NRNP 6635 Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Disorders Essay

NRNP 6635 Assessing and Diagnosing Disorders Essay

NRNP 6635 Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With  Disorders Essay

Photo Credit: Getty Images
Accurately diagnosing depressive disorders can be challenging given their periodic and, at times, cyclic
nature. Some of these disorders occur in response to stressors and, depending on the cultural history of
the client, may affect their decision to seek treatment. Bipolar disorders can also be difficult to properly
diagnose. While clients with a bipolar or related disorder will likely have to contend with the disorder
indefinitely, many find that the use of medication and evidence-based treatments have favorable
outcomes.
To Prepare:
 Review this week’s Learning Resources. Consider the insights they provide about assessing and
diagnosing mood disorders.
 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.
 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.
 Consider what history would be necessary to collect from this patient.
 Consider what interview questions you would need to ask this patient.
 Identify at least three possible differential diagnoses for the patient.
By Day 7 of Week 3
Complete and submit your Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation, 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 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.).
Submission and Grading Information
To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:
 Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK3Assgn+last name+first
initial.(extension)” as the name.
 Click the Week 3 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
 Click the Week 3 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from
this area.
 Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document
you saved as “WK3Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
 If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my
paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
 Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:
Week 3 Assignment Rubric

Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity

To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:
Submit your Week 3 Assignment draft and review the originality report.

Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 3

To participate in this Assignment:

Week 3 Assignment
Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.
Name: NRNP_6635_Week3_Assignment_Rubric
Exit
 Grid View
 List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
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

18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
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.

16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
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.

14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
The response describes the patient's
subjective complaint, history of
present illness, past psychiatric
history, medication trials and
current medications, psychotherapy

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:NRNP 6635 Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Disorders Essay

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.

0 (0%) – 13 (13%)
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.

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.

18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
The response thoroughly and
accurately documents the patient's
physical exam for pertinent systems.
Diagnostic tests and their results are
thoroughly and accurately
documented.

16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
The response accurately documents
the patient's physical exam for
pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests
and their results are accurately
documented.

14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
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.

0 (0%) – 13 (13%)
The response provides incomplete
or inaccurate documentation of the
patient's physical exam. Systems
may have been unnecessarily
reviewed, or, objective
documentation is missing.

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 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.

23 (23%) – 25 (25%)
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.

20 (20%) – 22 (22%)
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.

18 (18%) – 19 (19%)
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.

0 (0%) – 17 (17%)
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.

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!), 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.).

9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Reflections are thorough,
thoughtful, and demonstrate critical
thinking.

8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Reflections demonstrate critical
thinking.

7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Reflections are somewhat general or
do not demonstrate critical thinking.

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Reflections are incomplete,
inaccurate, or missing.

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).

14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
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

12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
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 (11%) – 11 (11%)
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.

0 (0%) – 10 (10%)
Two or fewer resources are
provided to support assessment and
diagnosis decisions. The resources
may not be current or evidence
based.

strong justification for decision
making.

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 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow
writing standards for flow,
continuity, and clarity.
A clear and comprehensive purpose
statement, introduction, and
conclusion are provided that
delineate all required criteria.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow
writing standards for flow,
continuity, and clarity 80% of the
time.
Purpose, introduction, and
conclusion of the assignment are
stated, yet they are brief and not
descriptive.

3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow
writing standards for flow,
continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of
the time.
Purpose, introduction, and
conclusion of the assignment is
vague or off topic.

0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow
writing standards for flow,
continuity, and clarity less than 60%
of the time.
No purpose statement,
introduction, or conclusion were
provided.

Written Expression and
Formatting—English writing
standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and
punctuation

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and
punctuation with no errors

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two)
grammar, spelling, and punctuation
errors

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains several (three or four)
grammar, spelling, and punctuation
errors

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (≥ five) grammar,
spelling, and punctuation errors that
interfere with the reader’s
understanding

Total Points: 100
Name: NRNP_6635_Week3_Assignment_Rubric