Questions to answer with and please put at least 2-3 references:

Are you pressed for time and haven’t started working on your assignment yet? Would you like to buy an assignment? Use our custom writing services for better grades. Even if your deadline is approaching fast, our writers can handle your task right when you need it.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

 PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTINS, NO PLAGIARISM, 2-3 REFERENCES, SEE RUBIC ATTACHED

Questions

1. Which medication is FDA approved to treat anxiety and depression in children?

2. Is cultural …

Subjective:

CC (chief complaint):  ” We have been trying to get help for James.”  The patient’s mother sought an appointment because he is resistant to help for his unstable mood, racing thoughts, anxiety, and angry outbursts. He avoids talking about his illness and kicks holes in the wall at home. 

HPI: The patient is a 13-year-old African American male who restarted treatment after a previous visit in June 2021. Due to nausea side effects, he was non-compliant with prescribed clonidine and ADHD medications. He denies mood swings, outbursts, and low motivation reported by his mother. The mother reports a history of suicidal ideation, and the patient states it was “just to get your attention .”The mother states he minimizes symptoms to providers and denies property destruction. The patient states ‘you tend to be very annoying’ about his mother. He dislikes the way she talks to him and argues with her frequently. He was diagnosed with MDD, anxiety, and ADHD, at age 8, at the Children’s hospital. The patient had six months of psychotherapy at Children’s Hospital, which the mother states was unsuccessful because he was “not receptive and wouldn’t open up .”The patient reports that his mother forces him to play sports he hates, and the mother replies that the coaches perceive his lack of interest. He refers to school friends and accuses his mother of preventing him from seeing some of them. The mother replied those friends were unsuitable. He reports getting along with his father. He is provided extra time to complete school work due to ADHD and gets good grades. Past medications include Focalin and Methylphenidate.  

Substance Current Use: None reported

·     Medical History:  Ht: 5′ 7″, Wt: 196 lbs, BMI: 30.70

·     Current Medications: Zoloft 50 mg oral daily, Guanfacine ER 1 mg at bedtime. 

·     Allergies: No known allergies 

· Reproductive Hx: No reproductive history

ROS

·     GENERAL: Patient is overweight.

·     HEENT: Vision and hearing adequate, no coughing, sneezing, or congestion.  

·     SKIN: Normal coloration for ethnicity 

·     CARDIOVASCULAR: No complaints of chest pain or discomfort.

·     RESPIRATORY: No shortness of breath or cough.

·     GASTROINTESTINAL: Good appetite.

·     GENITOURINARY: No burning with urination

·     NEUROLOGICAL: The patient has insomnia and difficulty focusing. 

·     MUSCULOSKELETAL: Broken ankle from playing basketball. 

·     HEMATOLOGIC: No labs available   

·     LYMPHATICS: None reported

·     ENDOCRINOLOGIC: No diabetes 

Objective:

Diagnostic results: None

Assessment:

Mental Status Examination: The patient is alert and oriented x 3 with clear, appropriate speech and concentration. He is well-groomed and looks his stated age of 13 years. He maintains eye contact during conversations appropriately. His affect is flat, and he displays irritability towards his mother, exhibited by frequent arguments. He shows poor insight and difficulty accepting responsibility for his actions. The patient’s racing thoughts, triggered by school work, are displays of anxiety. He denies current suicidal or homicidal ideation and auditory and visual hallucinations. The patient’s fund of knowledge includes a standard awareness of current and past events. 

Diagnostic Impression:

Major depressive episodes recurrent moderate (disorder)

         The patient meets DSM-5 criteria for depression because he displays irritability, lost interest in activities, increased appetite, insomnia, and decreased ability to concentrate and energy. According to DSM-5 recurrent major depressive episodes of depression are separated by at least two months without significant symptoms of depression. The patient’s depressive symptoms significantly impair major areas such as school and home life. They are not the result of medical conditions or medication (APA, 2013).

