Assignment: legal and ethical issues related to psychiatric

NOTE: We do not resell pre-written papers. Upon ordering a paper, we custom-write an original paper exclusively for you. Please proceed and order an original paper to enjoy top grades.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

PLEASE FOLLOW INSTRUCTION BELOW, ZERO PLAGIARISM, FIVE REFERENCES NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, 7TH APA FORMAT/WRITING STYLE, SEE RUBRIC AND ASSIGNMENT DETAIL BELOW, PLEASE: Attach copies of or links to the suicide and violence risk assessments you selected.

The diagnosis of psychiatric emergencies can include a wide range of problems—from serious drug reactions to abuse and suicidal ideation/behaviors. Regardless of care setting, the PMHNP must know how to address emergencies, coordinate care with other members of the health care team and law enforcement officials (when indicated), and effectively communicate with family members who are often overwhelmed in emergency situations. In their role, PMHNPs can ensure a smooth transition from emergency mental health care to follow-up care, and also bridge the physical–mental health divide in healthcare.

In this week’s Assignment, you explore legal and ethical issues surrounding psychiatric emergencies, and identify evidence-based suicide and violence risk assessments. 

Rubric Detail

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

Content

Name: NRNP_6675_Week8_Assignment_Rubric

  Excellent

90%–100%

Good

80%–89%

Fair

70%–79%

Poor

0%–69%

In 2–3 pages, address the following:

• Explain your state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult psychiatric emergencies. Include who can hold a patient and for how long, who can release the emergency hold, and who can pick up the patient after a hold is released.

Points:

Points Range:
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

The response includes a thorough and well-organized explanation of student’s state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult emergencies.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

The response includes an accurate explanation of student’s state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult emergencies.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
11 (11%) – 11 (11%)

The response includes a somewhat vague or inaccurate explanation of student’s state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult emergencies.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 10 (10%)

The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of student’s state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult emergencies. Or the response is missing.

Feedback:

• Explain the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state.

Points:

Points Range:
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

The response includes an accurate and concise explanation of the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

The response includes a well-organized explanation of the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
11 (11%) – 11 (11%)

The response includes a somewhat vague explanation of the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 10 (10%)

The response includes a vague explanation of the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state. Or the response is missing.

Feedback:

• Explain the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts.

Points:

Points Range:
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

The response includes an accurate and concise explanation of the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

The response includes an accurate explanation of the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

The response includes a somewhat vague or incomplete explanation of the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts. Or the response is missing.

Feedback:

• Select one of the following topics and explain one legal issue and one ethical issue related to this topic that may apply within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies: patient autonomy, EMTALA, confidentiality, HIPAA privacy rule, HIPAA security rule, protected information, legal gun ownership, career obstacles (security clearances/background checks), and payer source.

Points:

Points Range:
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

The response accurately and concisely explains one legal and one ethical issue related to the selected topic, within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

The response accurately explains one legal and one ethical issue related to the selected topic, within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
11 (11%) – 11 (11%)

The response somewhat vaguely or innacurately explains one legal and one ethical issue related to the selected topic, within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 10 (10%)

The response vaguely or innacurately explains one legal and one ethical issue related to the selected topic, within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies. Or, response is missing.

Feedback:

•Identify one evidence-based suicide risk assessment that you could use to screen patients. Attach a copy or a link to the assessment you identified.

Points:

Points Range:
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

The response identifies and explains an appropriate, evidence-based suicide risk assessment that could be used to screen patients. A copy of or a link to the assessment is included.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

The response identifies an appropriate, evidence-based suicide risk assessment that could be used to screen patients. A copy of or a link to the assessment is included.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
11 (11%) – 11 (11%)

The risk assessment identified is somewhat inappropriate for the intended use or dated. A copy of or a link to the assessment may be missing.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 10 (10%)

The risk assessment identified is inappropriate for the intended use, not evidence based, or dated. Or, response is missing.

Feedback:

• Identify one evidence-based violence risk assessment that you could use to screen patients. Attach a copy or a link to the assessment you identified.

Points:

Points Range:
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

The response identifies and explains an appropriate, evidence-based violence risk assessment that could be used to screen patients. A copy of or a link to the assessment is included.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

The response identifies an appropriate, evidence-based violence risk assessment that could be used to screen patients. A copy of or a link to the assessment is included.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
11 (11%) – 11 (11%)

The risk assessment identified is somewhat inappropriate for the intended use or dated. A copy of or a link to the assessment may be missing.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 10 (10%)

The risk assessment identified is inappropriate for the intended use, not evidence based, or dated. Or, response is missing.

Feedback:

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.

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet they are brief and not descriptive.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are vague or off topic.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.

No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided.

Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards:

Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper 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 1-2 grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Contains 3-4 grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Contains five or more grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding

Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, 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 1-2 APA format errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Contains 3-4 APA format errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Contains five or more APA format errors

Feedback:

Show Descriptions

Show Feedback

In 2–3 pages, address the following:

• Explain your state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult psychiatric emergencies. Include who can hold a patient and for how long, who can release the emergency hold, and who can pick up the patient after a hold is released.

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

The response includes a thorough and well-organized explanation of student’s state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult emergencies.

Good

80%–89%
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

The response includes an accurate explanation of student’s state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult emergencies.

Fair

70%–79%
11 (11%) – 11 (11%)

The response includes a somewhat vague or inaccurate explanation of student’s state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult emergencies.

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 10 (10%)

The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of student’s state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult emergencies. Or the response is missing.

