Social Science - Sociology ASSIGNMENT

canada2016

Main

Home >Homework Answsers >Social Science homework help >Sociology homework help

PLEASE SEE ATTACHED FILE

2 months ago
20.06.2026
10

Report issue

files (2)

Week4.docx
ReflectonthisdirectionfromtheAmericanPsychiatricAssociation.docx

Week4.docx

Week 4: The case of Eliazer

CASE of ELIAZER

INTAKE DATE: August xxxx

IDENTIFYING/DEMOGRAPHIC DATA: Eliazer is a 24-year-old Brazilian male. Eliazer’s religion is Catholic. He is single and attending the University of Maine for his master’s degree in finance. Eliazer was born and raised in São Paulo, Brazil, and came to the United States 2 years ago.

CHIEF COMPLAINT/PRESENTING PROBLEM: Over the past three months, Eliazer reported he heard an angel voice during the day and more so at night. Eliazer had thoughts about killing his roommate by suffocation, claiming that he heard fireflies tell him the roommate was influenced by Satan.

HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS: In the last several months, Eliazer began to become socially withdrawn (keeping himself in his room), losing his concentration and feeling depressed. He showed signs of difficulty organizing his thinking by shifting from one topic to another in discussions with no logical connection. Eliazer began spending his time browsing and chatting on Facebook about God and UFO’s. He would spend a lot of time online until he passed out. His sleep patterns became inconsistent, which led him to feel fatigued all day.

PAST PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY: Eliazer denies any past psychiatric history.

SUBSTANCE USE HISTORY: Eliazer denies any use of illicit drugs. He does report occasional use of alcohol. He was drunk as a teenager but prefers not to indulge that much.

PAST MEDICAL HISTORY: Eliazer had been admitted to a hospital six weeks ago for treatment after his wrist was injured due to a suicide attempt.

FAMILY MEDICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY: Eliazer is the second of five siblings. One of his family members has schizophrenia, but he would not identify the family member.

CURRENT FAMILY ISSUES AND DYNAMICS (OPTIONAL): Eliazer attends school for finance. His family continues to reside in Brazil. His parents are very supportive of his attendance at an American school. Eliazer socialized with other students and professors more than last year but has moved away from a lot of socialization. He did engage in leisure activities such as surfing the Internet, keeping his room tidy, doing household activities such as washing clothes, and kitchen preparation. That has reduced a lot over the past couple of months.

MENTAL STATUS EXAM: Eliazer appeared disheveled with poor hygiene. He was dressed in hospital attire during the interview and had adequate eye contact. Eliazer was cooperative during the interview. There were some signs of not enjoying school and activities any longer. He raised his voice one time during the interview. His mood was irritable with disconnected speech. Eliezer’s thoughts were preoccupied with the professor, and his peers were after – as the angel said. He was oriented, being able to state person, place, and time correctly. His short-term memory was intact, and he was able to retrieve game rules. His long-term memory was good at recalling previous history.

This topic is closed for comments.

ReflectonthisdirectionfromtheAmericanPsychiatricAssociation.docx

Reflect on this direction from the American Psychiatric Association (2021) DSM-5-TR: “Careful consideration should be given to the delineation of normal sadness and grief from a major depressive episode” (p. 177).

When considering how many disorders may have depressive symptoms, diagnosing bipolar and depressive disorders is an excellent example of the way in which no single symptom or characteristic points to a particular disorder. Indeed, beginning this week, when you practice diagnosis, you should not just focus on symptoms related to the disorder covered this week. Any disorder studied up until this point may be possible to diagnose in the case study if there appears to be more than one disorder.

This week, you continue your practice diagnosing mental disorders.

Note: Remember that symptoms can occur in many disorders. As a result, all disorders in the DSM-5-TR covered up until this point may factor into your diagnosis (for example, as a possible additional disorder you diagnose).

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 case study for this week.

· Start by familiarizing yourself with the disorders from the DSM-5-TR found in the Learning Resources this Week.

· Look within the noted sections for symptoms, behaviors, or other features the client presents within the case study.

· If some of the symptoms, in the case study, cause you to suspect an additional disorder, then research any of the previous disorders covered so far in the course.

· This mirrors real social work practice where you follow the symptoms.

