-question exam. You may only attempt this exam once.
This exam is a test of your knowledge in preparation for your certification exam. No outside resources—including books, notes, websites, or any other type of resource—are to be used to complete this exam. You are expected to comply with Walden University’s Code of Conduct.
By Day 7 of Week 11
Complete your exam.
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your Exam:
Week 11 Final Exam