ASSESSING AND DIAGNOSING PATIENTS WITH SUBSTANCE-RELATED AND ADDICTIVE DISORDERS

TO PREPARE:

  • Download the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Template, which you will use to complete this Assignment. Also review the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Exemplar to see an example of a completed evaluation document (I’ve provided both the template and the example)
  • By Day 1 of this week, select a specific video case study to use for this Assignment from the Video Case Selections choices in the Learning Resources. View your assigned video case and review the additional data for the case in the “Case History Reports” document, keeping the requirements of the evaluation template in mind (I’ve attached a link at the end of the instructions of the selected video-“training title 29”). Please let me know if it doesn’t work for you. 
  • Consider what history would be necessary to collect from this patient. If the information in the case history is not present, please do not write “not provided”. Please explain what information is needed and why it is important. 
  • Consider what interview questions you would need to ask this patient.
  • Identify at least three possible differential diagnoses for the patient. 

Complete and submit your Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation (on the provided template), including your differential diagnosis and critical-thinking process to formulate a primary diagnosis. Incorporate the following into your responses in the template:

  • Subjective: What details did the patient provide regarding their chief complaint and symptomology to derive your differential diagnosis? What is the duration and severity of their symptoms? How are their symptoms impacting their functioning in life? 
  • Objective: What observations did you make during the psychiatric assessment?  
  • Assessment: Discuss the patient’s mental status examination results. What were your differential diagnoses? Provide a minimum of three possible diagnoses with supporting evidence, listed in order from highest priority to lowest priority. Compare the DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for each differential diagnosis and explain what DSM-5 criteria rules out the differential diagnosis to find an accurate diagnosis. Explain the critical-thinking process that led you to the primary diagnosis you selected. Include pertinent positives and pertinent negatives for the specific patient case.
  • Reflection notes: What would you do differently with this client if you could conduct the session over? Also include in your reflection a discussion related to legal/ethical considerations (demonstrate critical thinking beyond confidentiality and consent for treatment!), health promotion and disease prevention taking into consideration patient factors (such as age, ethnic group, etc.), PMH, and other risk factors (e.g., socioeconomic, cultural background, etc.).
Be sure to cite the DSM-V and the Video.
Use the DSM-V for diagnostic criteria.
Make sure to include a purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion.
Per the rubric,
Provide at least three evidence-based, peer-reviewed journal articles or evidence-based guidelines related to this case to support your diagnostics and differential diagnoses. Be sure they are current (no more than 5 years old).

Link for video:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/e5ky8pp6c6t8gj0a0zine/Screen-Recording-2024-01-15-at-6.56.58-PM.mov?rlkey=4bk7k74rewfkqf2mbzg3ba273&dl=0

Rubric for grading below:

NRNP_6635_Week6_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
Create documentation in the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Template about the patient you selected. In the Subjective section, provide: • Chief complaint• History of present illness (HPI)• Past psychiatric history• Medication trials and current medications• Psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis• Pertinent substance use, family psychiatric/substance use, social, and medical history• Allergies• ROS

20 to >17.0 pts

Excellent
The response throughly and accurately describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, past psychiatric history, medication trials and current medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, pertinent histories, allergies, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis.

17 to >15.0 pts

Good
The response accurately describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, past psychiatric history, medication trials and current medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, pertinent histories, allergies, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis.

15 to >13.0 pts

Fair
The response describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, past psychiatric history, medication trials and current medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, pertinent histories, allergies, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis, but is somewhat vague or contains minor innacuracies.

13 to >0 pts

Poor
The response provides an incomplete or inaccurate description of the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, past psychiatric history, medication trials and current medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, pertinent histories, allergies, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Or, subjective documentation is missing.
20 pts
In the Objective section, provide:• Physical exam documentation of systems pertinent to the chief complaint, HPI, and history• Diagnostic results, including any labs, imaging, or other assessments needed to develop the differential diagnoses.

20 to >17.0 pts

Excellent
The response thoroughly and accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are thoroughly and accurately documented.

17 to >15.0 pts

Good
The response accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are accurately documented.