· Review the correct format for how to write the diagnosis noted below. Be sure to use this format. Remember: When using Z codes, stay focused on the psychosocial and environmental impact on the client within the last 12 months.

By Day 7

Submit your diagnosis for the client in the case. Follow the guidelines below.

· The diagnosis should appear on one line in the following order. Note: Do not include the plus sign in your diagnosis. Instead, write the indicated items next to each other.

Code + Name + Specifier (appears on its own first line) Z code (appears on its own line next with its name written next to the code)

Then, in 1–2 pages, respond to the following:

· Explain how you support the diagnosis by specifically identifying the criteria from the case study.

· Describe in detail how the client’s symptoms match up with the specific diagnostic criteria for the disorder (or all the disorders) that you finally selected for the client. You do not need to repeat the diagnostic code in the explanation.

· Identify the differential diagnosis you considered.

· Explain why you excluded this diagnosis/diagnoses.

· Explain the specific factors of culture that are or may be relevant to the case and the diagnosis, which may include the cultural concepts of distress.

· Explain why you chose the Z codes you have for this client.

· Remember: When using Z codes, stay focused on the psychosocial and environmental impact on the client within the last 12 months.

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.

1. To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK4Assgn+last name+first initial

2. Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.

3. Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.

Rubric

SOCW_6090_Week4_Assignment_Rubric

SOCW_6090_Week4_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSubmit your diagnosis for the client in the case. Follow the guidelines below....The diagnosis should appear on one line in the following order:...Code + Name + Specifier (appears on its own first line)...Z code (appears on its own line next with its name written next to the code)	13.5 to >12.02 ptsExceeds Expectation 100%–90%Response contains an accurate diagnosis. ... The diagnosis is formatted correctly (e.g., the code, the diagnosis name, and any specifiers or Z codes follow the correct format). 12.02 to >10.67 ptsMeets Expectation 89%–80%Response contains an accurate diagnosis, but there is some error in the way the diagnosis is written in a limited way (e.g., the code, the diagnosis name, and any specifiers or Z codes may contain a formatting error, but it is still possible to see that the correct disorder was diagnosed). 10.67 to >9.32 ptsFair 79%–70%Response is in the right area but not exact. 9.32 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 69%–0%Response has a completely inaccurate diagnosis and/or does not attempt to achieve formatting requirement for an accurate diagnosis.	13.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain how you support the diagnosis by specifically identifying the criteria from the case study....Describe, in detail, how the client’s symptoms match up with the specific diagnostic criteria for all the disorder that you finally selected for the client. You do not need to repeat the diagnostic code in the Discussion.	13.5 to >12.02 ptsExceeds Expectation 100%–90%Response meets expectations and exceeds through relevant and/or added examples drawn from the case study and/or the DSM-5-TR. 12.02 to >10.67 ptsMeets Expectation 89%–80%Response supports the diagnosis by referring to direct evidence, in the case study, and explaining how the symptoms match diagnostic criteria. 10.67 to >9.32 ptsFair 79%–70%Response partially supports the diagnosis with direct evidence, in the case study, and explains how the symptoms match diagnostic criteria, but the response also relies upon generalizations or assumptions in part of the explanation. 9.32 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 69%–0%Response does not support the diagnosis at all, and/or relies solely on generalizations or assumptions over direct evidence from the case study, and/or does not attempt to explain how the symptoms match diagnostic criteria.	13.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentify the differential diagnosis you considered....Explain why you excluded this diagnosis/diagnoses. ...Explain the specific factors of culture that are—or may be—relevant to the case and the diagnosis, which may include the cultural concepts of distress....Explain why you chose the Z codes you have for this client.	13.5 to >12.02 ptsExceeds Expectation 100%–90%Response meets expectations and deepens the explanation through added connection and applicability to practice. ... Response draws out specific or deeper understanding through examples from the case study, Learning Resources, or peer-reviewed research or other relevant sources. 12.02 to >10.67 ptsMeets Expectation 89%–80%Response accurately and thoroughly explains rationale for differential diagnosis, cultural factors, and Z code choices where relevant. ... Response explanations refer to direct evidence in the case study and/or other Learning Resources and demonstrates an evident understanding of the Learning Resources. 10.67 to >9.32 ptsFair 79%–70%Response provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed explanation of rationale for differential diagnosis, cultural factors, and Z code choices where relevant. ... Response may show evidence of connection to the case study or Learning Resources, but it is vague or poorly connected. 9.32 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 69%–0%Response makes little or no attempt to provide a rationale for differential diagnosis, cultural factors, and Z code choices and does not demonstrate connection to peer-reviewed research or Learning Resources. No resources are used to support the response.	13.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting	4.5 to >4.01 ptsExceeds Expectation 100%–90%Paper meets length requirements, meets expectations, is generally error free (two or fewer), and further exceeds by showcasing an exemplary scholarly voice to develop its message or communicate ideas. ... Paper appropriately synthesizes sources to effectively support the diagnosis. ... Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt. 4.01 to >3.56 ptsMeets Expectation 89%–80%Paper meets length requirements and is clear and coherent. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are minor, minimal (three to five), and do not interfere with the scholarly message. The paper displays effective organization and focus to communicate ideas. ... Paper appropriately synthesizes sources to effectively support the diagnosis. ... Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt. 3.56 to >3.1 ptsFair 79%–70%Paper does not meet length requirements either somewhat too short or too long. The paper is somewhat clear and coherent. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are minor but frequent (five to 10) and occasionally interfere with the message. The paper lacks clear organization or occasionally strays from the focus. ... Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt. 3.1 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 69%–0%Paper does not meet length requirements either significantly too short or too long. The paper lacks clarity and coherence. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are major, pervasive (11+), and interfere with the message. The paper is not organized or lacks focus. ... Tone and presentation of ideas reveal bias and subjectivity.	4.5 pts

