PSY645 (Only has to be a few paragraphs, just make sure to answer questions!)

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.

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.

 THE INSTRUCTORS PERSONAL NOTES ABOUTTHE INSTRUCTIONSAND WHAT SHE EXPECTS 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.**To do this, you need to discuss specific actions taken or performed by the professional and discuss them in the context of one or more specific ethical principles. Then, you must offer a justification of why those actions/behaviors are evidence of following or not following the ethical principles you identify. Include in-text citations (e.g., the actual APA Ethical Principles).• Highlight the relevant information from the patient’s history you will use to inform your conceptualization of the patient’s problems and diagnosis.**Briefly summarize relevant information from the patient history, including specific symptoms--most important. Any other information you include should be relevant based on the theoretical orientation you will use in the next section. It is essential that information you include will illustrate specific symptoms/diagnostic criteria as mentioned in the DSM-5 for the diagnosis(es) you will later discuss. You may also an additional offer a diagnosis from the other assigned reading in the course.• 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.**First, if you did not include an appropriate theoretical orientation in your Week Two Initial Assessment, then you'll have to locate one now. As a reminder, examples of theoretical orientations include cognitive, cognitive-behavioral, humanistic, behavioral, psychodynamic, etc. Thus, your explanation for why each of the symptoms exist will differ based on which theoretical orientation you select. How you use the additional information will vary depending on which theoretical orientation you select. For example, family history information may be relevant to some theoretical orientations but not others.Be careful not to confuse treatment approaches with theoretical orientations. Each theoretical orientation may have several different treatment approaches.• 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.**To fulfill this requirement, you need to actually consult the DSM-5 and provide a proper diagnosis. Then, you need to link the symptoms reported in the scenario to the actual diagnosis. You may also locate an additional diagnosis from the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM). I STRONGLY ADVISE AGAINST omitting a proper DSM-5 diagnosis because it is the standard used in health settings. In the real world, the only place you could get away with not using the DSM-5 is in a setting where a diagnosis is not required (e.g., self-pay clients in private practice). Also, even if a diagnosis is not required, you want to use diagnoses that will allow you to communicate with other professionals as needed. The PDM is interesting and appropriate for classroom discussion, but it is highly esoteric.• 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.To do this, you must locate an evidence-based and non-evidence-based treatment option for this diagnosis. Keep in mind that for the evidence-based, it does not have to be an empirically validated treatment, but if it is, the research evidence will be stronger. There are evidence-based treatments which are not empirically validated, but all empirically validated treatments are evidence-based. These are discussed in the assigned reading, and you may find additional options in other scholarly sources.***There is another part to this: "Compare the benefits and costs of these treatment options."***You will have to do some additional research beyond the assigned readings to answer this portion of the prompt.• Based on specific theoretical and historical perspectives, provide questions for your colleagues seeking their thoughts and feedback.**This is a requirement which is easy to misunderstand because it is not clear which colleagues "your colleagues" refers to. It is the intent of the professor who designed this course that you pose questions that other members of the class (our PSY 645 colleagues) can respond to in order to solicit their thoughts and feedback about your diagnostic impressions.• Pose appropriate questions that may help refine the diagnostic impression of this patient.**This requirement means that you write questions you might recommend your consulting colleague (not our PSY 645 colleagues/classmates) pose to the client to help clarify the diagnosis.Also, remember that APA format is required for all work, so you must include in-text citations and a reference list. 

THE WRITTEN TRANSCRIPT

Grand RoundsHi, and thanks for attending this case presentation. My name is Dr. Stephen Brewer and I am a licensed clinical psychologist in San Diego, California and Assistant Professor of Psychology and Applied Behavioral Sciences at Ashford University. Today, I will be sharing with you the story of Bob.Presenting problemBob Smith is a 36-year-old man who came to me approximately six months ago with concerns about his career choice and life direction. He did not have any significant psychiatric symptoms, besides some understandable existential anxiety regarding his future. Bob was cooperative, friendly, open, and knowledgeable about psychology during our first few sessions together. I noticed that he seemed guarded only when talking about his family and childhood experiences. To confirm his identity, I checked his driver’s license to ensure his name was indeed Bob Smith and that he lived close by in a mobile home in Spring Valley. Given his relatively mild symptoms, we decided to meet once a week for supportive psychotherapy so he could work through his anxieties. I gave him a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety.HistoryHere’s some background on Bob to give you a sense of who he is.FamilyBob grew up as an only child in Edmonton, Canada, in a low-income, conservative, and very religious household. He shared that his father was largely absent during his childhood, as he spent most of the week residing north of Edmonton, where he worked as a mechanic in the oil fields near Fort McMurray. On weekends, Bob’s father would return home and spend as much time as possible with his family. Bob described his father as warm, caring, and a hard worker. His father reportedly died one year ago.Bob’s mother was described as a strict, rule-based woman who had a short temper and was prone to furious outbursts over trivial matters. She worked in Bob’s junior high as a janitor, which meant that Bob often crossed paths with his mother at school, where she would often check up on him. During Bob’s high school years, Bob’s mother got a new job as a high school librarian.At 18, Bob moved to San Diego to study psychology at San Diego State University. He lived in the dorms for his first few years, where he easily made friends and joined a fraternity. Bob maintained contact with his parents, but ceased all contact when his mother suggested she would move to San Diego to be closer to him. He graduated with a 3.2 GPA and began working for the county as a psychiatric technician. He worked as a psych tech for 14 years and described it as “fun at first, but it got boring and predictable after a while.”TreatmentBob shared that he has a medical doctor that he visits once every few years for his routine physical. He denied having any significant medical problems. Additionally, he denied using any illicit substances and reported drinking only on occasion with friends from his fraternity.CollateralAbout a month ago, I was curious to learn more about Bob from his friends and mother. He was happy to sign a release of information for me to speak with his friends, but he refused to sign one so I could talk with his mother. Still, since his mother’s point of view seemed very important to me, I hired a private detective to find Bob’s mother’s contact information so I could speak with her about Bob’s life and treatment.Bob’s fraternity friends shared some startling information that I wasn’t expecting to hear. They shared they were relieved that Bob was seeing a psychologist and that they have been trying to convince Bob to see a psychologist for years. They added that Bob’s personality changed significantly approximately three years ago. Where Bob was originally a friendly, gregarious, outgoing individual, he suddenly turned into a suspicious and reclusive man who disappeared for months at a time. They observed Bob losing a significant amount of weight over the course of only a few months, and they suspected drug use of some kind. According to them, Bob hasn’t been showing up to work regularly and doesn’t return their calls.Current symptomsHere is my problem.Bob’s current presentation in therapy seems to be incongruent with what I’ve only recently learned from his friends. It’s almost as if I’m learning about two completely different people. Although Bobseems to be friendly and open with me, his friends describe him as suspicious and closed off. This is puzzling.QuestionGiven this new information, how should I make sense of Bob?