Rubric Detail

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

Content

Name: NRNP_6665_Week4_Assignment_Rubric

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Create documentation in the Focused SOAP Note Template about the patient in the case study. 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: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) 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: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) 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: 11 (11%) – 11 (11%) 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%) – 10 (10%) 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 the subjective documentation is missing. Feedback:
In the Objective section, provide:•Review of Systems (ROS) documentation and relate if 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: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The response thoroughly and accurately documents the patient's ROS for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are thoroughly and accurately documented. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) The response accurately documents the patient's ROS for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are accurately documented. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 11 (11%) – 11 (11%) Documentation of the patient's ROS is somewhat vague or contains minor innacuracies. Diagnostic tests and their results are documented but contain minor inaccuracies. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 10 (10%) The response provides incomplete or inaccurate documentation of the patient's ROS. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed. Or the 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: 18 (18%) – 20 (20%) 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: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) 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: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) 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 vagueness or innacuracy. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 13 (13%) The response provides an incomplete or inaccurate description of the results of the mental status exam and explanation of the differential diagnoses. Or the assessment documentation is missing. Feedback:
In the Plan section, provide:•Your plan for psychotherapy•Your plan for treatment and management, including alternative therapies. Include pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters as well as a rationale for this treatment and management plan. •Incorporate one health promotion activity and one patient education strategy.	Points: Points Range: 23 (23%) – 25 (25%) The response provides an evidence-based, detailed, and appropriate plan for psychotherapy for the patient.The response provides an evidence-based, detailed, and appropriate plan for treatment and management, including pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters. A strong rationale for the plan is provided that demonstrates critical thinking and content understanding.The response includes at least one evidence-based health promotion activity and one evidence-based patient education strategy. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 20 (20%) – 22 (22%) The response provides an evidence-based and appropriate plan for psychotherapy for the patient.The response provides an evidence-based and appropriate plan for treatment and management, including pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters. An adequate rationale for the plan is provided.The response includes at least one health promotion activity and one patient education strategy. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 18 (18%) – 19 (19%) The response provides a somewhat vague or inaccurate plan for psychotherapy for the patient.The response provides a somewhat vague or inaccurate plan for treatment and management, including pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters. The rationale for the plan is weak or general.The response includes one health promotion activity and one patient education strategy, but it may contain some vagueness or innacuracy. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 17 (17%) The response provides an incomplete or inaccurate plan for psychotherapy for the patient.The response provides an incomplete or inaccurate plan for treatment and management, including pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters. The rationale for the plan is inaccurate or missing.The health promotion and patient education strategies are incomplete or 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 that takes into consideration patient factors (such as age, ethnic group, etc.), PMH, and other risk factors (e.g., socioeconomic, cultural background, etc.).	Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Reflections demonstrate critical thinking. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) 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: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) 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: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) 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: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Three evidence-based resources are provided to support the 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%) – 6 (6%) Two or fewer resources are provided to support the assessment and diagnosis decisions. The resources may not be current or evidence based. Feedback:
Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for parenthetical/in-text citations and reference list.	Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (one or two) APA format errors Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Contains several (three or four) APA format errors Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Contains many (five or more) APA format errors 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: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding Feedback:

Show DescriptionsShow Feedback

Create documentation in the Focused SOAP Note Template about the patient in the case study. 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 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) 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 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) 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 11 (11%) – 11 (11%) 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%) – 10 (10%) 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 the subjective documentation is missing.Feedback:

In the Objective section, provide:•Review of Systems (ROS) documentation and relate if 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 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The response thoroughly and accurately documents the patient's ROS for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are thoroughly and accurately documented. Good 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) The response accurately documents the patient's ROS for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are accurately documented. Fair 11 (11%) – 11 (11%) Documentation of the patient's ROS is somewhat vague or contains minor innacuracies. Diagnostic tests and their results are documented but contain minor inaccuracies. Poor 0 (0%) – 10 (10%) The response provides incomplete or inaccurate documentation of the patient's ROS. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed. Or the 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 18 (18%) – 20 (20%) 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 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) 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 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) 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 vagueness or innacuracy. Poor 0 (0%) – 13 (13%) The response provides an incomplete or inaccurate description of the results of the mental status exam and explanation of the differential diagnoses. Or the assessment documentation is missing.Feedback:

In the Plan section, provide:•Your plan for psychotherapy•Your plan for treatment and management, including alternative therapies. Include pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters as well as a rationale for this treatment and management plan. •Incorporate one health promotion activity and one patient education strategy.–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 23 (23%) – 25 (25%) The response provides an evidence-based, detailed, and appropriate plan for psychotherapy for the patient.The response provides an evidence-based, detailed, and appropriate plan for treatment and management, including pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters. A strong rationale for the plan is provided that demonstrates critical thinking and content understanding.The response includes at least one evidence-based health promotion activity and one evidence-based patient education strategy. Good 20 (20%) – 22 (22%) The response provides an evidence-based and appropriate plan for psychotherapy for the patient.The response provides an evidence-based and appropriate plan for treatment and management, including pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters. An adequate rationale for the plan is provided.The response includes at least one health promotion activity and one patient education strategy. Fair 18 (18%) – 19 (19%) The response provides a somewhat vague or inaccurate plan for psychotherapy for the patient.The response provides a somewhat vague or inaccurate plan for treatment and management, including pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters. The rationale for the plan is weak or general.The response includes one health promotion activity and one patient education strategy, but it may contain some vagueness or innacuracy. Poor 0 (0%) – 17 (17%) The response provides an incomplete or inaccurate plan for psychotherapy for the patient.The response provides an incomplete or inaccurate plan for treatment and management, including pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters. The rationale for the plan is inaccurate or missing.The health promotion and patient education strategies are incomplete or 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 that takes 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 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking. Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Reflections demonstrate critical thinking. Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking. Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) 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 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) 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 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) 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 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Three evidence-based resources are provided to support the assessment and diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, but they may only provide vague or weak justification. Poor 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Two or fewer resources are provided to support the assessment and diagnosis decisions. The resources may not be current or evidence based.Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for parenthetical/in-text citations and reference list.–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (one or two) APA format errors Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Contains several (three or four) APA format errors Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Contains many (five or more) APA format errorsFeedback:

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 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understandingFeedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NRNP_6665_Week4_Assignment_Rubric