Total Points: 45

ReflectonthisdirectionfromtheAmericanPsychiatricAssociation.docx

This week, you continue your practice diagnosing mental disorders.

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 case study for this week.

· Start by familiarizing yourself with the disorders from the DSM-5-TR found in the Learning Resources this Week.

· Look within the noted sections for symptoms, behaviors, or other features the client presents within the case study.

· If some of the symptoms, in the case study, cause you to suspect an additional disorder, then research any of the previous disorders covered so far in the course.

· This mirrors real social work practice where you follow the symptoms.

By Day 7

Submit your diagnosis for the client in the case. Follow the guidelines below.

· The diagnosis should appear on one line in the following order. Note: Do not include the plus sign in your diagnosis. Instead, write the indicated items next to each other.

Code + Name + Specifier (appears on its own first line) Z code (appears on its own line next with its name written next to the code)

Then, in 1–2 pages, respond to the following:

· Explain how you support the diagnosis by specifically identifying the criteria from the case study.

· Identify the differential diagnosis you considered.

· Explain why you excluded this diagnosis/diagnoses.

· Explain the specific factors of culture that are or may be relevant to the case and the diagnosis, which may include the cultural concepts of distress.

· Explain why you chose the Z codes you have for this client.

· Remember: When using Z codes, stay focused on the psychosocial and environmental impact on the client within the last 12 months.

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.

1. To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK4Assgn+last name+first initial

2. Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.

3. Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.

