LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES RELATED TO PSYCHIATRIC EMERGENCIES
USE MARYLAND STATE FOR THE STATE
REFERENCES WITHIN LAST 5 YEARS
PDF FILES FOR ALL REFERENCES
PLEASE USE SUBHEADINGS
PLEASE HAVE PURPOSE STATEMENT AND CONCLUSION
LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES RELATED TO PSYCHIATRIC EMERGENCIES
The diagnosis of psychiatric emergencies can include a wide range of problems—from serious drug reactions to abuse and suicidal ideation/behaviors. Regardless of care setting, the PMHNP must know how to address emergencies, coordinate care with other members of the health care team and law enforcement officials (when indicated), and effectively communicate with family members who are often overwhelmed in emergency situations. In their role, PMHNPs can ensure a smooth transition from emergency mental health care to follow-up care, and also bridge the physical–mental health divide in healthcare.
In this week’s Assignment, you explore legal and ethical issues surrounding psychiatric emergencies, and identify evidence-based suicide and violence risk assessments.
TO PREPARE
• Review this week’s Learning Resources and consider the insights they provide about psychiatric emergencies and the ethical and legal issues surrounding these events.
• In 2–3 pages, address the following:
• Explain your MARYLAND 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 MARYLAND 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.
Rubric
NRNP_6675_Week8_Assignment_Rubric
NRNP_6675_Week8_Assignment_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
Total Points: 100
PreviousNext
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.
