Get Original Solution – Psychiatric notes are a way to reflect on your practicum experiences and connect the experiences to the learning you gain from your weekly Learning Resources. Focused SOAP notes, - EssayQuest

FOCUSED SOAP NOTE AND PATIENT CASE PRESENTATIONCase

Psychiatric notes are a way to reflect on your practicum experiences and connect the experiences to the learning you gain from your weekly Learning Resources. Focused SOAP notes, such as the ones required in this practicum course, are often used in clinical settings to document patient care.

For this Assignment, you will document information about a patient that you examined during the last 4 weeks, using the Focused SOAP Note Template provided. You will then use this note to develop and record a case presentation for this patient.

Resources

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

To Prepare

Review the Kaltura button from the Classroom Support Center (accessed via the Help button) for help creating your self-recorded Kaltura video.
Select an adult patient that you examined during the last 4 weeks who presented with a disorder other than the disorder present in your Week 3 Case Presentation.
Create a Focused SOAP Note on this patient using the template provided in the Learning Resources. There is also a completed Focused SOAP Note Exemplar provided to serve as a guide to assignment expectations.
Please Note:
- All SOAP notes must be signed, by your Preceptor.
  Note: Electronic signatures are not accepted.
- When you submit your note, you should include the complete focused SOAP note as a Word document and PDF/images of the completed assignment signed by your Preceptor.
- You must submit your SOAP note using Turnitin.
  Note: If both files are not received by the due date, faculty will deduct points per the Walden Grading Policy.
Then, based on your SOAP note of this patient, develop a video case study presentation. Take time to practice your presentation before you record.
Include at least five scholarly resources to support your assessment, diagnosis, and treatment planning.
Ensure that you have the appropriate lighting and equipment to record the presentation.

The Assignment

Record yourself presenting the complex case for your clinical patient.

Do not sit and read your written evaluation! The video portion of the assignment is a simulation to demonstrate your ability to succinctly and effectively present a complex case to a colleague for a case consultation. The written portion of this assignment is a simulation for you to demonstrate to the faculty your ability to document the complex case as you would in an electronic medical record. The written portion of the assignment will be used as a guide for faculty to review your video to determine if you are omitting pertinent information or including non-essential information during your case staffing consultation video.

In your presentation:

Dress professionally and present yourself in a professional manner.
Display your photo ID at the start of the video when you introduce yourself.
Ensure that you do not include any information that violates the principles of HIPAA (i.e., don’t use the patient’s name or any other identifying information).
Present the full complex case study. Include chief complaint; history of present illness; any pertinent past psychiatric, substance use, medical, social, family history; most recent mental status exam; current psychiatric diagnosis including differentials that were ruled out; and plan for treatment and management.
Report normal diagnostic results as the name of the test and “normal” (rather than specific value). Abnormal results should be reported as a specific value.
Be succinct in your presentation, and do not exceed 8 minutes. Specifically address the following for the patient, using your SOAP note as a guide:
- 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 patient mental status examination results. What were your differential diagnoses? Provide a minimum of three possible diagnoses and why you chose them. List them from highest priority to lowest priority. What was your primary diagnosis, and why? Describe how your primary diagnosis aligns with DSM-5 diagnostic criteria and supported by the patient’s symptoms.
- Plan: In your video, describe your treatment plan using clinical practice guidelines supported by evidence-based practice. Include a discussion on your chosen FDA-approved psychopharmacologic agents and include alternative treatments available and supported by valid research. All treatment choices must have a discussion of your rationale for the choice supported by valid research. What were your follow-up plan and parameters? What referrals would you make or recommend as a result of this treatment session?
- In your written plan include all the above as well as include one social determinant of health according to the HealthyPeople 2030 (you will need to research) as applied to this case in the realm of psychiatry and mental health. As a future advanced provider, what are one health promotion activity and one patient education consideration for this patient for improving health disparities and inequities in the realm of psychiatry and mental health? Demonstrate your critical thinking.
- Reflection notes: What would you do differently with this patient if you could conduct the session over? If you are able to follow up with your patient, explain whether these interventions were successful and why or why not. If you were not able to conduct a follow up, discuss what your next intervention would be.

