apa format, use references from last five years
2-3 page paper
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Generalized Anxiety
Just from $13/Page
please look at guidelines and rubric in attachment
topic generalized anxiety
Purpose
The purpose of this assignment is for learners to:
1. Have the opportunity to integrate knowledge and skills learned throughout all core courses in the FNP track and previous clinical courses.
2. Demonstrate an advancing understanding of the patient with a mental health disorder in primary care.
3. Demonstrate the ability to analyze the literature/ previous patients seen in the clinical setting be able to perform an evidenced-based review of their case, diagnosis, and plan, while guiding and taking feedback from peers regarding the case.
4. Demonstrate professional communication and leadership, while advancing the education of peers.
Activity Learning Outcomes
Through this discussion, the student will demonstrate the ability to:
1. Develop management plans based on current scientific evidence and national guidelines. (CO4)
2. Prioritize treatment based on relevant clinical presentation. (CO6)
Requirements:
For this weeks assignment, there will not be a case study given to you by the faculty. Instead you will be assigned a mental health disorder commonly seen in primary care and you will create a case study based on that disorder (Generalized Anxiety). The case should be clear and include all elements of a normal case that might be presented in class (subjective, objective, assessment, and full 5 point plan). The case should be clear, organized, and meet the following guidelines:
Week 6 Part One:
This part goes in part one and should begin with subjective and objective data. Do not put diagnosis until your peers respond.
WEEK 6 Part One: The case should lead the class toward the mental health diagnosis assigned to you by your instructor: Generalized Anxiety
WEEK 6 Part One Specific Guidelines :
If this is an actual patient from clinical- Include their actual chief complaint, demographic data, HPI, PMHX, PSHX, medications, allergies, subjective and objective findings without identifying the patient’s name.
If this is a fictitious case you’ve created from the literature/readings you should design an example patient and include chief complaint, demographic data, HPI, PMHX, PSHX, medications and allergies, subjective and objective findings. Be mindful that the background data for the case should bear some relevance to the diagnosis.
The case should not be overly simple. Like your weekly case studies, it should include subjective data that loosely represents the diagnosis you have been given, but includes some elements of the pathophysiology/presentation of the disease.
You must include the following elements in part one: subjective: chief complaint/HPI, demographic data, HPI, PMHX, PSHX, subjective and objective findings.
| DISCUSSION CONTENT |
| Category |
Points |
% |
Description |
| Application of Course Knowledge |
20 |
33% |
Post contributes clinically accurateperspectives/insights applicable to the results from the physical exam and diagnoses. Initial post includes the most likely diagnosis/specific treatment plan given case study information supported by rationale and answers all questions presented in the case. Demonstrates course knowledge/assigned readings by: linking tests/interventionsaccurately to diagnoses, applies learned knowledge specifically to the symptoms and patient information using original dialogue i.e., little to no direct quotes. |
| Evidence Based resources |
10 |
17% |
Discussion post supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years. Focus of journal articles represents a logical link between the article content and the case study information. In-text citations and full references are provided. |
| Interactive Dialogue |
20 |
33% |
Presents case study findings and responds substantively to at least one peer including evidence from appropriate sources, and all direct faculty questions posted. Substantive posts contribute new, novel perspectives to the discussion using original dialogue (not quotes from sources) |
| |
50 |
83% |
Total CONTENT Points= 50 pts |
| DISCUSSION FORMAT |
| Category |
Points |
% |
Description |
| Organization |
5 |
8% |
Discussion post presented in a logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence. Headings reflect separation of criterion outlined in assignment guidelines.
**Direct quote should not exceed 15 words & must add substantively to the discussion |
| APA/Grammar/Spelling |
5 |
8% |
Discussion post has minimal grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation and APA* errors. Direct quotes (if used) is limited to 1 short statement** which adds substantively to the post.
