Discussion: Comprehensive Integrated Psychiatric Assessment

Discussion: Comprehensive Integrated Psychiatric Assessment

Photo Credit: Seventyfour / Adobe Stock

Many assessment principles are the same for children and adults; however, unlike with adults/older adults, where consent for participation in the assessment comes from the actual client, with children it is the parents or guardians who must make the decision for treatment. Issues of confidentiality, privacy, and consent must be addressed. When working with children, it is not only important to be able to connect with the pediatric patient, but also to be able to collaborate effectively with the caregivers, other family members, teachers, and school counselors/psychologists, all of whom will be able to provide important context and details to aid in your assessment and treatment plans.

Some children/adolescents may be more difficult to assess than adults, as they can be less psychologically minded. That is, they have less insights into themselves and their motivations than adults (although this is not universally true). The PMHNP must also take into consideration the child’s culture and environmental context. Additionally, with children/adolescents, there are lower rates of neurocognitive disorders superimposed on other clinical conditions, such as depression or anxiety, which create additional diagnostic challenges. 

In this Discussion, you review and critique the techniques and methods of a mental health professional as the practitioner completes a comprehensive, integrated psychiatric assessment of an adolescent. You also identify rating scales and treatment options that are specifically appropriate for children/adolescents. 

To Prepare

· Review the Learning Resources and consider the insights they provide on comprehensive, integrated psychiatric assessment. Watch the Mental Status Examination B-6 and Simulation Scenario-Adolescent Risk Assessment videos.

· Watch the YMH Boston Vignette 5 video and take notes; you will use this video as the basis for your Discussion post.

By Day 3 of Week 1

Based on the YMH Boston Vignette 5 video, post answers to the following questions:

· What did the practitioner do well? In what areas can the practitioner improve?

· At this point in the clinical interview, do you have any compelling concerns? If so, what are they?

· What would be your next question, and why?

Then, address the following. Your answers to these prompts do not have to be tailored to the patient in the YMH Boston video.

· Explain why a thorough psychiatric assessment of a child/adolescent is important.

· Describe two different symptom rating scales that would be appropriate to use during the psychiatric assessment of a child/adolescent.

· Describe two psychiatric treatment options for children and adolescents that may not be used when treating adults.

· Explain the role parents/guardians play in assessment.

Support your response with at least three peer-reviewed, evidence-based sources and explain why each of your supporting sources is considered scholarly. Attach the PDFs of your sources.

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.

By Day 6 of Week 1

Respond to at least two of your colleagues on 2 different days by offering additional insights or alternative perspectives on their analysis of the video, other rating scales that may be used with children, or other treatment options for children not yet mentioned. Be specific and provide a rationale with evidence.

Vignette 5 – Assessing for Depression in a Mental Health Appointment

Rubric Detail

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

Name: NRNP_6665_Week1_Discussion_Rubric

·

Grid View

·

List View

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.

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.

0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.

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

Name: NRNP_6665_Week1_Discussion_Rubric

Exit

Exit

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order