By Day 7 of Week 7

Focused SOAP Note Assignment

Focused SOAP Note Assignment. You must submit two files for the note, including a Word document and scanned pdf/images of completed assignment signed by your Preceptor.

submission information – Part 1: Video Submission

To submit your video response entry:

Click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
Next, click Text Entry and then click the Embed Kaltura Media button.
Select your recorded video under My Media.
Check the box for the End-User License Agreement and select Submit Assignment for review.

submission information – Part 2: Focused SOAP Note Submission

To submit Part 2 of this Assignment, click on the following link:

Week 7 Assignment 2, Part 2

Rubric

PRAC_6665_Week7_Assignment2_Pt1_Rubric

PRAC_6665_Week7_Assignment2_Pt1_Rubric
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePhoto ID display and professional attire	5 to >0.0 ptsExcellentPhoto ID is displayed. The student is dressed professionally. 0 ptsFair 0 ptsGood 0 ptsPoorPhoto ID is not displayed. Student must remedy this before grade is posted. The student is not dressed professionally.	5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTime	5 to >0.0 ptsExcellentThe video does not exceed the 8-minute time limit. 0 ptsFair 0 ptsGood 0 ptsPoorThe video exceeds the 8-minute time limit. (Note: Information presented after 8 minutes will not be evaluated for grade inclusion.)	5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscuss Subjective data:• Chief complaint• History of present illness (HPI)• Medications• Psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis• Pertinent histories and/or ROS	10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentThe video accurately and concisely presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. 8 to >7.0 ptsGoodThe video accurately presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. 7 to >6.0 ptsFairThe video presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis, but is somewhat vague or contains minor inaccuracies. 6 to >0 ptsPoorThe video presents an incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose description of the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Or subjective documentation is missing.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscuss Objective data:• 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	10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentThe video accurately and concisely documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Pertinent diagnostic tests and their results are documented, as applicable. 8 to >7.0 ptsGoodThe response accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are documented, as applicable. 7 to >6.0 ptsFairDocumentation of the patient’s physical exam is somewhat vague or contains minor inaccuracies. Diagnostic tests and their results are documented but contain inaccuracies. 6 to >0 ptsPoorThe response provides incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose documentation of the patient’s physical exam. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed, or objective documentation is missing.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscuss results of Assessment:• Results of the mental status examination• Provide a minimum of three possible diagnoses in order of highest to lowest priority and explain why you chose them. What was your primary diagnosis and why? Describe how your primary diagnosis aligns with DSM-5 diagnostic criteria and is supported by the patient’s symptoms.	20 to >17.0 ptsExcellentThe video accurately documents the results of the mental status exam. Video presents at least three differentials in order of priority for a differential diagnosis of the patient, and a rationale for their selection. Response justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria. 17 to >15.0 ptsGoodThe video adequately documents the results of the mental status exam. Video presents three differentials for the patient and a rationale for their selection. Response adequately justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria. 15 to >13.0 ptsFairThe video presents the results of the mental status exam, with some vagueness or inaccuracy. Video presents three differentials for the patient and a rationale for their selection. Response somewhat vaguely justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria. 13 to >0 ptsPoorThe response provides an incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose description of the results of the mental status exam and explanation of the differential diagnoses. Or assessment documentation is missing.	20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscuss treatment Plan:• A treatment plan for the patient that addresses chosen FDA-approved psychopharmacologic agents and includes alternative treatments available and supported by valid research. The treatment plan includes rationales, a plan for follow-up parameters, and referrals. The discussion includes one social determinant of health according to the HealthyPeople 2030, one health promotion activity and one patient education consideration for this patient for improving health disparities and inequities in the realm of psychiatry and mental health.	20 to >17.0 ptsExcellentThe video clearly and concisely outlines an evidence-based treatment plan for the patient that addresses FDA-approved psychopharmacologic agents and includes alternative treatments and rationale supported by valid research. … Discussion includes a clear and concise follow-up plan and parameters…. The discussion includes a clear and concise referral plan. … The paper discussion contains all 3 elements from the assignment directions including a discussion demonstrating critical thinking of the case related to the HealthyPeople 2030 social health determinates. Clearly and concisely relates discussion to the psychiatric and mental health field. 17 to >15.0 ptsGoodThe video clearly outlines an appropriate treatment plan without evidence-based discussion for the patient that addresses FDA-approved psychopharmacologic agents and includes alternative treatments and rationale supported by vague or questionable research. … Discussion includes a clear follow-up plan and parameters…. The discussion includes a clear referral plan…. The paper discussion contains 2 of the elements from the assignment directions with one being a basic discussion of the case related to the HealthyPeople 2030 social health determinates. Clearly relates discussion to the psychiatric and mental health field. 15 to >13.0 ptsFairThe response somewhat vaguely or inaccurately outlines a treatment plan for the patient that addresses psychopharmacologic agents without discussion of FDA approval and includes vague or inaccurate alternative treatments with little rationale discussed. … The discussion is somewhat vague or inaccurate regarding the follow-up plan and parameters…. The discussion is somewhat vague or inaccurate regarding a referral plan. … The paper discussion contains 1 of the required elements from the assignment directions which is the HealthyPeople 2030 social health determinates…. Somewhat vaguely or inaccurately relates discussion to the psychiatric and mental health field. 13 to >0 ptsPoorThe response does not address the treatment plan or the treatment plan is not appropriate for the assessment and the diagnosis. There is no mention of FDA approval for treatment choices or no research supported discussion. Alternative treatment discussion is missing. … Rationales for treatments are missing. … There is no discussion for follow-up and parameters. … There is no discussion of a referral plan. … The paper discussion is missing discussion relating to the psychiatric and mental health field or relates discussion to another specialty realm including medical co-morbidity illnesses.	20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReflect on this case. Discuss what you learned and what you might do differently.	5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentReflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking. 4 to >3.5 ptsGoodReflections demonstrate critical thinking. 3.5 to >3.0 ptsFairReflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking. 3 to >0 ptsPoorReflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing.	5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePresentation style	5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentPresentation style is exceptionally clear, professional, and focused. 4 to >3.5 ptsGoodPresentation style is clear, professional, and focused. 3.5 to >3.0 ptsFairPresentation style is mostly clear, professional, and focused 3 to >0 ptsPoorPresentation style is unclear, unprofessional, and/or unfocused.	5 pts

