week four Interactive assignmentpsy645 | Academic Papers Help

Week 4 – Interactive Assignment

Your initial discussion thread is due on Day 3 (Thursday) and you have until Day 7 (Monday) to respond to your classmates. Your grade will reflect both the quality of your initial post and the depth of your responses.

 Grand Rounds

Prior to beginning work on this interactive assignment, please view the required video PSY645 Grand RoundsPresentation (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.; read Chapters 15, 20, and the Classes (or Names) of Medications That Can Cause Mental Disorders appendix in DSM-5 Made Easy: The Clinician’s Guide to Diagnosis; read Chapter 1 of DSM-5: Handbook of Differential Diagnosis; and read Section 4: Privacy and Confidentiality (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. from the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct: Including 2010 Amendments.

To view the written transcript, please click here.

Mental health professionals hold grand rounds events to maintain their current knowledge of health care practices and to consult with colleagues on particularly difficult cases. During these professional events, mental health professionals sometimes present a case and seek feedback from peers regarding conceptualization and treatment of a patient’s problems. This interactive assignment is an opportunity to simulate a grand rounds event. For your initial post in this forum, you will provide written feedback regarding your colleague’s presentation and questions. Your post must include the following:

• Provide an evaluation of the degree to which the presenter followed the ethical standards outlined in Section 4 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. of the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct: Including 2010 Amendments.
  • Highlight the relevant information from the patient’s history you will use to inform your conceptualization of the patient’s problems and diagnosis.
  • Provide an evaluation of the patient’s symptoms and presenting problems within the context of a theoretical orientation that seems to be most appropriate for the situation. Be sure to indicate which theory you are using for your evaluation and provide a justification for your choice. To get the most out of this assignment, you are encouraged to use the same theoretical orientation from which you chose to write your Week Two Initial Assessment discussion’s guided response.
  • Provide a diagnosis for the patient based on one of the diagnostic manuals available (e.g., DSM-5, Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual, etc.). Justify your choice of this diagnostic manual.
  • Describe at least one evidence-based and one non-evidence-based treatment option for this diagnosis. Compare the benefits and costs of these treatment options.
  • Based on specific theoretical and historical perspectives, provide questions for your colleagues seeking their thoughts and feedback.
  • Pose appropriate questions that may help refine the diagnostic impression of this patient.

Guided Response: Review several of your colleagues’ posts, and respond to at least two of your peers by 11:59 p.m. on Day 7 of the week. You are encouraged to post your required replies earlier in the week to promote more meaningful interactive discourse in this discussion. 

Examine your colleague’s feedback and formulate a response based on your colleague’s questions. Assess the validity of your colleague’s diagnosis from a sociocultural perspective using the theoretical orientation from which you wrote your initial post. The goal of your response is to present information and feedback from your theoretical orientation for your colleague’s consideration, rather than forcing your colleague to take on your orientation as their own. Describe how your conceptualization differs from your colleague’s, if there is a significant difference.

Continue to monitor the discussion forum until 5:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time (MST) on Day 7 of the week, and respond to anyone who replies to your initial post. Be sure to indicate whether your diagnosis and conceptualization has changed based on your colleague’s feedback.