Feedback:

• Explain the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

The response includes an accurate and concise explanation of the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state.

Good

80%–89%
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

The response includes a well-organized explanation of the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state.

Fair

70%–79%
11 (11%) – 11 (11%)

The response includes a somewhat vague explanation of the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state.

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 10 (10%)

The response includes a vague explanation of the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state. Or the response is missing.

Feedback:

• Explain the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

The response includes an accurate and concise explanation of the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts.

Good

80%–89%
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

The response includes an accurate explanation of the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts.

Fair

70%–79%
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

The response includes a somewhat vague or incomplete explanation of the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts.

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts. Or the response is missing.

Feedback:

• Select one of the following topics and explain one legal issue and one ethical issue related to this topic that may apply within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies: patient autonomy, EMTALA, confidentiality, HIPAA privacy rule, HIPAA security rule, protected information, legal gun ownership, career obstacles (security clearances/background checks), and payer source.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

The response accurately and concisely explains one legal and one ethical issue related to the selected topic, within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies.

Good

80%–89%
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

The response accurately explains one legal and one ethical issue related to the selected topic, within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies.

Fair

70%–79%
11 (11%) – 11 (11%)

The response somewhat vaguely or innacurately explains one legal and one ethical issue related to the selected topic, within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies.

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 10 (10%)

The response vaguely or innacurately explains one legal and one ethical issue related to the selected topic, within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies. Or, response is missing.

Feedback:

•Identify one evidence-based suicide risk assessment that you could use to screen patients. Attach a copy or a link to the assessment you identified.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

The response identifies and explains an appropriate, evidence-based suicide risk assessment that could be used to screen patients. A copy of or a link to the assessment is included.

Good

80%–89%
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

The response identifies an appropriate, evidence-based suicide risk assessment that could be used to screen patients. A copy of or a link to the assessment is included.

Fair

70%–79%
11 (11%) – 11 (11%)

The risk assessment identified is somewhat inappropriate for the intended use or dated. A copy of or a link to the assessment may be missing.

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 10 (10%)

The risk assessment identified is inappropriate for the intended use, not evidence based, or dated. Or, response is missing.

Feedback:

• Identify one evidence-based violence risk assessment that you could use to screen patients. Attach a copy or a link to the assessment you identified.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

The response identifies and explains an appropriate, evidence-based violence risk assessment that could be used to screen patients. A copy of or a link to the assessment is included.

Good

80%–89%
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

The response identifies an appropriate, evidence-based violence risk assessment that could be used to screen patients. A copy of or a link to the assessment is included.

Fair

70%–79%
11 (11%) – 11 (11%)

The risk assessment identified is somewhat inappropriate for the intended use or dated. A copy of or a link to the assessment may be missing.

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 10 (10%)

The risk assessment identified is inappropriate for the intended use, not evidence based, or dated. Or, response is missing.

Feedback:

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.

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria.

Good

80%–89%
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet they are brief and not descriptive.

Fair

70%–79%
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are vague or off topic.

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.

No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided.

Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards:

Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors

Good

80%–89%
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains 1-2 grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

Fair

70%–79%
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Contains 3-4 grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Contains five or more grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding

Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

90%–100%
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct APA format with no errors

Good

80%–89%
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains 1-2 APA format errors

Fair

70%–79%
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Contains 3-4 APA format errors

Poor

0%–69%
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Contains five or more APA format errors

Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NRNP_6675_Week8_Assignment_Rubric

Assignment: Legal and Ethical Issues Related to Psychiatric Emergencies

The diagnosis of psychiatric emergencies can include a wide range of problems—from serious drug reactions to abuse and suicidal ideation/behaviors. Regardless of care setting, the PMHNP must know how to address emergencies, coordinate care with other members of the health care team and law enforcement officials (when indicated), and effectively communicate with family members who are often overwhelmed in emergency situations. In their role, PMHNPs can ensure a smooth transition from emergency mental health care to follow-up care, and also bridge the physical–mental health divide in healthcare.

In this week’s Assignment, you explore legal and ethical issues surrounding psychiatric emergencies, and identify evidence-based suicide and violence risk assessments. 

To Prepare

· Review this week’s Learning Resources and consider the insights they provide about psychiatric emergencies and the ethical and legal issues surrounding these events.

The Assignment

In 2–3 pages, address the following:

· Explain your state laws for involuntary psychiatric holds for child and adult psychiatric emergencies. Include who can hold a patient and for how long, who can release the emergency hold, and who can pick up the patient after a hold is released.

· Explain the differences among emergency hospitalization for evaluation/psychiatric hold, inpatient commitment, and outpatient commitment in your state.

· Explain the difference between capacity and competency in mental health contexts.

· Select one of the following topics, and explain one legal issue and one ethical issue related to this topic that may apply within the context of treating psychiatric emergencies: patient autonomy, EMTALA, confidentiality, HIPAA privacy rule, HIPAA security rule, protected information, legal gun ownership, career obstacles (security clearances/background checks), and payer source.

· Identify one evidence-based suicide risk assessment that you could use to screen patients.

· Identify one evidence-based violence risk assessment that you could use to screen patients.

By Day 7 of Week 8

Submit your Assignment. Attach copies of or links to the suicide and violence risk assessments you selected.

"Is this question part of your assignment? We can help"

ORDER NOW
Writerbay.net

Do you need help with an assignment? We work for the best interests of our clients and maintain professionalism to offer brilliant writing services in most of academic fields—ranging from nursing, philosophy, psychology, biology, finance, accounting, criminal justice, mathematics, computer science, among others.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper