NRNP 6635 THE PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION AND EVIDENCE-BASED RATING SCALES Paper

NRNP 6635 THE PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION AND EVIDENCE-BASED RATING SCALES Paper

NRNP 6635 THE PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION AND EVIDENCE-BASED RATING SCALES Paper

The Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales

 The Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales

The three most essential components of the psychiatric interview are Psychiatric and medical history, substance use and abuse history, and mental status examination (MSE). Psychiatric and medical history is vital because it helps identify the patient’s past emotional or mental disturbances, Psychosomatic disorders, medical conditions, and neurologic disorders often associated with psychiatric disorders (Tatayeva et al., 2022). Besides, identifying past psychiatric and medical conditions guides the practitioner on the appropriate treatment interventions. 

ORDER A CUSTOM PAPER NOW

The substance use and abuse history since mental disorders are linked with substance use disorders (SUDs). Substance use triggers changes in brain structure and function, increasing the risk of a person developing a mental disorder Patients with mental disorders, like anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), often take drugs or alcohol as a form of self-medication (Kaswa, 2021). Besides, drugs and alcohol worsen symptoms of mental disorders like schizophrenia and depression. The MSE is crucial since it provides information about a patient’s appearance, speech, actions, and thoughts (Martin et al., 2020). It helps to assess the patient’s thinking, feeling, and behavior, which guides in making a psychiatric diagnosis.

The Simple Delusional Syndrome Scale (SDSS) comprises seven items: Logical organization, stability, systemization, conviction, influence on the action, extension, and insertion. The scale is scored from 1-5. Forgácová (2008) performed a statistical analysis that found good psychometric characteristics of the SDSS with a Cronbach coefficient alpha=0.8327. The SDSS has been designed to measure the level of intensity of the delusional syndrome in patients whose clinical examination has established the delusional syndrome. The scale’s structure and the selection of the scale’s items are determined by clinical experience and the theoretical fundament obtained from essential works. The SDSS can help the NP assess changes in delusional syndromes based on the therapeutic effect of psychopharmacological agents.

References

Forgácová, L. (2008). Delusion assessment scales. Neuropsychopharmacologia Hungarica : a Magyar Pszichofarmakologiai Egyesulet lapja = official journal of the Hungarian Association of Psychopharmacology, 10(1), 23–30.

Kaswa, R. (2021). Primary healthcare approach to substance abuse management. South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care, 63(1), e1–e4. https://doi.org/10.4102/safp.v63i1.5307

 Martin, A., Jacobs, A., Krause, R., & Amsalem, D. (2020). The Mental Status Exam: An Online Teaching Exercise Using Video-Based Depictions by Simulated Patients. MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources, 16, 10947. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10947

Tatayeva, R., Ossadchaya, E., Sarculova, S., Sembayeva, Z., & Koigeldinova, S. (2022). Psychosomatic Aspects of The Development of Comorbid Pathology: A Review. Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 36, 152. https://doi.org/10.47176/mjiri.36.152

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

I-L Simple Delusional Syndrome Scale

THE PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION AND EVIDENCE-BASED RATING SCALES

Assessment tools have two primary purposes: 1) to measure illness and diagnose clients, and 2) to measure a client’s response to treatment. Often, you will find that multiple assessment tools are designed to measure the same condition or response. Not all tools, however, are appropriate for use in all clinical situations. You must consider the strengths and weaknesses of each tool to select the appropriate assessment tool for your client. For this Discussion, as you examine the assessment tool assigned to you by the Course Instructor, consider its use in psychotherapy.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Section I: DSM-5 basics. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders Links to an external site.(5th ed., text rev.). https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.5555/appi.books.9780890425787.Section_1Links to an external site.

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Classification. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders Links to an external site.(5th ed., text rev., pp. xiii-xl). https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.5555/appi.books.9780890425787.Section_1Links to an external site.

Review

Carlat, D. J. (2017). The psychiatric interview (4th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.

Chapter 34, Writing Up the Results of the Interview

Boland, R. & Verduin, M. L. & Ruiz, P. (2022). Kaplan & Sadock’s synopsis of psychiatry (12th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.