Anxiety disorder (disorder) (F41.9/300.00) 

      Anxiety disorders are differential diagnoses for depressive symptoms because they are frequently associated. Differentiating anxiety disorders with depression and depressive disorders with marked anxiety is difficult (Sadock, 2015). The patient reports anxiety triggered by school expectations and struggling to maintain good grades. His struggles are focusing due to symptoms of ADHD, further triggering anxiety. The patient is a stress eater due to anxiety and has gained 

weight. Anxiety influences thinking and perceptions by distorting the meaning of events, perception, thinking, and learning (Sadock, 2015). The patient displays interpersonal deficits, cognitive distortions, over-generalization, mental filtering, and emotional reasoning. He has difficulty accepting responsibility for his actions, such as blaming his mother for his low interest in sports. 

Attention-deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Predominantly Inattentive Type (ADHD) (F90.0/314.0)

          Attention, Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is characterized by persistent inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity that causes significant functioning impairment (Saddock et al., 2015). The patient meets DSM-5 criteria for ADHD due to difficulty focusing on school work; he is easily distracted, struggles to meet deadlines, and avoids house chores requiring sustained attention. The patient is allowed extra time in school to complete work due to difficulty focusing and completing tasks on time.

Case Formulation and Treatment Plan: 

Treatment plan

          Start Zoloft 50 mg PO QD for depression and Guanfacine ER 1 mg PO QHS for sleep and ADHD. The patient will continue outpatient therapy with a referral for psychotherapy. 

Follow-up with primary care physician for somatic complaints recommended. The PMHNP patient and mother to abstain from alcohol and non-prescribed drugs—patient education about the importance of treatment compliance and the benefits and risks of medications. The patient is encouraged to stop medications for intolerable side effects and call 911 or go to the ED if feeling suicidal or homicidal. The PMHNP discussed the diagnosis, treatment options, drugs, benefits, and side effects with the patient and mother, who verbalized understanding and agreement. The patient’s next follow-up appointment is in 2-3 weeks.

 

Reflections

 

Objectives

          This paper aims to complete a grand rounds presentation on a 13-year-old male patient with MDD, Recurrent moderate, Anxiety Disorder, and ADHD. Individuals viewing this presentation will identify symptoms of MDD Recurrent moderate, Anxiety Disorder and ADHD in adolescents and name appropriate first-line medications and nonpharmacological treatments. Viewers will recognize the relevance of culturally sensitive treatments to patient outcomes.   

Rule out Disruptive Mood Dysregulation (DMDD) (296.99 (F34.81)

          This PMHNP will rule out DMDD, a depressive disorder characterized by severe tantrums, chronic irritability, and angry mood with outbursts for future patients with similar symptoms (Sadock et al., 2015). Pervasive irritability and intolerance of frustration characterize DMDD (APA, 2013). The behaviors occur in at least two settings, at least three times a week, for at least a year, starting at the age of at least ten and before age 18. Children with DMDD frequently have bipolar disorder, ADD, ADHD, and intermittent explosive disorder as comorbidities (Sadock et al., 2015). The patient has ADHD, irritability, and frequent outbursts affecting his family relationship significantly that meet DSM-5 criteria.  

Mentoring programs

         This PMHNP will encourage a future patient to join a mentorship program. Studies indicate strong relationships with a nonparental adult positively affect at-risk adolescents in areas such as self-esteem and academic achievements (Boat et al., 2019). The patient with difficulty getting along with his mother and school work may benefit from mentoring.

Cultural identity

          This PMHNP reflects that the patient dislikes how his Jamaican mother talks to him and argues with her frequently. He is a mixed-race child of a Jamaican mother and Caucasian father whom he admits to getting along better. Mothers, as the primary caretakers, play an essential role in ethnic identity affirmation and the healthy development of children. Studies indicate mother / adolescent communication with exchanged dialogue, talking, and listening fostered feelings of love and support in youth. The relevance of this is the patient’s parents may benefit from a culturally sensitive, strength-based family intervention program indicated by studies to improve self-regulation, communication, and youth outcomes (Ahn et al., 2021). Studies also suggest that parenting is equally vital to adolescent self-control across cultures and ethnicities (Li et al., 2019).  