Rubric

SOCW_6090_Week4_Assignment_Rubric

SOCW_6090_Week4_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSubmit your diagnosis for the client in the case. Follow the guidelines below....The diagnosis should appear on one line in the following order:...Code + Name + Specifier (appears on its own first line)...Z code (appears on its own line next with its name written next to the code)	13.5 to >12.02 ptsExceeds Expectation 100%–90%Response contains an accurate diagnosis. ... The diagnosis is formatted correctly (e.g., the code, the diagnosis name, and any specifiers or Z codes follow the correct format). 12.02 to >10.67 ptsMeets Expectation 89%–80%Response contains an accurate diagnosis, but there is some error in the way the diagnosis is written in a limited way (e.g., the code, the diagnosis name, and any specifiers or Z codes may contain a formatting error, but it is still possible to see that the correct disorder was diagnosed). 10.67 to >9.32 ptsFair 79%–70%Response is in the right area but not exact. 9.32 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 69%–0%Response has a completely inaccurate diagnosis and/or does not attempt to achieve formatting requirement for an accurate diagnosis.	13.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain how you support the diagnosis by specifically identifying the criteria from the case study....Describe, in detail, how the client’s symptoms match up with the specific diagnostic criteria for all the disorder that you finally selected for the client. You do not need to repeat the diagnostic code in the Discussion.	13.5 to >12.02 ptsExceeds Expectation 100%–90%Response meets expectations and exceeds through relevant and/or added examples drawn from the case study and/or the DSM-5-TR. 12.02 to >10.67 ptsMeets Expectation 89%–80%Response supports the diagnosis by referring to direct evidence, in the case study, and explaining how the symptoms match diagnostic criteria. 10.67 to >9.32 ptsFair 79%–70%Response partially supports the diagnosis with direct evidence, in the case study, and explains how the symptoms match diagnostic criteria, but the response also relies upon generalizations or assumptions in part of the explanation. 9.32 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 69%–0%Response does not support the diagnosis at all, and/or relies solely on generalizations or assumptions over direct evidence from the case study, and/or does not attempt to explain how the symptoms match diagnostic criteria.	13.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentify the differential diagnosis you considered....Explain why you excluded this diagnosis/diagnoses. ...Explain the specific factors of culture that are—or may be—relevant to the case and the diagnosis, which may include the cultural concepts of distress....Explain why you chose the Z codes you have for this client.	13.5 to >12.02 ptsExceeds Expectation 100%–90%Response meets expectations and deepens the explanation through added connection and applicability to practice. ... Response draws out specific or deeper understanding through examples from the case study, Learning Resources, or peer-reviewed research or other relevant sources. 12.02 to >10.67 ptsMeets Expectation 89%–80%Response accurately and thoroughly explains rationale for differential diagnosis, cultural factors, and Z code choices where relevant. ... Response explanations refer to direct evidence in the case study and/or other Learning Resources and demonstrates an evident understanding of the Learning Resources. 10.67 to >9.32 ptsFair 79%–70%Response provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed explanation of rationale for differential diagnosis, cultural factors, and Z code choices where relevant. ... Response may show evidence of connection to the case study or Learning Resources, but it is vague or poorly connected. 9.32 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 69%–0%Response makes little or no attempt to provide a rationale for differential diagnosis, cultural factors, and Z code choices and does not demonstrate connection to peer-reviewed research or Learning Resources. No resources are used to support the response.	13.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting	4.5 to >4.01 ptsExceeds Expectation 100%–90%Paper meets length requirements, meets expectations, is generally error free (two or fewer), and further exceeds by showcasing an exemplary scholarly voice to develop its message or communicate ideas. ... Paper appropriately synthesizes sources to effectively support the diagnosis. ... Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt. 4.01 to >3.56 ptsMeets Expectation 89%–80%Paper meets length requirements and is clear and coherent. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are minor, minimal (three to five), and do not interfere with the scholarly message. The paper displays effective organization and focus to communicate ideas. ... Paper appropriately synthesizes sources to effectively support the diagnosis. ... Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt. 3.56 to >3.1 ptsFair 79%–70%Paper does not meet length requirements either somewhat too short or too long. The paper is somewhat clear and coherent. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are minor but frequent (five to 10) and occasionally interfere with the message. The paper lacks clear organization or occasionally strays from the focus. ... Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt. 3.1 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 69%–0%Paper does not meet length requirements either significantly too short or too long. The paper lacks clarity and coherence. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are major, pervasive (11+), and interfere with the message. The paper is not organized or lacks focus. ... Tone and presentation of ideas reveal bias and subjectivity.	4.5 pts

Total Points: 45

Week4.docx

Week 4: The case of Eliazer

CASE of ELIAZER

INTAKE DATE: August xxxx

PAST PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY: Eliazer denies any past psychiatric history.

SUBSTANCE USE HISTORY: Eliazer denies any use of illicit drugs. He does report occasional use of alcohol. He was drunk as a teenager but prefers not to indulge that much.

PAST MEDICAL HISTORY: Eliazer had been admitted to a hospital six weeks ago for treatment after his wrist was injured due to a suicide attempt.

FAMILY MEDICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY: Eliazer is the second of five siblings. One of his family members has schizophrenia, but he would not identify the family member.

This topic is closed for comments.

ReflectonthisdirectionfromtheAmericanPsychiatricAssociation.docx

This week, you continue your practice diagnosing mental disorders.

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 case study for this week.

· Start by familiarizing yourself with the disorders from the DSM-5-TR found in the Learning Resources this Week.

· Look within the noted sections for symptoms, behaviors, or other features the client presents within the case study.

· If some of the symptoms, in the case study, cause you to suspect an additional disorder, then research any of the previous disorders covered so far in the course.

· This mirrors real social work practice where you follow the symptoms.

By Day 7

Submit your diagnosis for the client in the case. Follow the guidelines below.

· The diagnosis should appear on one line in the following order. Note: Do not include the plus sign in your diagnosis. Instead, write the indicated items next to each other.

Code + Name + Specifier (appears on its own first line) Z code (appears on its own line next with its name written next to the code)

Then, in 1–2 pages, respond to the following:

· Explain how you support the diagnosis by specifically identifying the criteria from the case study.

· Identify the differential diagnosis you considered.

· Explain why you excluded this diagnosis/diagnoses.

· Explain the specific factors of culture that are or may be relevant to the case and the diagnosis, which may include the cultural concepts of distress.

· Explain why you chose the Z codes you have for this client.

· Remember: When using Z codes, stay focused on the psychosocial and environmental impact on the client within the last 12 months.

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.

1. To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK4Assgn+last name+first initial

2. Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.

3. Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.

Rubric

SOCW_6090_Week4_Assignment_Rubric

SOCW_6090_Week4_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSubmit your diagnosis for the client in the case. Follow the guidelines below....The diagnosis should appear on one line in the following order:...Code + Name + Specifier (appears on its own first line)...Z code (appears on its own line next with its name written next to the code)	13.5 to >12.02 ptsExceeds Expectation 100%–90%Response contains an accurate diagnosis. ... The diagnosis is formatted correctly (e.g., the code, the diagnosis name, and any specifiers or Z codes follow the correct format). 12.02 to >10.67 ptsMeets Expectation 89%–80%Response contains an accurate diagnosis, but there is some error in the way the diagnosis is written in a limited way (e.g., the code, the diagnosis name, and any specifiers or Z codes may contain a formatting error, but it is still possible to see that the correct disorder was diagnosed). 10.67 to >9.32 ptsFair 79%–70%Response is in the right area but not exact. 9.32 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 69%–0%Response has a completely inaccurate diagnosis and/or does not attempt to achieve formatting requirement for an accurate diagnosis.	13.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain how you support the diagnosis by specifically identifying the criteria from the case study....Describe, in detail, how the client’s symptoms match up with the specific diagnostic criteria for all the disorder that you finally selected for the client. You do not need to repeat the diagnostic code in the Discussion.	13.5 to >12.02 ptsExceeds Expectation 100%–90%Response meets expectations and exceeds through relevant and/or added examples drawn from the case study and/or the DSM-5-TR. 12.02 to >10.67 ptsMeets Expectation 89%–80%Response supports the diagnosis by referring to direct evidence, in the case study, and explaining how the symptoms match diagnostic criteria. 10.67 to >9.32 ptsFair 79%–70%Response partially supports the diagnosis with direct evidence, in the case study, and explains how the symptoms match diagnostic criteria, but the response also relies upon generalizations or assumptions in part of the explanation. 9.32 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 69%–0%Response does not support the diagnosis at all, and/or relies solely on generalizations or assumptions over direct evidence from the case study, and/or does not attempt to explain how the symptoms match diagnostic criteria.	13.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentify the differential diagnosis you considered....Explain why you excluded this diagnosis/diagnoses. ...Explain the specific factors of culture that are—or may be—relevant to the case and the diagnosis, which may include the cultural concepts of distress....Explain why you chose the Z codes you have for this client.	13.5 to >12.02 ptsExceeds Expectation 100%–90%Response meets expectations and deepens the explanation through added connection and applicability to practice. ... Response draws out specific or deeper understanding through examples from the case study, Learning Resources, or peer-reviewed research or other relevant sources. 12.02 to >10.67 ptsMeets Expectation 89%–80%Response accurately and thoroughly explains rationale for differential diagnosis, cultural factors, and Z code choices where relevant. ... Response explanations refer to direct evidence in the case study and/or other Learning Resources and demonstrates an evident understanding of the Learning Resources. 10.67 to >9.32 ptsFair 79%–70%Response provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed explanation of rationale for differential diagnosis, cultural factors, and Z code choices where relevant. ... Response may show evidence of connection to the case study or Learning Resources, but it is vague or poorly connected. 9.32 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 69%–0%Response makes little or no attempt to provide a rationale for differential diagnosis, cultural factors, and Z code choices and does not demonstrate connection to peer-reviewed research or Learning Resources. No resources are used to support the response.	13.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting	4.5 to >4.01 ptsExceeds Expectation 100%–90%Paper meets length requirements, meets expectations, is generally error free (two or fewer), and further exceeds by showcasing an exemplary scholarly voice to develop its message or communicate ideas. ... Paper appropriately synthesizes sources to effectively support the diagnosis. ... Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt. 4.01 to >3.56 ptsMeets Expectation 89%–80%Paper meets length requirements and is clear and coherent. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are minor, minimal (three to five), and do not interfere with the scholarly message. The paper displays effective organization and focus to communicate ideas. ... Paper appropriately synthesizes sources to effectively support the diagnosis. ... Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt. 3.56 to >3.1 ptsFair 79%–70%Paper does not meet length requirements either somewhat too short or too long. The paper is somewhat clear and coherent. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are minor but frequent (five to 10) and occasionally interfere with the message. The paper lacks clear organization or occasionally strays from the focus. ... Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt. 3.1 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 69%–0%Paper does not meet length requirements either significantly too short or too long. The paper lacks clarity and coherence. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are major, pervasive (11+), and interfere with the message. The paper is not organized or lacks focus. ... Tone and presentation of ideas reveal bias and subjectivity.	4.5 pts

