NRNP 6635 Assignment: Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales

NRNP 6635 Assignment: Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales

NRNP 6635 Assignment: Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales

There are two major purposes of Assessment tools: 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.

Photo Credit: [shironosov]/[iStock / Getty Images Plus]/Getty Images

To Prepare: Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales paper

• 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

According to NRNP 6635 Assignment: Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales 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.

https://topnursingpapers.com/nrnp-6635-psychiatric-evaluation-and-evidence-based-rating-scales-2/

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: As stated in this  Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating ScalesDiscussion, 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!

Submission and Grading Information

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 2 Discussion Rubric

 

Post by Day 3 of Week 2 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 2

 

To Participate in this Discussion:

Week 2 Discussion

Also Check Out: NRNP 6635 Discussion Factors That Influence the Development of Psychopathology

WEEK 2 DISCUSSION POST – NRNP 6635.

The Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales

The Global Assessment of functioning (GAF) Scale

The purpose of assessment tools used in measuring psychiatric illnesses and to diagnose patients with behavioral or mental health disorders are very different from the tools used to diagnose and treat bodily illnesses and injuries. Mental illness symptoms manifest in many different ways, including cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and sometimes physical ways. One of the behavioral health assessment tools is the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) Scale. In psychiatry, the severity of the illness can be scored by the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) (Aas, 2011). The GAF scale can be used in psychiatry by the PMHNP and other providers to measure the seriousness of the mental illness, and how the symptoms affect the day-to-day life of the patient, on a scale of 0-100, with 10 representing perfect functioning. Doctors use a GAF score to determine how much help a person may need due to their illness (Nall, 2018).

Examples of the scoring system’s criteria/the psychometric properties of the rating scale

• 100 to 91. Superior functioning with no symptoms that impair functioning.
• 90 to 81. Absent minimal symptoms, such as anxiety before an exam.
• 80 to 71. Slight impairment in work or school with occasional symptoms that are expected reactions to psychological stressors.
• 70 to 61. Mild symptoms, such as mild insomnia or depressed mood or some difficulty in social, occupational, or home situations.
• 60 to 51. Moderate symptoms, such as occasional panic attacks, or some difficulty in building meaningful social relationships.
• 50 to 41. Serious symptoms, such as suicidal thoughts or severe, obsessive rituals. The person could also have severe impairment in work, such as being unable to keep a job.
• 40 to 31. Some impairment in communication, psychosis (loss of touch with reality) or both, or major impairment in school, work, family life, judgment, thinking, or mood.
• 30 to 21. A person experiences frequent delusions or hallucinations or features severely impaired communication or judgment. They’re unable to function in almost all areas, such as staying in bed all day and have no meaningful relationships.
• 20 to 11. A person is in danger of hurting themselves or others. They may have made suicide attempts, display frequent violent behaviors, or have major impairments in communication, such as muteness or speaking incoherently.
• 10 to 1. A person is in almost constant danger of hurting themselves or others has made a serious suicidal act with clear expectation of death, or both.
• 0. There’s inadequate information to assess the person.

Three Important Components of the Psychiatric Interview and Why You Consider These Elements Important.

The main goal of a psychiatric interview is to collect data necessary for accurate diagnosis and formulate an effective treatment plan for psychiatric and mental health illnesses. The three important components of a psychiatric interview include: (1). The History or (Subjective) Section – this section covers the data on The Chief Complain, History of present illness, past medical and Psychiatric History, Social History, Family history, Medical history, Past surgical history, and Allergies. (2). The Mental Status Examination (Subjective) Section –this section will include data on Appearance and behavior, Motor tics, Eye contact/cooperative/speech, Mood & Effect, Thought content & process, Cognition and Orientation. (3). Physical Assessment – this section contains the history and the review of systems (ROS) including – Age/Race/Gender, HEENT, Cardiovascular, Respiratory, Abdominal, Neurological, Musculoskeletal, and Skin/Hair/Nails. These elements are very important because according to Sadock et al, (2017), a well-conducted psychiatric interview results in a multidimensional understanding of the biopsychological elements of the disorder and provides the information necessary for the psychiatrist, in collaboration with the patient, to develop a person-centered treatment plan.

References for the Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales assignment

Aas I. H. (2011). Guidelines for rating Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). Annals of

general psychiatry, 10, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-859X-10-2

Nall, R. (2018). What Does My GAF Score Mean?  https://www.healthline.com/health/gaf-score

Sadock, B., Sadock, V. A., & Ruiz, P. (2017). Kaplan and Sadock’s concise textbook of clinical

psychiatry. ProQuest E-book Central https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Rubric Detail

 

Top nursing paper writers on hand to assist you with assignment : NRNP 6635 Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales

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

Name: NRNP 6635 Week2 Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales Discussion Rubric

		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 as required in NRNP 6635 Assignment: Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales		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: NRNP 6635 Assignment: Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales requires you to post to a 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%) 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%) 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: according to NRNP 6635 Assignment: Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales, 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%) 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%) 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: NRNP 6635 Assignment: Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales considers 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