15 to >13.0 pts

Fair
Documentation of the patient’s physical exam is somewhat vague or contains minor innacuracies. Diagnostic tests and their results are documented but contain minor innacuracies.

13 to >0 pts

Poor
The response provides incomplete or inaccurate documentation of the patient’s physical exam. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed, or, objective documentation is missing.
20 pts
In the Assessment section, provide:• Results of the mental status examination, presented in paragraph form.• At least three differentials with supporting evidence. List them from top priority to least priority. Compare the DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for each differential diagnosis and explain what DSM-5-TR criteria rules out the differential diagnosis to find an accurate diagnosis. Explain the critical-thinking process that led you to the primary diagnosis you selected. Include pertinent positives and pertinent negatives for the specific patient case.

25 to >22.0 pts

Excellent
The response thoroughly and accurately documents the results of the mental status exam…. Response lists at least three distinctly different and detailed possible disorders in order of priority for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, and it provides a thorough, accurate, and detailed justification for each of the disorders selected.

22 to >19.0 pts

Good
The response accurately documents the results of the mental status exam…. Response lists at least three distinctly different and detailed possible disorders in order of priority for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, and it provides an accurate justification for each of the disorders selected.

19 to >17.0 pts

Fair
The response documents the results of the mental status exam with some vagueness or innacuracy…. Response lists at least three different possible disorders for a differential diagnosis of the patient and provides a justification for each, but may contain some vaguess or innacuracy.

17 to >0 pts

Poor
The response provides an incomplete or inaccurate description of the results of the mental status exam and explanation of the differential diagnoses. Or, assessment documentation is missing.
25 pts
Reflect on this case. Discuss what you learned and what you might do differently. Also include in your reflection a discussion related to legal/ethical considerations (demonstrate critical thinking beyond confidentiality and consent for treatment!), social determinates of health, health promotion and disease prevention taking into consideration patient factors (such as age, ethnic group, etc.), PMH, and other risk factors (e.g., socioeconomic, cultural background, etc.).

10 to >8.0 pts

Excellent
Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking.

8 to >7.0 pts

Good
Reflections demonstrate critical thinking.

7 to >6.0 pts

Fair
Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking.

6 to >0 pts

Poor
Reflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing.
10 pts
Provide at least three evidence-based, peer-reviewed journal articles or evidenced-based guidelines that relate to this case to support your diagnostics and differential diagnoses. Be sure they are current (no more than 5 years old).

15 to >13.0 pts

Excellent
The response provides at least three current, evidence-based resources from the literature to support the assessment and diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study. The resources reflect the latest clinical guidelines and provide strong justification for decision making.

13 to >11.0 pts

Good
The response provides at least three current, evidence-based resources from the literature that appropriately support the assessment and diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study.

11 to >10.0 pts

Fair
Three evidence-based resources are provided to support assessment and diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, but they may only provide vague or weak justification.

10 to >0 pts

Poor
Two or fewer resources are provided to support assessment and diagnosis decisions. The resources may not be current or evidence based.
15 pts
Written 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
A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria. …Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

4 to >3.5 pts

Good
Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet they are brief and not descriptive. …Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

3.5 to >3.0 pts

Fair
Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. … Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%-79% of the time.

3 to >0 pts

Poor
No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided. … Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time.
5 pts
Written Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and punctuation

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors

4 to >3.0 pts

Good
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

3 to >2.0 pts

Fair
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

2 to >0 pts

Poor
Contains many (≥ five) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding
5 pts
Total Points: 100

Are you struggling with your paper? Let us handle it - WE ARE EXPERTS!

Whatever paper you need - we will help you write it

Get started

Starts at $9 /page

How our paper writing service works

It's very simple!

  • Fill out the order form

    Complete the order form by providing as much information as possible, and then click the submit button.

  • Choose writer

    Select your preferred writer for the project, or let us assign the best writer for you.

  • Add funds

    Allocate funds to your wallet. You can release these funds to the writer incrementally, after each section is completed and meets your expected quality.

  • Ready

    Download the finished work. Review the paper and request free edits if needed. Optionally, rate the writer and leave a review.