PRAC_6665_Week7_Assignment2_Pt1_Rubric

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePhoto ID display
and professional attire

5 to >0.0 ptsExcellentPhoto ID is displayed. The student
is dressed professionally.

0 ptsFair

0 ptsGood

0 ptsPoorPhoto ID is not displayed. Student
must remedy this before grade is posted. The student is not dressed
professionally.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTime

5 to >0.0 ptsExcellentThe video does not exceed the
8-minute time limit.

0 ptsFair

0 ptsGood

0 ptsPoorThe video exceeds the 8-minute time
limit. (Note: Information presented after 8 minutes will not be evaluated for
grade inclusion.)

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscuss Subjective
data:• Chief complaint• History of present illness (HPI)• Medications• Psychotherapy
or previous psychiatric diagnosis• Pertinent histories and/or ROS

10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentThe video accurately and concisely
presents the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness,
medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent
histories and/or review of systems that would inform a differential
diagnosis.

8 to >7.0 ptsGoodThe video accurately presents the
patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications,
psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories
and/or review of systems that would inform a differential diagnosis.

7 to >6.0 ptsFairThe video presents the patient’s
subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy
or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of
systems that would inform a differential diagnosis, but is somewhat vague or
contains minor inaccuracies.

6 to >0 ptsPoorThe video presents an incomplete,
inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose description of the patient’s
subjective complaint, history of present illness, medications, psychotherapy
or previous psychiatric diagnosis, and pertinent histories and/or review of
systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Or subjective
documentation is missing.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscuss Objective
data:• 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

10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentThe video accurately and concisely
documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Pertinent
diagnostic tests and their results are documented, as applicable.

8 to >7.0 ptsGoodThe response accurately documents
the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their
results are documented, as applicable.

7 to >6.0 ptsFairDocumentation of the patient’s
physical exam is somewhat vague or contains minor inaccuracies. Diagnostic
tests and their results are documented but contain inaccuracies.

6 to >0 ptsPoorThe response provides incomplete,
inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose documentation of the patient’s
physical exam. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed, or objective
documentation is missing.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscuss results of
Assessment:• Results of the mental status examination• Provide a minimum of
three possible diagnoses in order of highest to lowest priority and explain
why you chose them. What was your primary diagnosis and why? Describe how
your primary diagnosis aligns with DSM-5 diagnostic criteria and is supported
by the patient’s symptoms.

