Blog

Pedagogical Content Knowledge Assignment

COMPREHENSIVE PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION NOTE AND PATIENT CASE PRESENTATION

•  
  • Subjective: What details did the patient provide regarding their chief complaint and symptomology to derive your differential diagnosis? What was 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 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-TR diagnostic criteria and is supported by the patient’s symptoms.
  • Plan: Describe your treatment modality and your plan for psychotherapy. Explain the principles of psychotherapy that underline your chosen treatment plan to support your rationale for the chosen psychotherapy framework. What were your follow-up plan and parameters? What referrals would you make or recommend as a result of this psychotherapy session?
  • Reflection notes: What would you do differently in a similar patient evaluation? Reflect on one social determinant of health according to the HealthyPeople 2030 (you will need to research) as applied to this case in the realm of psychiatry and mental health. As a future advanced provider, what are one health promotion activity and one patient education consideration for this patient for improving health disparities and inequities in the realm of psychiatry and mental health? Demonstrate your critical thinking.

BY DAY 7

Submit your Video and Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Note Assignment. You must submit two files for the evaluation note, including a Word document and completed assignment document signed by your Preceptor.

SUBMISSION INFORMATION

Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area. 

1. To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK7Assgn2+last name+first initial.
2. Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
3. Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.

Rubric

PRAC_6645_Week7_Assignment2_Rubric

 

Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePhoto ID display and professional attire	5 to >0.0 pts Excellent Photo ID is displayed. The student is dressed professionally.   0 pts Fair   0 pts Good   0 pts Poor Photo ID is not displayed. Student must remedy this before grade is posted. The student is not dressed professionally.	5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTime	5 to >3.0 pts Excellent The video does not exceed the 8-minute time limit.   3 to >0.0 pts Good The video exceeds the 8-minute time limit. (Note: Information presented after 8 minutes will not be evaluated for grade inclusion.)   0 pts Fair   0 pts Poor	5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscuss Subjective data:• Chief complaint• History of present illness (HPI)• Medications• Psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis• Pertinent histories and/or ROS	10 to >8.0 pts Excellent The video 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.   8 to >7.0 pts Good The video 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.   7 to >6.0 pts Fair The 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.   6 to >0 pts Poor The 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.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscuss 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	10 to >8.0 pts Excellent The video accurately and concisely documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Pertinent diagnostic tests and their results are documented, as applicable.   8 to >7.0 pts Good The response accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are documented, as applicable.   7 to >6.0 pts Fair Documentation of the patient’s physical exam is somewhat vague or contains minor inaccuracies. Diagnostic tests and their results are documented but contain inaccuracies.   6 to >0 pts Poor 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.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscuss 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.	20 to >17.0 pts Excellent The video accurately documents the results of the mental status exam…. Video presents at least three 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.   17 to >15.0 pts Good The video adequately documents the results of the mental status exam…. Video presents three differentials for the patient and a rationale for their selection. Response adequately justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria.   15 to >13.0 pts Fair The video presents the results of the mental status exam, with some vagueness or inaccuracy…. Video presents three 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.   13 to >0 pts Poor 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.	20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscuss treatment Plan:• A treatment plan for the patient that addresses psychotherapy and rationales including a plan for follow-up parameters and referrals	20 to >17.0 pts Excellent The video clearly and concisely outlines an evidence-based treatment plan for the patient that addresses treatment modality, psychotherapy choice with framework principles, and rationale. … Discussion includes a clear and concise follow-up plan and parameters…. The discussion includes a clear and concise referral plan.   17 to >15.0 pts Good The video clearly outlines an appropriate treatment plan without evidence-based discussion for the patient that addresses treatment modality, psychotherapy choice with framework principles, and rationale. … Discussion includes a clear follow-up plan and parameters…. The discussion includes a clear referral plan.   15 to >13.0 pts Fair The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately outlines a treatment plan for the patient and provides a rationale for the treatment approaches recommended…. The discussion is somewhat vague or inaccurate regarding the follow-up plan and parameters…. The discussion is somewhat vague or inaccurate regarding a referral plan.   13 to >0 pts Poor The response does not address the treatment plan or the treatment plan is not appropriate for the assessment and the diagnosis or is missing elements of the treatment plan. … There is no discussion for follow-up and parameters. … There is no discussion of a referral plan.	20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReflections on this case.	5 to >4.0 pts Excellent Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking. … Reflections contain all 3 elements from the assignment directions including a discussion demonstrating critical thinking of the case related to the HealthyPeople 2030 social health determinates. Clearly and concisely relates discussion to the psychiatric and mental health field.   4 to >3.5 pts Good Reflections demonstrate critical thinking. … Reflections demonstrate critical thinking. … Reflections contain 2 of the elements from the assignment directions with one being a basic discussion of the case related to the HealthyPeople 2030 social health determinates. Clearly relates discussion to the psychiatric and mental health field.   3.5 to >3.0 pts Fair Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking. … Reflections contain 1 of the required elements from the assignment directions which is the HealthyPeople 2030 social health determinates. … Somewhat vaguely or inaccurately relates discussion to the psychiatric and mental health field.   3 to >0 pts Poor Reflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing. … There are no Reflections elements from the assignment directions (no HeathlyPeople 2030 social health determinates, no health promotion, and no education activity). … Missing discussion relating to the psychiatric and mental health field or relates discussion to another specialty realm including medical co-morbidity illnesses.	5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeComprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation documentation	20 to >17.0 pts Excellent The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly follows the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation format to document the selected patient case. Preceptor signature and date pdf/image is uploaded on the completed assignment (not an electronic signature).   17 to >15.0 pts Good The response accurately follows the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation format to document the selected patient case. Preceptor signature and date pdf/image is uploaded on the completed assignment but is an electronic signature.   15 to >13.0 pts Fair The response follows the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation format to document the selected patient case, with some vagueness and inaccuracy Preceptor signature and date pdf/image is uploaded on the completed assignment but is an electronic signature.   13 to >0 pts Poor The response incompletely and inaccurately follows the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation format to document the selected patient case. No preceptor signature.	20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePresentation style	5 to >4.0 pts Excellent Presentation style is exceptionally clear, professional, and focused.   4 to >3.5 pts Good Presentation style is clear, professional, and focused.   3.5 to >2.0 pts Fair Presentation style is mostly clear, professional, and focused.   2 to >0 pts Poor Presentation style is unclear, unprofessional, and/or unfocused.	5

assignment 7

Case Study on Death and Dying

Assessment Description:

