Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.

Content

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.	Points: Points Range: 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 Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 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 Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 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 Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 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 Feedback:
Main Posting: Writing	Points: Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Written clearly and concisely Contains no grammatical or spelling errors Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 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 Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Written somewhat concisely May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors Contains some APA formatting errors Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 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 Feedback:
Main Posting: Timely and full participation	Points: Points Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation Posts main Discussion by due date Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Posts main Discussion by due date Meets requirements for full participation Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Posts main Discussion by due date Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Does not meet requirements for full participation Does not post main Discussion by due date Feedback:
First Response: Post to colleague's main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources	Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic, may have some depth. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic, lacks depth. Feedback:
First Response: Writing	Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback:
First Response: Timely and full participation	Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation Posts by due date Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation Posts by due date Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation Does not post by due date Feedback:
Second Response: Post to colleague's main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources	Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic, may have some depth. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic, lacks depth. Feedback:
Second Response: Writing	Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback:
Second Response: Timely and full participation	Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation Posts by due date Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation Posts by due date Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation Does not post by due date Feedback:

Show Descriptions Show Feedback

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.–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 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 Good 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 Fair 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 Poor 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 Feedback:

Main Posting: Writing–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Written clearly and concisely Contains no grammatical or spelling errors Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style Good 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 Fair 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Written somewhat concisely May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors Contains some APA formatting errors Poor 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 Feedback:

Main Posting: Timely and full participation–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation Posts main Discussion by due date Good 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Posts main Discussion by due date Meets requirements for full participation Fair 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Posts main Discussion by due date Poor 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Does not meet requirements for full participation Does not post main Discussion by due date Feedback:

First Response: Post to colleague's main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 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. Good 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Fair 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic, may have some depth. Poor 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic, lacks depth. Feedback:

First Response: Writing–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 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. Good 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. Fair 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. Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback:

First Response: Timely and full participation–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation Posts by due date Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation Posts by due date Fair 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date Poor 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation Does not post by due date Feedback:

Second Response: Post to colleague's main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 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. Good 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Fair 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic, may have some depth. Poor 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic, lacks depth. Feedback:

Second Response: Writing–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 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. Good 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. Fair 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. Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback:

Second Response: Timely and full participation–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation Posts by due date Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation Posts by due date Fair 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date Poor 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation Does not post by due date Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NRNP_6665_Week1_Discussion_Rubric

,

Transcript

Vignette 5 – Assessing for Depression in a Mental Health Appointment

LINK: https://youtu.be/Gm3FLGxb2ZU

tony has been referred to a social

worker by his medical provider who is

concerned about symptoms of depression

and anxiety that Tony reported in his

physical exam

do you have a sense of why you're here

yeah, my doctor sent me, so I'd like to

ask you some questions about how you're

feeling how is your mood been lately um

I don't know what you mean

have you been feeling sad or depressed

not really have you been crying a lot

I don't really cry have you been feeling

hopeless

yeah, how about feeling edgy you're angry

well yeah, I guess I feel angry sometimes

um like kind of like I just want to

fight someone you can definitely talk

more about that do you ever feel like

you don't have much energy or like

you're not very interested in things

well, I like basketball um but sometimes

I don't have enough energy to play don't

like school how are you doing in school

well, I used to get all A's and B's but

my grades are kind of going down that's

mainly just cuz I don't do my homework

anymore

why not don't like it it's even hard

getting up in the mornings do you use

drugs or alcohol

I guess I'll have a beer or two with my

friends sometimes sounds like things are

not always going so great you like

playing basketball but sometimes you

have trouble getting up in the morning

and getting interested in school and you

can sometimes get pretty angry how long

have you been feeling that way for like

two months um since May my girlfriend

broke up it makes me like really angry

with her or just with anyone mm-hmm

when I think about it, I get a tight pain

in my chest and my heart beats really

fast

I don't know Hey I don't even know why

she did break up with me, but it hurts

and I don't yeah, I don't even want to be

alive have you had thoughts about doing

something to hurt yourself yeah yeah

tell me more about that

,

PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AS INDICATED BELOW:

1). ZERO (0) PLAGIARISM

2). AT LEAST 5 REFERENCES, NO MORE THAN 5 YEARS.

3). PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED RUBRIC AND THE GRADING DETAILS, THE REQUIRED VIDEOS TRANSCRIPT AND LINKS ATTACHED, THE DISCUSSION ASSIGNMENT.

4). PLEASE FOLLOW THE APA 7 WRITING RULES, STYLE, AND FORMAT. PLEASE INCLUDE CONCLUSION.

Thank you.  

,

Discussion: Comprehensive Integrated Psychiatric Assessment

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.

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.

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.