My assigned number was 6 which is: Inferior vs. Anterior Wall Myocardial Infarction

Initial post:Each student will be assigned a number randomly.  Whatever your number is, select the corresponding topic below, then post a minimum of 5 bullet points about the topic.Your bullet points should address key components of the topic, such as what, how, who, & why.  This information should not be basic things you learned in Med/Surg, but rather advanced critical care based. For example, with Posturing: discuss what causes postering, how do you assess postering, what disease processes cause different types of postering, why is it vital for a critical care nurse to understand the physiology of posturing. Think about this as a group effort to create a study guide. Use ONLY your textbook, but do not cut & paste from the book.Then create, find, or borrow a test style question about your topic & post at the bottom of your bullet points. The format needs to be multiple choice or select all that apply. Think NCLEX style. Each week include a paragraph with the results from one of your weekly interviews.Discussion post assignments are worth 20 points each as follows: 

• 5 points for the quality of your bullet points.
• 5 points for the quality of your question.
• 5 points for answering the question of a peer as your response.
• 5 points for the quality of your rationale.
  • Quality is defined as thorough and thoughtful while demonstrating professional level knowledge of the topic

Instructions Unit 1 Assignment – Clinical Preparation Tool- Instructions- 800w-4 references- due 11-4-23

Topic: Suicidal Ideation 

Suicide Assessment C-SSRS

The Columbia Lighthouse Project. (2016). 


Identify risk. Prevent suicide

Links to an external site.
. https://cssrs.columbia.edu/

For this week utilize the tool listed above to complete the assignment.

Overview  

As you will learn throughout the program, the diagnosis of a variety of psychiatric illnesses is not always an easy or straightforward process. Multiple observations and assessment methods are often employed to reach a diagnosis. This approach can include the use of standardized assessment instruments.  This then aids you in defining a treatment plan and choosing specific treatment plans to use in the care of your clients.  

You are tasked with
identifying a standardized assessment instrument/tool to measure the disorders listed for each week. You will keep these instruments in the form of a “portfolio” that you can use in your clinical practice to assess clients who present with a variety of symptoms.  

Instructions:  

Instrument/ Tool criteria:  

For each assessment, you are tasked with selecting, you will identify an instrument and:  

1. List what
DSM diagnosis the tool/instrument is used for.  

2.
Identify an assessment/diagnosis instrument. 

3. Appraise a scholarly, peer-reviewed article that addresses the use of the instrument to support your choice as an evidence-based instrument for practice.  

4. Evaluate the instrument’s appropriateness for diagnosing the condition it is designed to assess or if the developers of the instrument reported that the instrument is only part of a comprehensive assessment for the disorder.  

5. Describe whether or not the instrument can be used to measure patient response to therapy/treatment or if it is strictly for assessment and diagnosis.  

6. Discuss the psychometrics/scoring of the instrument, including reliability and validity.  

7. Discuss any limitations associated with the use of the instrument. 

8. Include a link to view the assessment if possible. 

 Use the following template in completing your portfolio assignments. Your information can be in a bulleted format or just a couple of sentences for each criterion listed above. However, you must use APA citations.  You are NOT required to write this in a paper format.  Turn in one document for each week’s topics.  (However, create a file on your desktop to compile your portfolio as you move through the term.)  This will ensure you can have easy access to show the full portfolio and once you begin clinicals and practice.  Throughout the program, you will continue to add to the portfolio in each course. 

Anxiety and Related Disorders

Week 4

DSM: Generalized Anxiety Disorder

Instrument: Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder 2

(GAD-2)

Article: Validation and Standardization of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7)

in the General Population. Medical Care

Appropriateness for Dx: The GAD-7 and GAD-2 is screening tools for initial assessment for

mental health screening. The screening is the process used by healthcare provider to assess the

need to further evaluate for anxiety disorders. This helps determine the need for further

questioning on the anxiety the individual may be experiencing.

Response to Therapy/Treatment: This screening is effective for self-reporting of anxiety for

the healthcare provider. The evidence supports the validity and reliability of the GAD-7 and

GAD-2 for screening for anxiety disorders (Löwe et al., 2008).