Chapter 1, “Examination and Diagnosis of the Psychiatric Patient”

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1995). Practice parameters for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescentsLinks to an external site.. https://www.aacap.org/App_Themes/AACAP/docs/practice_parameters/psychiatric_assessment_practice_parameter.pdf

American Psychiatric Association. (2016). Practice guidelines for the psychiatric evaluation of adultsLinks to an external site. (3rd ed.). https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.books.9780890426760

Sadock, B. J., Sadock, V. A., & Ruiz, P. (2017). Classification in psychiatry. In Kaplan and Sadock’s Concise Textbook of Clinical PsychiatryLinks to an external site. (4th ed., pp. 1–8). Wolters Kluwer.

Sadock, B. J., Sadock, V. A., & Ruiz, P. (2017). Psychiatric interview, history, and mental status examination. In Kaplan and Sadock’s Concise Textbook of Clinical PsychiatryLinks to an external site. (4th ed., pp. 39–52). Wolters Kluwer.

Sadock, B. J., Sadock, V. A., & Ruiz, P. (2017). Medical assessment and laboratory testing in psychiatry. In Kaplan and Sadock’s Concise Textbook of Clinical PsychiatryLinks to an external site. (4th ed., pp. 16–21). Wolters Kluwer.

Required Media

Classroom Productions. (Producer). (2015). Diagnostic criteria Links to an external site.[Video]. Walden University.

MedEasy. (2017). Psychiatric history taking and the mental status examination | USMLE & COMLEXLinks to an external site. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5KwDgWX8L8

Psychiatry Lectures. (2015). Psychiatry lecture: How to do a psychiatric assessmentLinks to an external site. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRiCntvec5U

TO PREPARE:

Review this week’s Learning Resources and reflect on the insights they provide regarding psychiatric assessment and diagnosis.

Consider the elements of the psychiatric interview, history, and examination.

Consider the assessment tool assigned to you by the Course Instructor.

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 2

Post a brief explanation of three important components of the psychiatric interview and why you consider these elements important. Explain the psychometric properties of the rating scale you were assigned. Explain when it is appropriate to use this rating scale with clients during the psychiatric interview and how the scale is helpful to a nurse practitioner’s psychiatric assessment. Support your approach with evidence-based literature.

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.

BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 2

Respond to at least two of your colleagues on 2 different days by comparing your assessment tool to theirs.

Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link, and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

NRNP_6635_Week2_Discussion_Rubric

NRNP_6635_Week2_Discussion_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain 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.

44 to >39.0 pts

Excellent

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.

39 to >34.0 pts

Good

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.

34 to >30.0 pts

Fair

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.

30 to >0 pts

Poor

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.

44 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting:Writing

6 to >5.0 pts

Excellent

Written clearly and concisely. … Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. … Further adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.5 to >4.0 pts

Good

Written concisely. … May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. … Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

4 to >3.0 pts

Fair

Written somewhat concisely. … May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. … Contains some APA formatting errors.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

Not written clearly or concisely. … Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. … Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

6 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting:Timely and full participation

10 to >8.0 pts

Excellent

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. … Posts main discussion by due date.

8 to >7.0 pts

Good

Posts main discussion by due date. … Meets requirements for full participation.

7 to >6.0 pts

Fair

Posts main discussion by due date.

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Does not meet requirements for full participation. … Does not post main discussion by due date.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response:Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.

9 to >8.0 pts

Excellent

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 to >7.0 pts

Good

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.

7 to >6.0 pts

Fair

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

9 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response:Writing

6 to >5.0 pts

Excellent

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 to >4.0 pts

Good

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 to >3.0 pts

Fair

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.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication. … Response to faculty questions are missing. … No credible sources are cited.

6 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response:Timely and full participation

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. … Posts by due date.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good

Meets requirements for full participation. … Posts by due date.

3 to >2.0 pts

Fair

Posts by due date.

2 to >0 pts

Poor

Does not meet requirements for full participation. … Does not post by due date.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response:Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.

9 to >8.0 pts

Excellent

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 to >7.0 pts

Good

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.

7 to >6.0 pts

Fair

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

9 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response:Writing

6 to >5.0 pts

Excellent

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 to >4.0 pts

Good

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 to >3.0 pts

Fair

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.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication. … Response to faculty questions are missing. … No credible sources are cited.

6 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response:Timely and full participation

5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. … Posts by due date.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good

Meets requirements for full participation. … Posts by due date.

3 to >2.0 pts

Fair

Posts by due date.

2 to >0 pts

Poor

Does not meet requirements for full participation. … Does not post by due date.

5 pts

Total Points: 100