* APA style references and in text citations are required; however, there are no deductions for errors in indentation or spacing of references. All elements of the reference otherwise must be included. |
| |
10 |
16% |
Total FORMAT Points= 10 pts |
| |
|
|
DISCUSSION TOTAL= 60 points |
|
| Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscussion Content Possible Points = 50 Points
Application of Course Knowledge: Initial Student Post: Case study demonstrates clear understanding of the typical demographics, risk factors, HPI, PMHx, symptoms and presentation associated with the assigned Mental Health Diagnosis using original dialogue i.e., no direct quotes. Diagnostic testing recommended follows National Guidelines. Clinical insights are supported by rationale and student addresses all assignment criterion. |
| 20 pts
Excellent
Initial Student Post: Case study demonstrates clear understanding of the typical demographics, risk factors, HPI, PMHx, symptoms and presentation associated with the assigned Mental Health Diagnosis using original dialogue i.e., no direct quotes. Diagnostic testing recommended follows National Guidelines. Clinical insights are supported by rationale and student addresses all assignment criterion. |
18 pts
V. Good
Initial Student Post: Case study demonstrates some clinically accurate perspectives/insights of the typical demographics, risk factors, HPI, PMHx, symptoms and presentation associated with the assigned Mental Health Diagnosis using original dialogue i.e., no direct quotes. Diagnostic testing recommended follows National Guidelines. Clinical insights are partially supported by rationale and student addresses all assignment criterion. |
17 pts
Satisfactory
Initial Student Post: Case study demonstrates some clinically accurate perspectives/insights of the typical demographics, risk factors, HPI, PMHx, symptoms and presentation using original dialogue i.e., no direct quotes but the linkage is weak or vague and lacks specificity to the diagnostic criteria for the assigned mental health diagnosis. Diagnostic testing recommended does not fully follows National Guidelines. |
10 pts
Needs Improvement
Initial Student Post: Case study demonstrates minimal understanding of the demographics, HPI and presentation associated with assigned Mental Health diagnosis. |
0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Post contributes no clinically accurate perspectives/insights applicable to clinical content area/identified chief complaint presentation in original dialogue (no direct quotes) related to assigned Mental Health Diagnosis: OR **Student reveals the assigned diagnosis in initial post. |
|
20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvidence Based Resources
Discussion post fully supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years including National Guidelines. Content of journal articles represents a logical link between the article content and the assigned topics/case study information. In-text citations and complete references are provided. |
| 10 pts
Excellent
Discussion post fully supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years including National Guidelines. Content of journal articles represents a logical link between the article content and the assigned topics/case study information. In-text citations and complete references are provided. |
9 pts
V. Good
Discussion post is partially supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years. In-text citations and complete references are provided. Evidence-based reference(s) used but may not fully demonstrate National guidelines or fully support treatment recommendations. |
8 pts
Satisfactory
Discussion post is supported by evidence from appropriate resources however National Guidelines are not referenced in regard to diagnostic testing and treatment planning OR Journal articles do not represent logical link between the article content and assigned topics/ case study. |
5 pts
Needs Improvement
Discussion post not fully supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years OR does not include National Guidelines AND Content of journal articles does not represents a logical link between the article content and the assigned topics/case study information. In-text citations and complete references are provided. |
0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Discussion post is not supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years. National Guidelines are not used to support post. References and in-text citations may be incomplete. |
|
10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInteractive Dialogue
Responds to all ***DISREGARD THIS SECTION*** Faculty questions at and least one Peer. In leading the Peer Discussion: Student Leader demonstrates thorough, specific knowledge of their assigned topic and discusses how respondent’s differentials do and do not fit the case study using original dialogue. When presenting the assigned diagnosis- Student Leader demonstrates thorough, specific knowledge of their diagnosis along with an original discussion on the applicable testing and treatment per National Guidelines. Students demonstrate ability to discuss guidelines generally and then apply them specifically to their Case study with rationale. In responding to a Peer’s Case Study: Differential diagnoses demonstrate a logical link between each diagnosis and the case study information presented. Student responds to a peer that does not already have a response. **Note- creating a place-holder in the DT thread for your response is not allowed.*** |
| 20 pts
V. Good