Assessment Instruments

Psychometrics: The questionnaire is a self-reporting tool used for the individual to report any

problematic areas dealing with anxiety. The screening tool has 7 questions in the GAD-7 and the

shorter briefer questionnaire has 2 questions. The questionnaire asks the individual “Over the last

2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by the following problems?”. Then list 7 different

items relating to anxiety and the GAD-2 is the same just stops after question 2. The is effective

screening tool to help see the problem areas. The individual has several different choices to

provide feedback. It is on a scaled system to calculate a score. For example, the first choice “0”

has the words “not at all” and the last choice is “nearly every day” with the score of “+3”. The

calculated score at the end is broke down by minimal, mild, moderate, severe anxiety based on

the scoring.

Limitations:

Limitations: The limitations on the screening tool is the individual answering truthfully or to the

best of their ability. The assessment and further evaluation by the healthcare provider is

necessary for validation of the diagnosis.

References

Löwe, B., Decker, O., Müller, S., Brähler, E., Schellberg, D., Herzog, W., & Herzberg, P. Y.

(2008). Validation and Standardization of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) in

the General Population. Medical Care, 46(3), 266–274.

Make a follow-up of a student's weekly discussion and respond with your opinion regarding to her post

——You don't have to post this in APA format necessarily, it's just giving feedback to the student .

Jacqueline Kenney

Good Evening Professor,

 

              I work in one of the largest hospital systems in Atlanta. The facility I work for has the bed capacity for 686 patients. The hospital specializes in cardiovascular procedures (the implantation of the LVAD) and transplantation of liver, and kidneys. The hospital attracts people from across the country. People coming from literally every state, and sometimes from out of the country.

            The area where I see the EHR impeding patient care, and again this might be in part, due to end-user negligence, are providers not utilizing the information and data contained within the patient's EHR frequently enough.  We run off a system called EPIC (EHR). I have come to realize most hospitals in the state of Georgia, and other states use EPIC as well.  Embedded within the EPIC system is a hyperlink called Care Everywhere. The Care Everywhere tab allows all providers on the EPIC system to see notes, documentation, tests results, frequency of visits, and more. This data covers every hospital, clinical, urgent care, and office visit the patient has encountered so as long as the facility is on the EPIC system. I believe the shear amount of medical information becomes overwhelming and time consuming to comb through, especially for medical providers who are already seeing numerous patients at the bedside and in specialty offices. 

          Despite medical documentation being readily available to providers across the healthcare spectrum, there seems to be little time for a busy Cardiologist to review necessary documentation from the patient's Pulmonary doctor, or the notes placed from Endocrinology. Often a patient comes for a visit due to CAD, but the patient is also a diabetic with uncontrolled elevated blood glucose. We know one disease process feeds the other, but in spite of the EHR containing valuable patient data, providers are still missing imperative clinical information required to treat the patients holistically. 

          The one department which I see consistently using chart review to coordinate care with patients, providers, and families are RN Case Managers within the hospital setting.  RN Case Managers, and Care Coordinators are responsible for knowing what is missing in the patient continuum of care. The RNCM interfaces with the providers, and assists in providing education to both medical MDs and patients regarding critical clinical information which will advance the clinical process and bring better patient outcomes. McBride & Tietze (2018) discussed unintended harm, or consequences suffered by patients with the implementation of the EHR. One such consequence has to do with physicians required to research, and review copious amounts of previous documentation, as well as being required to spend greater amounts of time entering documentation.  Such time consuming tasks often create information, and important patient data not being read, or documented in an effort to save time, and so providers can physically see more patients. 

 

Resources

                FAAN, S.M.P.R. C., & FAAN, M.T.P.R. F. (2018). 
Nursing Informatics for the Advanced Practice Nurse (2nd ed.). Springer Publishing LLC. 

https://ambassadored.vitalsource.com/books/9780826140555Links to an external site.

           Williams, M. D., Asiedu, G. B., Finnie, D., Neely, C., Egginton, J., Finney Rutten, L. J., & Jacobson, R. M. (2019). Sustainable care coordination: a qualitative study of primary care provider, administrator, and insurer perspectives. 
BMC health services research, 
19(1), 92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-3916

 Reply