The practice of health care providers at all levels brings them into contact with people from a variety of faiths. This calls for knowledge and understanding of a diversity of faith expressions; for the purpose of this course, the focus will be on the Christian worldview.

Based on “Case Study: End of Life Decisions,” the Christian worldview, and the worldview questions presented in the required topic resources you will complete an ethical analysis of George’s situation and his decision from the perspective of the Christian worldview.

Provide a 1,500-2,000-word ethical analysis while answering the following questions:

1. How would George interpret his suffering in light of the Christian narrative, with an emphasis on the fallenness of the world?
2. How would George interpret his suffering in light of the Christian narrative, with an emphasis on the hope of resurrection?
3. As George contemplates life with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), how would the Christian worldview inform his view about the value of his life as a person?
4. What sorts of values and considerations would the Christian worldview focus on in deliberating about whether or not George should opt for euthanasia?
5. Given the above, what options would be morally justified in the Christian worldview for George and why?
6. Based on your worldview, what decision would you make if you were in George’s situation?

-Remember to support your responses with the topic resources.

-Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines for APA format

!!!An abstract is required!!!!

REMEMBER: The written paper must include an introduction, thesis statement, and summary.

Cybercrime

Your answer should be written using your own words. Do not ‘copy and paste’ from your textbook or an Internet source. Simply copying from the book word-for-word does not show me that you understand the concepts.  Ensure you cite your work and add reference(s) at the end of your journal.

 

Please review the APA Cheat Sheet in Course Resources under the Start Here section if you need assistance.  As a criminal justice professional, it is imperative that you learn the finer aspects of writing.  Citing and referencing are part of the gradable criteria for your weekly work.

 

Topic:

 

Which problems does cybercrime pose to authorities seeking to investigate it?

Criminal Justice

genetic improvement

Select one article on the any aspect of genetic improvement of an agronomic plant or an animal (not human) from a source (must be at least 1-2 pages long to write a full page summary).  Do not use a journal – this would be too long of a source (use Delta Farm Press, Poultry Mgmt, American Livestock Magazine, Ag Weekly, Horticulture, etc. – just to name a few that are available).  Write a summary of this improvement of either a plant or animal.  DO NOT COPY FROM OR PLAGIARIZE FROM THIS ARTICLE – Will result in an F.

 

This article must be on an aspect of genetic improvement.  Remember that genetic improvement is making an organism better!  May use the internet for this article.

 

Specific Requirements

• At least 1.5 full pages in length for essay
• 12 pt. Times New Roman or Arial font, 1” margins, double spaced.
• Must be written in Microsoft Office (Word) only
• Written in the objective third person perspective (do not use I, we, you, etc.)
• A coversheet is required (student name, course prefix & number, organism paper is about).  Do not place the information from coversheet on any of the following pages.
• Do not directly quote a source in your paper, but rather summarize or paraphrase the article with appropriate in-text citations and reference page (10 points for reference page). 
• You must use one article and summarize it.
• Two documents submitted at the same time (coversheet, summary = 1st document, citations= 2nd document)
• SafeAssign score on summary must be 20% or below in order to be graded
• MLA or APA citation is acceptable, just be consistent in one style.  Internet articles must be cited with the date acquired.

Medical Sociology

Choose any topic 

Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative

Assessment Description:

This assignment will incorporate a common practical tool in helping clinicians begin to ethically analyze a case. Organizing the data in this way will help you apply the four principles (also known as principlism): 1) beneficence 2) nonmaleficence 3) autonomy, 4) justice; and four boxes approach (see attached file)

Based on the “Case Study: Healing and Autonomy” and other required topic Resources, you will complete the “Applying the Four Principles: Case Study” document that includes the following:

Part 1: Chart

This chart will formalize the four principles and four boxes approach and the four-boxes approach by organizing the data from the case study according to the relevant principles of biomedical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice.

 

Part 2: Evaluation

This part includes questions, to be answered in a total of 500 words, that describe how principlism would be applied according to the Christian worldview.

 

-Remember to support your responses with the topic resources.

-APA style is not required, but solid academic writing is expected (ex. brief introduction including purpose of paper and closing summary)

Golden Rice

paper covering Golden Rice is required.  This paper must cover the development and story of golden rice (why the development- who benefits, how it is different from common rice, how it was developed, where it is grown (legally).  Attached is the link to one major website on Golden Rice.  Your paper must include 2 other sources (scientific referred publications, such as a journal article), not websites that are not peer reviewed.

Paper must be a minimum of 3 full pages of essay (coversheet also required).  Arial or New Times Roman 12 font, double spaced,  1″ margins; (On the essay pages, do not include your name or topic, etc – just essay)

 List the additional citations 

Also, SafeAssign score must be at 20 or below to be graded.(If your citation is included, then it is flagged in SafeAssign and elevated your score – this the proper documentation needed, but is improperly scored by SafeAssign.