Assignment: NRNP 6635 Week 10 Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Neurocognitive and Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Assignment: NRNP 6635 Week 10 Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Neurocognitive and Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Assignment: NRNP 6635 Week 10 Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Neurocognitive and Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Week 10: Neurocognitive and Neurodevelopmental Disorders

The human brain only constitutes approximately 2% of an individual’s total body weight, a percentage that pales in comparison to the brain’s level of importance in human development (Koch, 2016). Although externally protected by layers of membranes as well as the skull, the brain is not very resistant to damage. Damage to the brain may compromise its functionality, which may, in turn, lead to neurodevelopmental disorders in childhood and adolescence or neurocognitive disorders for any number of reasons across the lifespan.

This week, you practice assessing and diagnosing neurocognitive and neurodevelopmental disorders across the lifespan.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Good News For Our New customers. We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us

Reference: Koch, C. (2016, January 1). Does brain size matter? Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-brain-size-matter1/
Learning Objectives

Students will:

Apply concepts, theories, and principles related to patient interviewing, diagnostic reasoning, and recording patient information
Formulate differential diagnoses using DSM-5-TR criteria for patients with neurocognitive and neurodevelopmental disorders across the lifespan

Learning Resources

Required Readings (click to expand/reduce)

Required Media (click to expand/reduce)

Classroom Productions. (Producer). (2016). Neurocognitive disorders [Video]. Walden University.

Classroom Productions. (Producer). (2016). Neurodevelopmental disorders [Video]. Walden University.

MedEasy. (2016). Progressive neurocognitive disorders. | USMLE & COMLEX [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdcjyHvaAuQ

Video Case Selections for Assignment (click to expand/reduce)

Select one of the following videos to use for your Assignment this week. Then, access the document “Case History Reports” and review the additional data about the patient in the specific video number you selected.

Symptom Media. (Producer). (2017). Training title 48 [Video]. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://video.alexanderstreet.com/watch/training-title-48

Symptom Media. (Producer). (2017). Training title 50 [Video]. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://video.alexanderstreet.com/watch/training-title-50

Document: Case History Reports

Assignment: Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Neurocognitive and Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Neurodevelopmental disorders begin in the developmental period of childhood and may continue through adulthood. They may range from the very specific to a general or global impairment, and often co-occur (APA, 2022). They include specific learning and language disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorders, and intellectual disabilities. Neurocognitive disorders, on the other hand, represent a decline in one or more areas of prior mental function that is significant enough to impact independent functioning. They may occur at any time in life and be caused by factors such brain injury; diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, or Huntington’s; infection; or stroke, among others.

For this Assignment, you will assess a patient in a case study who presents with a neurocognitive or neurodevelopmental disorder.
To Prepare:

Review this week’s Learning Resources and consider the insights they provide. Consider how neurocognitive impairments may have similar presentations to other psychological disorders.
Review the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation template, which you will use to complete this Assignment.
By Day 1 of this week, select a specific video case study to use for this Assignment from the Video Case Selections choices in the Learning Resources. View your assigned video case and review the additional data for the case in the “Case History Reports” document, keeping the requirements of the evaluation template in mind.
Consider what history would be necessary to collect from this patient.
Consider what interview questions you would need to ask this patient.
Identify at least three possible differential diagnoses for the patient.

By Day 7 of Week 10

Complete and submit your Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation, including your differential diagnosis and critical-thinking process to formulate primary diagnosis.
Incorporate the following into your responses in the template:

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 the patient’s mental status examination results. What were your differential diagnoses? Provide a minimum of three possible diagnoses with supporting evidence, listed in order from highest priority to lowest priority. Compare the DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for each differential diagnosis and explain what DSM-5-TR criteria rules out the differential diagnosis to find an accurate diagnosis. Explain the critical-thinking process that led you to the primary diagnosis you selected. Include pertinent positives and pertinent negatives for the specific patient case.
Reflection notes: What would you do differently with this client if you could conduct the session over? Also include in your reflection a discussion related to legal/ethical considerations (demonstrate critical thinking beyond confidentiality and consent for treatment!), health promotion and disease prevention taking into consideration patient factors (such as age, ethnic group, etc.), PMH, and other risk factors (e.g., socioeconomic, cultural background, etc.).

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK10Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
Click the Week 10 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
Click the Week 10 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK10Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 10 Assignment Rubric

Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity

To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:

Submit your Week 10 Assignment draft and review the originality report.

Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 10

To participate in this Assignment:

Week 10 Assignment

What’s Coming Up in Week 11?