Questions

1. Which medication is FDA approved to treat anxiety and depression in children?

2. Is cultural sensitivity relevant to adolescent mental health?

3. To what extent are parents included in adolescent patient visits?

 

References

Ahn, L. H., Dunbar, A. S., Coates, E. E., & Smith-Bynum, M. A. (2021). Cultural and Universal Parenting, Ethnic Identity, and Internalizing Symptoms Among African American Adolescents. Journal of Black Psychology47(8), 695–717. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/00957984211034290


American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 

 Boat, A. A., Weiler, L. M., Bailey, M., Haddock, S., & Henry, K. (2019). Mentor’s self-efficacy trajectories during a mentoring program for at-risk adolescents. Journal of Primary Prevention, 40(6), 575-589. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-019-00566-z

  Li, J.-B., Willems, Y. E., Stok, F. M., Deković, M., Bartels, M., & Finkenauer, C. (2019). Parenting and Self-Control Across Early to Late Adolescence: A Three-Level Meta-Analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(6), 967–1005. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619863046

Sadock, B. J., Sadock, V. A., & Ruiz, P. (2015). Kaplan & Sadock’s synopsis of psychiatry (11th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.

Rubric Detail

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

Content

Name: PRAC_6675_Week7_Discussion_Presenter_Rubric

  Excellent Good Fair Poor
Photo ID Display and Professional Attire

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Photo ID is displayed. The student is dressed professionally with a lab coat.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Photo ID is not displayed. Student must remedy this before grade is posted. The student is not dressed professionally with a lab coat.

Feedback:

Time

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

The video does not exceed the 8-minute time limit.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

The video exceeds the 8-minute time limit. (Note: Information presented after the 8 minutes will not be evaluated for grade inclusion.)

Feedback:

Objectives for the Presentation

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

3–4 objectives provided and written in terms of what the audience will know or be able to do after viewing. Appropriate Bloom’s verbs are used. Objectives are targeted and clear.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

3–4 objectives provided and written in terms of what the audience will know or be able to do after viewing. Appropriate Bloom’s verbs are used.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

At least 3 objectives provided and written in terms of what the audience will know or be able to do after viewing, but are somewhat vague or unclear. Appropriate Bloom’s verbs may be missing.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Fewer than 3 objectives provided. Objectives for the presentation are vague, unclear, or missing.

Feedback:

Discuss subjective data:

• Chief complaint

• History of present illness (HPI)

• Medications

• Psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis

• Pertinent histories and/or ROS

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

The video is a Kaltura video and accurately and concisely presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

The video is not a Kaltura video but easily opened and accurately presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

The video is not a Kaltura video and did not open without needing to reach the student. The 2nd attempt video presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis but is somewhat vague or contains minor inaccuracies.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

There is no video submission or video presents an incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose description of the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Or subjective documentation is missing.

Feedback:

Discuss objective data:

• 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

Points:

Points Range:
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

The video accurately and concisely documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Pertinent diagnostic tests and their results are documented, as applicable.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

The response provides incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose documentation of the patient’s physical exam. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed, or objective documentation is missing.

Feedback:

Discuss results of assessment:

• Results of the mental status examination

• Provide a minimum of three possible diagnoses in order of highest to lowest priority and explain why you chose them. What was your primary diagnosis and why? Describe how your primary diagnosis aligns with DSM-5 diagnostic criteria and is supported by the patient’s symptoms.

Points:

Points Range:
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)

The video accurately documents the results of the mental status exam.

Video presents at least 3 differentials in order of priority for a differential diagnosis of the patient, and a rationale for their selection.

Response justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

The video adequately documents the results of the mental status exam.

Video presents 3 differentials for the patient and a rationale for their selection. Response adequately justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

The video presents the results of the mental status exam, with some vagueness or inaccuracy.

Video presents 3 differentials for the patient and a rationale for their selection. Response somewhat vaguely justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 13 (13%)

The response provides an incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose description of the results of the mental status exam and explanation of the differential diagnoses. Or assessment documentation is missing.

Feedback:

Discuss treatment plan:

• A treatment plan for the patient that addresses psychotherapy; one health promotion activity and one patient education strategy; plan for treatment and management, including alternative therapies; pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters; and a rationale for the approaches selected.

