• Home

Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Mood Disorders

Rubric Detail

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

Content

Name: NRNP_6635_Week3_Assignment_Rubric

  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:

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

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:

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

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 diagnostic criteria for each differential diagnosis and explain what DSM-5 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:

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

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!), 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:

Points Range:
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Reflections demonstrate critical thinking.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Reflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing.

Feedback:

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:

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

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:

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting—English writing standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and punctuation

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Contains many (≥ five) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding

Feedback:

Show Descriptions

Show Feedback

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–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
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.

Good
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.

Fair
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.

Poor
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.

Feedback:

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.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
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.

Good
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

The response accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are accurately documented.

Fair
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.

Poor
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.

Feedback:

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 diagnostic criteria for each differential diagnosis and explain what DSM-5 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.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
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.

Good
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.

Fair
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.

Poor
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.

Feedback:

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!), 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.).–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking.

Good
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Reflections demonstrate critical thinking.

Fair
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking.

Poor
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Reflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing.

Feedback:

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).–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
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.

Good
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.

Fair
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.

Poor
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.

Feedback:

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.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
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.

Good
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.

Fair
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.

Poor
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.

Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting—English writing standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and punctuation–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors

Good
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

Fair
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

Poor
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Contains many (≥ five) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding

Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NRNP_6635_Week3_Assignment_Rubric