Photo Credit: [BrianAJackson]/[iStock / Getty Images Plus]/Getty Images

In Week 11, you explore gender identity disorders and psychiatric emergencies. You also complete your final exam.

Next Week

To go to the next week:

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Week 11

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NRNP_6635_Week10_Assignment_Rubric

Grid View
List View

Excellent Good Fair Poor
Create documentation in the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Template about the patient you selected.

In the Subjective section, provide:
• Chief complaint
• History of present illness (HPI)
• Past psychiatric history
• Medication trials and current medications
• Psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis
• Pertinent substance use, family psychiatric/substance use, social, and medical history
• Allergies
• ROS
Points Range: 18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
The response throughly and accurately describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, past psychiatric history, medication trials and current medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, pertinent histories, allergies, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis.

Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
The response accurately describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, past psychiatric history, medication trials and current medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, pertinent histories, allergies, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis.

Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
The response describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, past psychiatric history, medication trials and current medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, pertinent histories, allergies, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis, but is somewhat vague or contains minor innacuracies.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 13 (13%)
The response provides an incomplete or inaccurate description of the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, past psychiatric history, medication trials and current medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, pertinent histories, allergies, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Or, subjective documentation is missing.
In the Objective section, provide:
• 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.
Points Range: 18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
The response thoroughly and accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are thoroughly and accurately documented.

Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
The response accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are accurately documented.

Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Documentation of the patient’s physical exam is somewhat vague or contains minor innacuracies. Diagnostic tests and their results are documented but contain minor innacuracies.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 13 (13%)
The response provides incomplete or inaccurate documentation of the patient’s physical exam. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed, or, objective documentation is missing.
In the Assessment section, provide:
• Results of the mental status examination, presented in paragraph form.
• At least three differentials with supporting evidence. List them from top priority to least priority. Compare the DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for each differential diagnosis and explain what DSM-5-TR criteria rules out the differential diagnosis to find an accurate diagnosis. Explain the critical-thinking process that led you to the primary diagnosis you selected. Include pertinent positives and pertinent negatives for the specific patient case.
Points Range: 23 (23%) – 25 (25%)
The response thoroughly and accurately documents the results of the mental status exam.

Response lists at least three distinctly different and detailed possible disorders in order of priority for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, and it provides a thorough, accurate, and detailed justification for each of the disorders selected.

Points Range: 20 (20%) – 22 (22%)
The response accurately documents the results of the mental status exam.

Response lists at least three distinctly different and detailed possible disorders in order of priority for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, and it provides an accurate justification for each of the disorders selected.

Points Range: 18 (18%) – 19 (19%)
The response documents the results of the mental status exam with some vagueness or innacuracy.

Response lists at least three different possible disorders for a differential diagnosis of the patient and provides a justification for each, but may contain some vaguess or innacuracy.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 17 (17%)
The response provides an incomplete or inaccurate description of the results of the mental status exam and explanation of the differential diagnoses. Or, assessment documentation is missing.
Reflect on this case. Discuss what you learned and what you might do differently. Also include in your reflection a discussion related to legal/ethical considerations (demonstrate critical thinking beyond confidentiality and consent for treatment!), social determinates of health, health promotion and disease prevention taking into consideration patient factors (such as age, ethnic group, etc.), PMH, and other risk factors (e.g., socioeconomic, cultural background, etc.).
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking.

Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Reflections demonstrate critical thinking.

Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Reflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing.
Provide at least three evidence-based, peer-reviewed journal articles or evidenced-based guidelines that relate to this case to support your diagnostics and differential diagnoses. Be sure they are current (no more than 5 years old).
Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
The response provides at least three current, evidence-based resources from the literature to support the assessment and diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study. The resources reflect the latest clinical guidelines and provide strong justification for decision making.

Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
The response provides at least three current, evidence-based resources from the literature that appropriately support the assessment and diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study.

Points Range: 11 (11%) – 11 (11%)
Three evidence-based resources are provided to support assessment and diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, but they may only provide vague or weak justification.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 10 (10%)
Two or fewer resources are provided to support assessment and diagnosis decisions. The resources may not be current or evidence based.
Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph development and organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria.
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria.

Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet they are brief and not descriptive.

Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time.

No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided.
Written Expression and Formatting—English writing standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and punctuation
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors

Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (≥ five) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding
Total Points: 100
Name: NRNP_6635_Week10_Assignment_Rubric