NRNP 6635 Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales DQ

Want create site? With Free visual composer you can do it easy.

NRNP 6635 Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales DQ

NRNP 6635 Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales DQ

Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire Q-LES-Q: Week 2 Discussion

Week 2 Discussion Main Post:

Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire Q-LES-Q

The objective of any screening tool is to get useful information in addition to assessment data gathered for informed decision-making. By employing these screening assessment tools, issue areas can be identified for psychotherapeutic attention and to assist in the creation of differential diagnoses. Also, The quality of life scale can be used to provide baseline measures that can be used to track changes over time and track treatment outcomes (Wheeler, 2021).

The Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q) was created in 1993 to determine how much enjoyment and satisfaction people have in various aspects of their everyday lives (Endicott et al, 2021). The Q-LES-Q-SF (Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire – Short Form) is a 16-item self-administered survey that measures life satisfaction over the previous week. Each question is graded on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (very poor) to 5 (excellent) (Very Good). Individual item scores are combined and represented as a percentage of the maximum possible score. The General Activities subscale of the wider Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q). The instrument is similar to the short-form of the Q-LES-Q-SF (Mick et al., 2021).  The subjective, holistic picture of one’s living circumstances spanning physical, psychological, and social domains is referred to as quality of life (QOL). The Q-LES-Q is a self-report test that assesses a patient’s satisfaction or happiness and enjoyment in various aspects of daily life. It forecasts the patients’ overall health, as well as their impressions of health services and how to improve them (Riendeau et al., 2018). Based on professional clinical judgment, the original Q-LES-Q scale consists of 93 questions divided into eight subscales: physical health, subjective feelings, leisure time activities, social interactions, job, school/coursework, domestic tasks, and general activities (Riendeau et al., 2018). It will be appropriate and helpful for the nurse practitioner to use the rating scale with clients toward the end of the patient assessment after the patient has gain the nurse practitioner’s trust or a rapport has been established.

NRNP 6635 Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales DQ

The self-measurement tool is offered in two versions: regular and short, with the short version being the most used to assess the quality of life of people with mental illnesses (Petrović et al., 2017). In one research investigation, the Q-LES-Q short form was utilized to assess the clinical status of schizophrenia patients. The rating scale was found to be reliable and valid in observational and cross-sectional studies and the Q-LES-Q short version was found to be an appropriate assessment tool for schizophrenia patients (Petrović- Kitić et al., 2017). As a result of this research, it has been established that Q-LES-Q and Q-LES-Q-SF can be used to assess the efficacy of pharmacological medications in terms of patient satisfaction, as advised for schizophrenia patients.

A brief explanation of three important components of the psychiatric interview

The three important components of the psychiatric interview are how should the initial interview be organized. First to establish a rapport. By doing so, we can build an initial connection with the patient and inquire about the presenting issue or concerns that led them to the first appointment. The patient should be permitted to pursue his or her own thought processes as much as possible during this period of the initial interview. Second, elicit specific information, including a history of the presenting issues, relevant medical information, family history, social history, and specific symptom and behavioral patterns and formally assess your mental health. Then, lastly, ask if the patient has any questions or unmentioned concerns. The patient is then given preliminary recommendations for additional examination and/or therapy (Gibbs, 2013). It is important to use these steps to gain mutual trust and respect.

References

 

Endicott et al. (2021). Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q). Retrieved from Mapi Research Trust: https://eprovide.mapi-trust.org/instruments/quality-of-life-enjoyment-and-satisfaction-questionnaire

Gibbs. (2013). Psychiatric Interview. Retrieved from University of Utah Hospitals and Clinics: https://physicians.utah.edu/echo/pdfs/psychiatric-interview-module-1.pdf

Mick et al. . (2021). Assessing the Validity of the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire—Short Form in Adults With ADHD. Retrieved from SAGE Journals: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1087054707308468?casa_token=ItC5xUiMi4MAAAAA:czs0nGAPPrMdQnzzOZxYiiqdol0lZcdB5V6hqY2QTBbmOXUhQK-KIrHduOivg5s4Yk4UF8BI5FIM

Petrović-Kitić & Janković. (2017). Translation, Cultural Adjustment, and Evaluation of Reliability and Validity of “Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire– Short Form” for Patients with Schizophrenia. Retrieved from Acta facultative medical Naissensis: http://archive.sciendo.com/AFMNAI/afmnai.2017.34.issue-1/afmnai-2017-0005/afmnai-2017-0005.pdf

Riendeau et al. (2018). Factor structure of the Q-LES-Q short form in an enrolled mental health clinic population. Retrieved from NCBI: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6208579/

Wheeler. (2021). The nurse psychotherapist and a framework for practice. Retrieved from American Psychological Association: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-45058-001

 

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.

Photo Credit: [shironosov]/[iStock / Getty Images Plus]/Getty Images
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!
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
Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.
Name: NRNP_6635_Week2_Discussion_Rubric
Exit
 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 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: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely.

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely.

0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or concisely.

Writing

Contains no grammatical or spelling
errors.
Further adheres to current APA
manual writing rules and style.

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

May contain more than two spelling

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:NRNP 6635 Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales DQ

or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting
errors.

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 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: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Timely and full participation

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

Meets requirements for full
participation.
Posts by due date.

Posts by due date. 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.
Response 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_6635_Week2_Discussion_Rubric

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.