NRNP 6635 Discussion The Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales

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

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.

Rubric Detail

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

Name: NRNP_6635_Week2_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 3 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 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.
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

Is this the question you were looking for? If so, place your order here to get started!