Explain your state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult psychiatric emergencies. Include who can hold a patient and for how long, who can release the emergency hold, and who can pick up the patient after a hold is released.

Order Instructions
THE ASSIGNMENT: State of Maryland in USA
In 2-3 pages, address the following:
• Explain your state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult psychiatric emergencies. Include who can hold a patient and for how long, who can release the emergency hold, and who can pick up the patient after a hold is released.
• Explain the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state.
• Explain the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts.
• Select one of the following topics, and explain one legal issue and one ethical issue related to this topic that may apply within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies: patient autonomy, EMTALA, confidentiality, HIPAA privacy rule, HIPAA security rule, protected information, legal gun ownership, career obstacles (security clearances/background checks), and payer source.
• Identify one evidence-based suicide risk assessment that you could use to screen patients.
• Identify one evidence-based violence risk assessment that you could use to screen patients.

Resources:
• Buppert, C. (2021). Nurse practitioner’s business practice and legal guide (7th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
•
o Chapter 7, “Negligence and Malpractice”
o Chapter 8, “Risk Management”
o Chapter 16, “Resolving Ethical Dilemmas”

• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2019). Brøset violence checklistLinks to an external site.. http://riskassessment.no/

• Sadock, B. J., Sadock, V. A., & Ruiz, P. (2015). Kaplan & Sadock’s synopsis of psychiatry (11th ed.). Wolters Kluwer. (For review as needed)
•
o Chapter 23, “Emergency Psychiatric Medicine”
o Chapter 36.2, “Ethics in Psychiatry”

• Thapar, A., Pine, D. S., Leckman, J. F., Scott, S., Snowling, M. J., & Taylor, E. A. (Eds.). (2015). Rutter’s child and adolescent psychiatry (6th ed.). Wiley Blackwell.
•
o Chapter 19, “Legal Issues in the Care and Treatment of Children With Mental Health Problems”
o Chapter 64, “Suicidal Behavior and Self-Harm”

• U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2019). VA/DoD clinical practice guidelinesLinks to an external site.: Assessment and management of patients at risk for suicide (2019).
https://www.healthquality.va.gov/guidelines/MH/srb/

• Zakhari, R. (2021). The psychiatric-mental health nurse practitioner certification review manual. Springer Publishing Company.
•
o Chapter 15, “Violence and Abuse”
Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn 2–3 pages, address the following: • Explain your state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult psychiatric emergencies. Include who can hold a patient and for how long, who can release the emergency hold, and who can pick up the patient after a hold is released. 15 to >13.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
The response includes a thorough and well-organized explanation of student’s state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult emergencies. 13 to >11.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
The response includes an accurate explanation of student’s state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult emergencies. 11 to >10.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
The response includes a somewhat vague or inaccurate explanation of student’s state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult emergencies. 10 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of student’s state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult emergencies. Or the response is missing.
15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome• Explain the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state. 15 to >13.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
The response includes an accurate and concise explanation of the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state. 13 to >11.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
The response includes a well-organized explanation of the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state. 11 to >10.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
The response includes a somewhat vague explanation of the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state. 10 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
The response includes a vague explanation of the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state. Or the response is missing.
15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome• Explain the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts. 10 to >8.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
The response includes an accurate and concise explanation of the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts. 8 to >7.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
The response includes an accurate explanation of the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts. 7 to >6.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
The response includes a somewhat vague or incomplete explanation of the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts. 6 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts. Or the response is missing.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome• Select one of the following topics and explain one legal issue and one ethical issue related to this topic that may apply within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies: patient autonomy, EMTALA, confidentiality, HIPAA privacy rule, HIPAA security rule, protected information, legal gun ownership, career obstacles (security clearances/background checks), and payer source. 15 to >13.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
The response accurately and concisely explains one legal and one ethical issue related to the selected topic, within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies. 13 to >11.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
The response accurately explains one legal and one ethical issue related to the selected topic, within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies. 11 to >10.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
The response somewhat vaguely or innacurately explains one legal and one ethical issue related to the selected topic, within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies. 10 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
The response vaguely or innacurately explains one legal and one ethical issue related to the selected topic, within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies. Or, response is missing.
15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome•Identify one evidence-based suicide risk assessment that you could use to screen patients. Attach a copy or a link to the assessment you identified. 15 to >13.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
The response identifies and explains an appropriate, evidence-based suicide risk assessment that could be used to screen patients. A copy of or a link to the assessment is included. 13 to >11.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
The response identifies an appropriate, evidence-based suicide risk assessment that could be used to screen patients. A copy of or a link to the assessment is included. 11 to >10.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
The risk assessment identified is somewhat inappropriate for the intended use or dated. A copy of or a link to the assessment may be missing. 10 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
The risk assessment identified is inappropriate for the intended use, not evidence based, or dated. Or, response is missing.
15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome• Identify one evidence-based violence risk assessment that you could use to screen patients. Attach a copy or a link to the assessment you identified. 15 to >13.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
The response identifies and explains an appropriate, evidence-based violence risk assessment that could be used to screen patients. A copy of or a link to the assessment is included. 13 to >11.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
The response identifies an appropriate, evidence-based violence risk assessment that could be used to screen patients. A copy of or a link to the assessment is included. 11 to >10.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
The risk assessment identified is somewhat inappropriate for the intended use or dated. A copy of or a link to the assessment may be missing. 10 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
The risk assessment identified is inappropriate for the intended use, not evidence based, or dated. Or, response is missing.
15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria. 5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
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 to >3.5 pts
Good 80%–89%
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 to >3.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are vague or off topic. 3 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time…. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation 5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors 4 to >3.5 pts
Good 80%–89%
Contains 1-2 grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors 3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
Contains 3-4 grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors 3 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
Contains five or more grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. 5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
Uses correct APA format with no errors 4 to >3.5 pts
Good 80%–89%
Contains 1-2 APA format errors 3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
Contains 3-4 APA format errors 3 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
Contains five or more APA format errors
5 pts

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.