In leading the Peer Discussion: Student Leader demonstrates thorough, specific knowledge of their assigned topic and discusses how respondent’s differentials do and do not fit the case study using original dialogue. When presenting the assigned diagnosis- Student Leader demonstrates thorough, specific knowledge of their diagnosis along with an original discussion on the applicable testing and treatment per National Guidelines. Students demonstrate ability to discuss guidelines generally and then apply them specifically to their Case study with rationale. In responding to a Peer’s Case Study: Differential diagnoses demonstrate a logical link between each diagnosis and the case study information presented. Student responds to a peer that does not already have a response. **Note- creating a place-holder in the DT thread for your response is not allowed.*** |
18 pts
V. Good
In leading the Peer Discussion: Student Leader demonstrates thorough, specific knowledge of their assigned topic in some areas but general knowledge in other areas and discusses how respondent’s differentials do and do not fit the case study generally without detail. When presenting the assigned diagnosis- Student Leader demonstrates thorough, specific knowledge of their diagnosis along with a discussion on the applicable testing and treatment per National Guidelines some areas but general knowledge in other areas. Students demonstrate ability to discuss guidelines generally and then has some application specifically to their Case study with rationale. In responding to a Peer’s Case Study: Differential diagnoses demonstrate a somewhat logical link between each diagnosis and the case study information presented and/OR uses quoted sources without original dialogue. Student responds to a peer that does not already have a response. **Note- creating a place-holder in the DT thread for your response is not allowed.*** |
17 pts
Satisfactory
In leading the Peer Discussion: Student Leader demonstrates limited knowledge of their assigned topic and discusses how respondent’s differentials do and do not fit the case study. When presenting the assigned diagnosis- Student Leader demonstrates limited knowledge of their diagnosis but does not utilize National Guidelines in discussion treatment. Students demonstrate ability to discuss guidelines generally but difficulty in applying them specifically to their Case study with rationale. In responding to a Peer’s Case Study: Differential diagnoses demonstrate a logical link between each diagnosis and the case study information presented. Student responds to a peer that does not already have a response but the dialogue is not original or overuses direct quotes without application to case study. **Note- creating a place-holder in the DT thread for your response is not allowed.*** |
10 pts
Needs Improvement
In leading the Peer Discussion: Student Leader demonstrates thorough, specific knowledge of their assigned topic and discusses how respondent’s differentials do and do not fit the case study. When presenting the assigned diagnosis- Student Leader demonstrateweak knowledge of their diagnosis along with a discussion on the applicable testing and treatment without National Guidelines. Students demonstrate ability to discuss guidelines generally and then apply them specifically to their Case study with rationale. In responding to a Peer’s Case Study: Differential diagnoses demonstrate a weak link between each diagnosis and the case study information presented. Student responds to a peer that does not already have a response. **Note- creating a place-holder in the DT thread for your response is not allowed.*** |
0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Does not respond to at least one peer and/or does not respond to faculty questions posted by Sunday and does not lead discussion. *A zero may be assessed here for not responding to questions posed by faculty. A zero may also be assessed for creating a place-holder for responses in the DT thread…. |
|
20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscussion Format Possible Points = 10 Points
Organization Discussion post presented in a logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence. Headings reflect separation of criterion outlined in assignment guidelines. |
| 5 pts
Excellent
Discussion post presented in a logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence. Organization of topics and transitions among ideas lends clarity to the discussion. Headings and paragraph spacing are used logically and contribute to evidence of the assigned disease. |
4 pts
V. Good
Discussion post presented in a logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence, However minimal transitions, headings and spacing used to organize thoughts. |
3 pts
Satisfactory
May be unclear or difficult to follow in places. Headings, paragraphs and spacing. |
2 pts
Needs Improvement
May be unclear or difficult to follow in places. Weak linkage to assigned mental health topic. |
0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Discussion topics not linked through organization of thoughts, paragraph, spacing or headings. Lack of organization contributes to lack of understanding of thought process. Student does not follow directions to withhold diagnosis from part 1. |
|
5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA/Grammar/Spelling
Organization (*) APA style references and in text citations are required; however, there are no deductions for errors in indentation or spacing of references. All elements of the reference otherwise must be included. |
| 5 pts
Excellent
Zero errors in grammar/spelling. Strong ability to communicate thoughts and ideas concisely. |
4 pts
V. Good
Zero to 2 errors in grammar/spelling but no effect on ability to communicate thoughts and ideas. |
3 pts
Satisfactory
3-6 errors in grammar/spelling with no effect on ability to communicate thoughts and ideas. |
2 pts
Needs Improvement
>6 errors in grammar/spelling which contributes somewhat to effectiveness of ability to communicate thoughts and ideas. |
0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Errors in grammar contribute to a fundamental lack of understanding of information presented. |
|
5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeParticipation
Discussion late penalty deductions |
| 0 pts
Minus Points |
0 pts
Minus Points |
|