Points:

Points Range:
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)

The video clearly and concisely outlines an evidence-based treatment plan for the patient that addresses psychotherapy, health promotion and patient education, treatment and management, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters. A clear and concise rationale for the treatment approaches recommended is provided.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

The video clearly outlines an appropriate treatment plan for the patient that addresses psychotherapy, health promotion and patient education, treatment and management, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters. A clear rationale for the treatment approaches recommended is provided.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately outlines a treatment plan for the patient and provides a rationale for the treatment approaches recommended.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 13 (13%)

The response does not address the diagnosis or is missing elements of the treatment plan.

Feedback:

Reflect on this case. Discuss what you learned and what you might do differently.

Pose 3 questions or discussion prompts, based on your presentation, that your colleagues can respond to after viewing your video.

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking.

Questions or prompts for colleagues are thought-provoking and will require substantive responses and critical thinking.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Reflections demonstrate critical thinking. Questions or prompts for colleagues are appropriate and will require substantive responses.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking. Questions or prompts for colleagues are somewhat general and may not require substantive responses.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Reflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing. Questions or prompts for colleagues are general, inappropriate, or missing.

Feedback:

Focused SOAP Note

Points:

Points Range:
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly follows the SOAP format to document the selected patient case. 2 SOAP notes are submitted one in word and one pdf/images of preceptor signature.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

The response accurately follows the SOAP format to document the selected patient case. Only word document SOAP note submitted, no pdf/images of preceptor signature submitted.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

The response follows the SOAP format to document the selected patient case, with some vagueness and inaccuracy. Only pdf/images of preceptor signature submitted, no word document SOAP note submitted.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

The response incompletely and inaccurately follows the SOAP format to document the selected patient case. No word document or pdf/images of preceptor signature submitted.

Feedback:

Presentation Style

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Presentation style is exceptionally clear, professional, and focused.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Presentation syle is clear, professional, and focused.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Presentation style is unclear, unprofessional, and/or unfocused.

Feedback:

Discussion Facilitation

Points:

Points Range:
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

Presenters effectively lead, sustain, and engage the discussion from Day 4 through Day 7.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Presenters lead, sustain, and engage the discussion from Day 4 through Day 7.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Presenters lead, sustain, and engage the discussion at least three out of four days between Days 4 and 7.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Presenters did not sustain and engage the discussion through Day 7.

Feedback:

Show Descriptions

Show Feedback

Photo ID Display and Professional Attire–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Photo ID is displayed. The student is dressed professionally with a lab coat.

Good
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

 

Fair
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

 

Poor
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Photo ID is not displayed. Student must remedy this before grade is posted. The student is not dressed professionally with a lab coat.

Feedback:

Time–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

The video does not exceed the 8-minute time limit.

Good
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

 

Fair
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

 

Poor
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

The video exceeds the 8-minute time limit. (Note: Information presented after the 8 minutes will not be evaluated for grade inclusion.)

Feedback:

Objectives for the Presentation–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

3–4 objectives provided and written in terms of what the audience will know or be able to do after viewing. Appropriate Bloom’s verbs are used. Objectives are targeted and clear.

Good
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

3–4 objectives provided and written in terms of what the audience will know or be able to do after viewing. Appropriate Bloom’s verbs are used.

Fair
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

At least 3 objectives provided and written in terms of what the audience will know or be able to do after viewing, but are somewhat vague or unclear. Appropriate Bloom’s verbs may be missing.

Poor
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Fewer than 3 objectives provided. Objectives for the presentation are vague, unclear, or missing.

Feedback:

Discuss subjective data:

• Chief complaint

• History of present illness (HPI)

• Medications

• Psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis

• Pertinent histories and/or ROS

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

The video is a Kaltura video and accurately and concisely presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis.

Good
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

The video is not a Kaltura video but easily opened and accurately presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis.

Fair
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

The video is not a Kaltura video and did not open without needing to reach the student. The 2nd attempt video presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis but is somewhat vague or contains minor inaccuracies.

Poor
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

There is no video submission or video presents an incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose description of the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Or subjective documentation is missing.

Feedback:

Discuss objective data:

• 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

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

The video accurately and concisely documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Pertinent diagnostic tests and their results are documented, as applicable.

Good
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

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

Fair
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

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

Poor
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

The response provides incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose documentation of the patient’s physical exam. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed, or objective documentation is missing.