20 to >17.0 ptsExcellentThe video accurately documents the
results of the mental status exam. Video presents at least three
differentials in order of priority for a differential diagnosis of the
patient, and a rationale for their selection. Response justifies the primary
diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria.

17 to >15.0 ptsGoodThe video adequately documents the
results of the mental status exam. Video presents three differentials for the
patient and a rationale for their selection. Response adequately justifies
the primary diagnosis and how it aligns with DSM-5 criteria.

15 to >13.0 ptsFairThe video presents the results of
the mental status exam, with some vagueness or inaccuracy. Video presents
three differentials for the patient and a rationale for their selection.
Response somewhat vaguely justifies the primary diagnosis and how it aligns
with DSM-5 criteria.

13 to >0 ptsPoorThe response provides an incomplete,
inaccurate, or unnecessarily detailed/verbose description of the results of
the mental status exam and explanation of the differential diagnoses. Or
assessment documentation is missing.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscuss treatment
Plan:• A treatment plan for the patient that addresses chosen FDA-approved
psychopharmacologic agents and includes alternative treatments available and
supported by valid research. The treatment plan includes rationales, a plan
for follow-up parameters, and referrals. The discussion includes one social
determinant of health according to the HealthyPeople 2030, one health
promotion activity and one patient education consideration for this patient
for improving health disparities and inequities in the realm of psychiatry
and mental health.

20 to >17.0 ptsExcellentThe video clearly and concisely
outlines an evidence-based treatment plan for the patient that addresses
FDA-approved psychopharmacologic agents and includes alternative treatments
and rationale supported by valid research. … Discussion includes a clear
and concise follow-up plan and parameters…. The discussion includes a clear
and concise referral plan. … The paper discussion contains all 3 elements
from the assignment directions including a discussion demonstrating critical
thinking of the case related to the HealthyPeople 2030 social health determinates.
Clearly and concisely relates discussion to the psychiatric and mental health
field.

17 to >15.0 ptsGoodThe video clearly outlines an
appropriate treatment plan without evidence-based discussion for the patient
that addresses FDA-approved psychopharmacologic agents and includes
alternative treatments and rationale supported by vague or questionable
research. … Discussion includes a clear follow-up plan and parameters….
The discussion includes a clear referral plan…. The paper discussion contains
2 of the elements from the assignment directions with one being a basic
discussion of the case related to the HealthyPeople 2030 social health
determinates. Clearly relates discussion to the psychiatric and mental health
field.

15 to >13.0 ptsFairThe response somewhat vaguely or
inaccurately outlines a treatment plan for the patient that addresses
psychopharmacologic agents without discussion of FDA approval and includes
vague or inaccurate alternative treatments with little rationale discussed.
… The discussion is somewhat vague or inaccurate regarding the follow-up
plan and parameters…. The discussion is somewhat vague or inaccurate
regarding a referral plan. … The paper discussion contains 1 of the
required elements from the assignment directions which is the HealthyPeople
2030 social health determinates…. Somewhat vaguely or inaccurately relates
discussion to the psychiatric and mental health field.

13 to >0 ptsPoorThe response does not address the
treatment plan or the treatment plan is not appropriate for the assessment
and the diagnosis. There is no mention of FDA approval for treatment choices
or no research supported discussion. Alternative treatment discussion is
missing. … Rationales for treatments are missing. … There is no discussion
for follow-up and parameters. … There is no discussion of a referral plan.
… The paper discussion is missing discussion relating to the psychiatric
and mental health field or relates discussion to another specialty realm
including medical co-morbidity illnesses.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReflect on this
case. Discuss what you learned and what you might do differently.

5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentReflections are thorough,
thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking.

4 to >3.5 ptsGoodReflections demonstrate critical
thinking.

3.5 to >3.0 ptsFairReflections are somewhat general or
do not demonstrate critical thinking.

3 to >0 ptsPoorReflections are incomplete,
inaccurate, or missing.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePresentation style

5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentPresentation style is exceptionally
clear, professional, and focused.

4 to >3.5 ptsGoodPresentation style is clear,
professional, and focused.

3.5 to >3.0 ptsFairPresentation style is mostly clear,
professional, and focused

3 to >0 ptsPoorPresentation style is unclear,
unprofessional, and/or unfocused.

5 pts

Total Points: 80