Total Points: 45

Week4.docx

Week 4: The case of Eliazer

CASE of ELIAZER

INTAKE DATE: August xxxx

PAST PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY: Eliazer denies any past psychiatric history.

SUBSTANCE USE HISTORY: Eliazer denies any use of illicit drugs. He does report occasional use of alcohol. He was drunk as a teenager but prefers not to indulge that much.

PAST MEDICAL HISTORY: Eliazer had been admitted to a hospital six weeks ago for treatment after his wrist was injured due to a suicide attempt.

FAMILY MEDICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY: Eliazer is the second of five siblings. One of his family members has schizophrenia, but he would not identify the family member.

This topic is closed for comments.

ReflectonthisdirectionfromtheAmericanPsychiatricAssociation.docx

This week, you continue your practice diagnosing mental disorders.

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 case study for this week.

· Start by familiarizing yourself with the disorders from the DSM-5-TR found in the Learning Resources this Week.

· Look within the noted sections for symptoms, behaviors, or other features the client presents within the case study.

· If some of the symptoms, in the case study, cause you to suspect an additional disorder, then research any of the previous disorders covered so far in the course.

· This mirrors real social work practice where you follow the symptoms.

By Day 7

Submit your diagnosis for the client in the case. Follow the guidelines below.

· The diagnosis should appear on one line in the following order. Note: Do not include the plus sign in your diagnosis. Instead, write the indicated items next to each other.

Code + Name + Specifier (appears on its own first line) Z code (appears on its own line next with its name written next to the code)

Then, in 1–2 pages, respond to the following:

· Explain how you support the diagnosis by specifically identifying the criteria from the case study.

· Identify the differential diagnosis you considered.

· Explain why you excluded this diagnosis/diagnoses.

· Explain the specific factors of culture that are or may be relevant to the case and the diagnosis, which may include the cultural concepts of distress.

· Explain why you chose the Z codes you have for this client.

· Remember: When using Z codes, stay focused on the psychosocial and environmental impact on the client within the last 12 months.

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.

1. To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK4Assgn+last name+first initial

2. Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.

3. Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.