Feedback:

Discuss results of assessment:

• Results of the mental status examination

• Provide a minimum of three possible diagnoses in order of highest to lowest priority and explain why you chose them. What was your primary diagnosis and why? Describe how your primary diagnosis aligns with DSM-5 diagnostic criteria and is supported by the patient’s symptoms.

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)

The video accurately documents the results of the mental status exam.

Video presents at least 3 differentials in order of priority for a differential diagnosis of the patient, and a rationale for their selection.

Response justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria.

Good
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

The video adequately documents the results of the mental status exam.

Video presents 3 differentials for the patient and a rationale for their selection. Response adequately justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria.

Fair
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

The video presents the results of the mental status exam, with some vagueness or inaccuracy.

Video presents 3 differentials for the patient and a rationale for their selection. Response somewhat vaguely justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria.

Poor
0 (0%) – 13 (13%)

The response provides an incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose description of the results of the mental status exam and explanation of the differential diagnoses. Or assessment documentation is missing.

Feedback:

Discuss treatment plan:

• A treatment plan for the patient that addresses psychotherapy; one health promotion activity and one patient education strategy; plan for treatment and management, including alternative therapies; pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters; and a rationale for the approaches selected.

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)

The video clearly and concisely outlines an evidence-based treatment plan for the patient that addresses psychotherapy, health promotion and patient education, treatment and management, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters. A clear and concise rationale for the treatment approaches recommended is provided.

Good
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

The video clearly outlines an appropriate treatment plan for the patient that addresses psychotherapy, health promotion and patient education, treatment and management, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters. A clear rationale for the treatment approaches recommended is provided.

Fair
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately outlines a treatment plan for the patient and provides a rationale for the treatment approaches recommended.

Poor
0 (0%) – 13 (13%)

The response does not address the diagnosis or is missing elements of the treatment plan.

Feedback:

Reflect on this case. Discuss what you learned and what you might do differently.

Pose 3 questions or discussion prompts, based on your presentation, that your colleagues can respond to after viewing your video.

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking.

Questions or prompts for colleagues are thought-provoking and will require substantive responses and critical thinking.

Good
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Reflections demonstrate critical thinking. Questions or prompts for colleagues are appropriate and will require substantive responses.

Fair
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking. Questions or prompts for colleagues are somewhat general and may not require substantive responses.

Poor
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Reflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing. Questions or prompts for colleagues are general, inappropriate, or missing.

Feedback:

Focused SOAP Note–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly follows the SOAP format to document the selected patient case. 2 SOAP notes are submitted one in word and one pdf/images of preceptor signature.

Good
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

The response accurately follows the SOAP format to document the selected patient case. Only word document SOAP note submitted, no pdf/images of preceptor signature submitted.

Fair
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

The response follows the SOAP format to document the selected patient case, with some vagueness and inaccuracy. Only pdf/images of preceptor signature submitted, no word document SOAP note submitted.

Poor
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

The response incompletely and inaccurately follows the SOAP format to document the selected patient case. No word document or pdf/images of preceptor signature submitted.

Feedback:

Presentation Style–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Presentation style is exceptionally clear, professional, and focused.

Good
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Presentation syle is clear, professional, and focused.

Fair
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

 

Poor
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Presentation style is unclear, unprofessional, and/or unfocused.

Feedback:

Discussion Facilitation–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

Presenters effectively lead, sustain, and engage the discussion from Day 4 through Day 7.

Good
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Presenters lead, sustain, and engage the discussion from Day 4 through Day 7.

Fair
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Presenters lead, sustain, and engage the discussion at least three out of four days between Days 4 and 7.

Poor
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Presenters did not sustain and engage the discussion through Day 7.

Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: PRAC_6675_Week7_Discussion_Presenter_Rubric

Writerbay.net

Most students find it hard to finish papers at some point in their studies. If it ever happens to you, don’t get desperate—we have a service for every writing emergency! Whether you’re stuck with a problem, equation, or a piece of creative writing, we will definitely come to your rescue. Fill in the order form with the details of your paper. Write your personal instructions so we can meet your expectations.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper