PRAC 6635 Week 2 Assignment 2
October 23, 2025NRNP 6635 Week 7 Assignment
October 23, 2025Week 3 Assignment: Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Mood Disorders
Accurately diagnosing depressive disorders can be challenging given their periodic and, at times, cyclic nature. Some of these disorders occur in response to stressors and, depending on the cultural history of the client, may affect their decision to seek treatment. Bipolar disorders can also be difficult to properly diagnose. While clients with a bipolar or related disorder will likely have to contend with the disorder indefinitely, many find that the use of medication and evidence-based treatments have favorable outcomes.
Resources
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
Learning Resources
Required Readings
- American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Bipolar and related disorders. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). https://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787.x03_Bipolar_and_Related_Disorders
· American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Depressive disorders. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787.x04_Depressive_Disorders
· Boland, R. & Verduin, M. L. & Ruiz, P. (2022). Kaplan & Sadock’s synopsis of psychiatry (12th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
- Chapter 2 -only sections 2.9, “Depressive Disorders and Suicide in Children and Adolescents” 2.10 Early-Onset Bipolar Disorder”, and 2.11 “Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder”
- Chapter 6 “Bipolar Disorders”
- Chapter 7 “Depressive Disorders”
· Document: Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Template
· Document: Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Exemplar
To Prepare:
- Review this week’s Learning Resources. Consider the insights they provide about assessing and diagnosing mood disorders.
- Download the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Template, which you will use to complete this Assignment. Also review the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Exemplar to see an example of a completed evaluation document.
- 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 3
Complete and submit your Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation, including your differential diagnosis and critical-thinking process to formulate a 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 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 information
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.
- To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK3Assgn_LastName_Firstinitial
- Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
- Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.
Rubric
NRNP_6635_Week3_Assignment_Rubric
| NRNP_6635_Week3_Assignment_Rubric | ||
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 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 | 20 to >17.0 pts Excellent 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. 17 to >15.0 pts Good 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. 15 to >13.0 pts Fair 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. 13 to >0 pts Poor 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. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 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. | 20 to >17.0 pts Excellent The response thoroughly and accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are thoroughly and accurately documented. 17 to >15.0 pts Good The response accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are accurately documented. 15 to >13.0 pts Fair 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. 13 to >0 pts Poor The response provides incomplete or inaccurate documentation of the patient’s physical exam. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed, or, objective documentation is missing. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 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. | 25 to >22.0 pts Excellent 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. 22 to >19.0 pts Good 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. 19 to >17.0 pts Fair The response documents the results of the mental status exam with some vagueness or inaccuracy. … 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 vagueness or inaccuracy. 17 to >0 pts Poor 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. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 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.). | 10 to >8.0 pts Excellent Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking. 8 to >7.0 pts Good Reflections demonstrate critical thinking. 7 to >6.0 pts Fair Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking. 6 to >0 pts Poor Reflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing. | 10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 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). | 15 to >13.0 pts Excellent 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. 13 to >11.0 pts Good 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. 11 to >10.0 pts Fair 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. 10 to >0 pts Poor Two or fewer resources are provided to support assessment and diagnosis decisions. The resources may not be current or evidence based. | 15 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 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. | 5 to >4.0 pts Excellent A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria. …Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. 4 to >3.5 pts Good Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet they are brief and not descriptive. …Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. 3.5 to >3.0 pts Fair Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. … Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%-79% of the time. 3 to >0 pts Poor No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided. … Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Written Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and punctuation | 5 to >4.0 pts Excellent Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors 4 to >3.0 pts Good Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors 3 to >2.0 pts Fair Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors 2 to >0 pts Poor Contains many (≥ five) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding | 5 pts |
Total Points: 100
