· Present the full complex case study. Include chief complaint; history of present illness; any pertinent past psychiatric, substance use, medical, social, family history; most recent mental status exam; current psychiatric diagnosis including differentials that were ruled out; and plan for treatment and management.
· Report normal diagnostic results as the name of the test and “normal” (rather than specific value). Abnormal results should be reported as a specific value.
· Be succinct in your presentation, and do not exceed 8 minutes. Specifically address the following for the patient, using your SOAP note as a guide:
·
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 their mental status examination results. What were your differential diagnoses? Provide a minimum of three possible diagnoses and why you chose them. List them from highest priority to lowest priority. What was your primary diagnosis, and why? Describe how your primary diagnosis aligns with
DSM-5 diagnostic criteria and supported by the patient’s symptoms.
·
Plan: In your video, describe your treatment plan using clinical practice guidelines supported by evidence-based practice. Include a discussion on your chosen FDA-approved psychopharmacologic agents and include alternative treatments available and supported by valid research. All treatment choices must have a discussion of your rationale for the choice supported by valid research. What were your follow-up plan and parameters? What referrals would you make or recommend as a result of this treatment session?
· In your written plan include all the above as well as include 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.
·
Reflection notes: What would you do differently with this patient if you could conduct the session over? If you are able to follow up with your patient, explain whether these interventions were successful and why or why not. If you were not able to conduct a follow up, discuss what your next intervention would be.
PRAC_6665_Week9_Assignment2_Pt1_Rubric
|
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 chosen FDA-approved psychopharmacologic agents and includes alternative treatments available and supported by valid research. The treatment plan includes rationales, a plan for follow-up parameters, and referrals. The discussion includes one social determinant of health according to the HealthyPeople 2030, 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.
|
|
20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent
The video clearly and concisely outlines an evidence-based treatment plan for the patient that addresses FDA-approved psychopharmacologic agents and includes alternative treatments and rationale supported by valid research. … Discussion includes a clear and concise follow-up plan and parameters…. The discussion includes a clear and concise referral plan. … The paper discussion contains 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.
|
17 to >15.0 pts
Good
The video clearly outlines an appropriate treatment plan without evidence-based discussion for the patient that addresses FDA-approved psychopharmacologic agents and includes alternative treatments and rationale supported by vague or questionable research. … Discussion includes a clear follow-up plan and parameters…. The discussion includes a clear referral plan…. The paper discussion contains 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.
|
15 to >13.0 pts
Fair
The response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately outlines a treatment plan for the patient that addresses psychopharmacologic agents without discussion of FDA approval and includes vague or inaccurate alternative treatments with little rationale discussed. … 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. … The paper discussion contains 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.
|
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. There is no mention of FDA approval for treatment choices or no research supported discussion. Alternative treatment discussion is missing. … Rationales for treatments are missing. … There is no discussion for follow-up and parameters. … There is no discussion of a referral plan. … The paper discussion is missing discussion relating to the psychiatric and mental health field or relates discussion to another specialty realm including medical co-morbidity illnesses.
|
|
20 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReflect on this case. Discuss what you learned and what you might do differently.
|
|
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking.
|
4 to >3.5 pts
Good
Reflections demonstrate critical thinking.
|
3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair
Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking.
|
3 to >0 pts
Poor
Reflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing.
|
|
5 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 >3.0 pts
Fair
Presentation style is mostly clear, professional, and focused
|
3 to >0 pts
Poor
Presentation style is unclear, unprofessional, and/or unfocused.
|
|
5 pts
|
|
Total Points: 80
|
Previous
Next
