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.

Rubric Detail

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

Content
Name: NRNP_6665_Week1_Discussion_Rubric

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.

Points:

Points Range:
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 three current credible sources

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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 three credible references

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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 supported by fewer than two credible references

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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 one or no credible references

Feedback:

Main Posting:

Writing

Points:

Points Range:
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Written concisely

May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style with minor errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Written somewhat concisely

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Contains some APA formatting errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Not written clearly or concisely

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style

Feedback:

Main Posting:

Timely and full participation

Points:

Points Range:
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

Posts main Discussion by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Posts main Discussion by due date

Meets requirements for full participation

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Posts main Discussion by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation

Does not post main Discussion by due date

Feedback:

First Response:

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

Feedback:

First Response:
Writing

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Response posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Few or no credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

First Response:
Timely and full participation

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

Posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation

Posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation

Does not post by due date

Feedback:

Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

Feedback:

Second Response:
Writing

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

Second Response:
Timely and full participation

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

Posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation

Posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation

Does not post by due date

Feedback:

Show Descriptions

Show Feedback

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.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
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 three current credible sources

Good
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 three credible references

Fair
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 supported by fewer than two credible references

Poor
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 one or no credible references

Feedback:

Main Posting:

Writing–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

Good
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Written concisely

May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style with minor errors

Fair
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Written somewhat concisely

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Contains some APA formatting errors

Poor
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Not written clearly or concisely

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style

Feedback:

Main Posting:

Timely and full participation–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

Posts main Discussion by due date

Good
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Posts main Discussion by due date

Meets requirements for full participation

Fair
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Posts main Discussion by due date

Poor
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation

Does not post main Discussion by due date

Feedback:

First Response:

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
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.

Good
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.

Fair
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

Poor
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

Feedback:

First Response:
Writing–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
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.

Good
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.

Fair
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Response posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Few or no credible sources are cited.

Poor
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

First Response:
Timely and full participation–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

Posts by due date

Good
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation

Posts by due date

Fair
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date

Poor
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation

Does not post by due date

Feedback:

Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
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.

Good
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.

Fair
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

Poor
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

Feedback:

Second Response:
Writing–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
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.

Good
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.

Fair
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.

Poor
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

Second Response:
Timely and full participation–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

Posts by due date

Good
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation

Posts by due date

Fair
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date

Poor
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation

Does not post by due date

Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NRNP_6665_Week1_Discussion_Rubric

Transcript
Vignette 5 – Assessing for Depression in a Mental Health Appointment

LINK: https://youtu.be/Gm3FLGxb2ZU

tony has been referred to a social
worker by his medical provider who is
concerned about symptoms of depression
and anxiety that Tony reported in his
physical exam
do you have a sense of why you’re here
yeah, my doctor sent me, so I’d like to
ask you some questions about how you’re
feeling how is your mood been lately um
I don’t know what you mean
have you been feeling sad or depressed
not really have you been crying a lot
I don’t really cry have you been feeling
hopeless
yeah, how about feeling edgy you’re angry
well yeah, I guess I feel angry sometimes
um like kind of like I just want to
fight someone you can definitely talk
more about that do you ever feel like
you don’t have much energy or like
you’re not very interested in things
well, I like basketball um but sometimes
I don’t have enough energy to play don’t
like school how are you doing in school
well, I used to get all A’s and B’s but
my grades are kind of going down that’s
mainly just cuz I don’t do my homework
anymore
why not don’t like it it’s even hard
getting up in the mornings do you use
drugs or alcohol
I guess I’ll have a beer or two with my
friends sometimes sounds like things are
not always going so great you like
playing basketball but sometimes you
have trouble getting up in the morning
and getting interested in school and you
can sometimes get pretty angry how long
have you been feeling that way for like
two months um since May my girlfriend
broke up it makes me like really angry
with her or just with anyone mm-hmm
when I think about it, I get a tight pain
in my chest and my heart beats really
fast
I don’t know Hey I don’t even know why
she did break up with me, but it hurts
and I don’t yeah, I don’t even want to be
alive have you had thoughts about doing
something to hurt yourself yeah yeah
tell me more about that

PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AS INDICATED BELOW:

1). ZERO (0) PLAGIARISM

2). AT LEAST 5 REFERENCES, NO MORE THAN 5 YEARS.

3). PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED RUBRIC AND THE GRADING DETAILS, THE REQUIRED VIDEOS TRANSCRIPT AND LINKS ATTACHED, THE DISCUSSION ASSIGNMENT.
4). PLEASE FOLLOW THE APA 7 WRITING RULES, STYLE, AND FORMAT. PLEASE INCLUDE CONCLUSION.

Thank you.  

Discussion: Comprehensive Integrated Psychiatric Assessment
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.

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.