Rubric

SOCW_6090_Week4_Assignment_Rubric

SOCW_6090_Week4_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSubmit your diagnosis for the client in the case. Follow the guidelines below....The diagnosis should appear on one line in the following order:...Code + Name + Specifier (appears on its own first line)...Z code (appears on its own line next with its name written next to the code)	13.5 to >12.02 ptsExceeds Expectation 100%–90%Response contains an accurate diagnosis. ... The diagnosis is formatted correctly (e.g., the code, the diagnosis name, and any specifiers or Z codes follow the correct format). 12.02 to >10.67 ptsMeets Expectation 89%–80%Response contains an accurate diagnosis, but there is some error in the way the diagnosis is written in a limited way (e.g., the code, the diagnosis name, and any specifiers or Z codes may contain a formatting error, but it is still possible to see that the correct disorder was diagnosed). 10.67 to >9.32 ptsFair 79%–70%Response is in the right area but not exact. 9.32 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 69%–0%Response has a completely inaccurate diagnosis and/or does not attempt to achieve formatting requirement for an accurate diagnosis.	13.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain how you support the diagnosis by specifically identifying the criteria from the case study....Describe, in detail, how the client’s symptoms match up with the specific diagnostic criteria for all the disorder that you finally selected for the client. You do not need to repeat the diagnostic code in the Discussion.	13.5 to >12.02 ptsExceeds Expectation 100%–90%Response meets expectations and exceeds through relevant and/or added examples drawn from the case study and/or the DSM-5-TR. 12.02 to >10.67 ptsMeets Expectation 89%–80%Response supports the diagnosis by referring to direct evidence, in the case study, and explaining how the symptoms match diagnostic criteria. 10.67 to >9.32 ptsFair 79%–70%Response partially supports the diagnosis with direct evidence, in the case study, and explains how the symptoms match diagnostic criteria, but the response also relies upon generalizations or assumptions in part of the explanation. 9.32 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 69%–0%Response does not support the diagnosis at all, and/or relies solely on generalizations or assumptions over direct evidence from the case study, and/or does not attempt to explain how the symptoms match diagnostic criteria.	13.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentify the differential diagnosis you considered....Explain why you excluded this diagnosis/diagnoses. ...Explain the specific factors of culture that are—or may be—relevant to the case and the diagnosis, which may include the cultural concepts of distress....Explain why you chose the Z codes you have for this client.	13.5 to >12.02 ptsExceeds Expectation 100%–90%Response meets expectations and deepens the explanation through added connection and applicability to practice. ... Response draws out specific or deeper understanding through examples from the case study, Learning Resources, or peer-reviewed research or other relevant sources. 12.02 to >10.67 ptsMeets Expectation 89%–80%Response accurately and thoroughly explains rationale for differential diagnosis, cultural factors, and Z code choices where relevant. ... Response explanations refer to direct evidence in the case study and/or other Learning Resources and demonstrates an evident understanding of the Learning Resources. 10.67 to >9.32 ptsFair 79%–70%Response provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed explanation of rationale for differential diagnosis, cultural factors, and Z code choices where relevant. ... Response may show evidence of connection to the case study or Learning Resources, but it is vague or poorly connected. 9.32 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 69%–0%Response makes little or no attempt to provide a rationale for differential diagnosis, cultural factors, and Z code choices and does not demonstrate connection to peer-reviewed research or Learning Resources. No resources are used to support the response.	13.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting	4.5 to >4.01 ptsExceeds Expectation 100%–90%Paper meets length requirements, meets expectations, is generally error free (two or fewer), and further exceeds by showcasing an exemplary scholarly voice to develop its message or communicate ideas. ... Paper appropriately synthesizes sources to effectively support the diagnosis. ... Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt. 4.01 to >3.56 ptsMeets Expectation 89%–80%Paper meets length requirements and is clear and coherent. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are minor, minimal (three to five), and do not interfere with the scholarly message. The paper displays effective organization and focus to communicate ideas. ... Paper appropriately synthesizes sources to effectively support the diagnosis. ... Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt. 3.56 to >3.1 ptsFair 79%–70%Paper does not meet length requirements either somewhat too short or too long. The paper is somewhat clear and coherent. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are minor but frequent (five to 10) and occasionally interfere with the message. The paper lacks clear organization or occasionally strays from the focus. ... Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt. 3.1 to >0 ptsNeeds Improvement 69%–0%Paper does not meet length requirements either significantly too short or too long. The paper lacks clarity and coherence. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are major, pervasive (11+), and interfere with the message. The paper is not organized or lacks focus. ... Tone and presentation of ideas reveal bias and subjectivity.	4.5 pts

Total Points: 45

other Questions(10)