Comprehensive Integrated Psychiatric Assessment

Comprehensive Integrated Psychiatric Assessment

 

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.

By Day 3 of Week 1

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.

https://video-alexanderstreet-com.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/watch/mental-status-exam-b-6/cite?context=channel:volume-2-new-releases-assessment-tools-mental-status-exam-series

 

 

 

 

 

Rubric Detail

 

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

 

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.

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

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

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

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

Main Posting: Writing

6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely Contains no grammatical or spelling errors 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 with minor errors

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 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.

0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Responses 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. Responses 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_6665_Week1_Discussion_Rubric