Discussion: Comprehensive Integrated Psychiatric Assessment
Discussion: Comprehensive Integrated Psychiatric Assessment
Photo Credit: Seventyfour / Adobe Stock
Many assessment principles are the same for children and adults; however, unlike with adults/older adults, where consent for participation in the assessment comes from the actual client, with children it is the parents or guardians who must make the decision for treatment. Issues of confidentiality, privacy, and consent must be addressed. When working with children, it is not only important to be able to connect with the pediatric patient, but also to be able to collaborate effectively with the caregivers, other family members, teachers, and school counselors/psychologists, all of whom will be able to provide important context and details to aid in your assessment and treatment plans.
Some children/adolescents may be more difficult to assess than adults, as they can be less psychologically minded. That is, they have less insights into themselves and their motivations than adults (although this is not universally true). The PMHNP must also take into consideration the child’s culture and environmental context. Additionally, with children/adolescents, there are lower rates of neurocognitive disorders superimposed on other clinical conditions, such as depression or anxiety, which create additional diagnostic challenges.
In this Discussion, you review and critique the techniques and methods of a mental health professional as the practitioner completes a comprehensive, integrated psychiatric assessment of an adolescent. You also identify rating scales and treatment options that are specifically appropriate for children/adolescents.
To Prepare
• Review the Learning Resources and consider the insights they provide on comprehensive, integrated psychiatric assessment. Watch the Mental Status Examination B-6 and Simulation Scenario-Adolescent Risk Assessment videos.
• Watch the YMH Boston Vignette 5 video and take notes; you will use this video as the basis for your Discussion post.
By Day 3 of Week 1
Based on the YMH Boston Vignette 5 video, post answers to the following questions:
• What did the practitioner do well? In what areas can the practitioner improve?
• At this point in the clinical interview, do you have any compelling concerns? If so, what are they?
• What would be your next question, and why?
Then, address the following. Your answers to these prompts do not have to be tailored to the patient in the YMH Boston video.
• Explain why a thorough psychiatric assessment of a child/adolescent is important.
• Describe two different symptom rating scales that would be appropriate to use during the psychiatric assessment of a child/adolescent.
• Describe two psychiatric treatment options for children and adolescents that may not be used when treating adults.
• Explain the role parents/guardians play in assessment.
Support your response with at least three peer-reviewed, evidence-based sources and explain why each of your supporting sources is considered scholarly. Attach the PDFs of your sources.
VIDEO;
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Name: NRNP_6665_Week1_Discussion_Rubric
• Grid View
• List View
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 three current credible sources 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 three 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 supported by fewer than two 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 one or no credible references
Main Posting:
Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely
Contains no grammatical or spelling errors
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 with minor errors 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 posted 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.
Responses 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. 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.
Responses 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
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
