Please follow the instructions and follow the rubric for each course work answer in proper APA format treat each work as a separate file and each work needs a separate References , use the learning resources to support your anxswer.

SOCW04week 6 return to my posted discussions

Learning Resources to be used as references to support your answer.

Note:

To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings

Gehlert, S., & Browne, T. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of health social work (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

· Chapter 5, “Health Policy and Social Work” (pp. 100–124)

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.cms.gov/

Burg, M. A., Zebrack, B., Walsh, K., Maramaldi, P., Lim, J. W., Smolinski, K. M., & Lawson, K. (2010). Barriers to accessing quality health care for cancer patients: A survey of members of the association of oncology social work. Social Work in Health Care, 49(1), 38–52.

Note: Retrieved from Walden Library databases.

Chaumba, J. (2011). Health status, use of health care resources, and treatment strategies of Ethiopian and Nigerian immigrants in the United States. Social Work in Health Care, 50(6), 466–481.

Note: Retrieved from Walden Library databases.

Allen, H. (2012). Is there a social worker in the house? Health care reform and the future of medical social work. Health and Social Work, 37(3), 183–186.

Note: Retrieved from Walden Library databases.

Collins, S. (2012). Essential health benefits & the Affordable Care Act: What social workers need to know. Retrieved from https://www.socialworkers.org/assets/secured/documents/practice/health/essentialhealthbenefits

Gross, W., Stark, T. H., Krosnick, J., Pasek, J., Sood, G., … Junius, D. (n.d.). Americans’ attitudes toward the Affordable Care Act: Would better public understanding increase or decrease favorability? Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/dept/communication/faculty/krosnick/docs/2012/Health%20Care%202012%20-%20Knowledge%20and%20Favorability

Lindberg, E. (2013). What will Obamacare mean to social work? Retrieved from http://sowkweb.usc.edu/news/what-will-obamacare-mean-social-work

Reisch, M. (2012). The challenges of health care reform for hospital social work in the United States. Social Work in Health Care, 51(10), 873–893.

Note: Retrieved from Walden Library databases.

Optional Resources

American College of Physicians. (2011). How can our nation conserve and distribute health care resources effectively and efficiently? Retrieved from http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/current_policy_papers/assets/health_care_resources

Darnell, J. S. (2013). Navigators and assisters: Two case management roles for social workers in the Affordable Care Act. Health & Social Work, 38(2), 123–126.

Society for Human Resource Management. (n.d.). Health care reform resource page. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/Articles/Pages/HealthCareReform.aspx

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.hrsa.gov/index.html

This is my posted discussion for SOCW 04 week6 discussion #1 that the students are making the comments from. Not a work READ ONLY!

RE: Discussion 1 – Week 6

COLLAPSE

Top of Form

Concrete Resources in Health Care

Private and public insurance arrangements are different concerning the state within which the patient lives, employment, and accessibility to state programs. Private insurance is normally accorded to patients utilizing an arrangement made by an employer, is bought on a private basis via the healthcare exchange, or is bought directly from the insurance payer (Flint, 2014). Privately machinated health insurance plans are not the same; some are better than others concerning number of inclusive networks, lower co-payments, better medication coverage, and reduced deductibles. Individual insurance plans can help a patient to realize potentially stress-free right to make use of higher quality providers and possibly bring about more choices regarding healthcare provision.

Secondly, public insurance is granted to existing and prospective patients via a state-funded program known as Medicare. Patients that are deemed worthy of SSDI (Social Security Disability Income) have the capacity to access Medicare the moment they become senior citizens (age 65 and above) or the moment they are deemed completely disabled by a physician (Fitzpatrick, Powe, Cooper, Ives, & Robbins, 2004).

Medicare happens to be an entitlement because the patient would have expended cash into the program through payroll over their whole life. All the same, there happen to be limitations to Medicare inclusive of several serious restrictions such as behavioral health resources, the donut hole for drugs and medicines, and the three-midnight rule for admission to a high-quality nursing facility for physical therapy rehab (Fitzpatrick et al., 2004).

Additionally, Medicaid is offered to patients that have no or little income and never have right of access to coverage via an arrangement made by an employer. From the year 2016 above 72 million Americans made a point of becoming registered under Medicaid together with the Children’s Health Insurance Program (Hom, Stillson, Robin, Kruger, & Grande, 2017). Medicaid happens to be a perfect choice for offering coverage to individuals that would normally lack it, and it many a time meets all or many of the needs of patients. Nevertheless, there happens to be many limiting factors in the services provided such as being characterized by a limited network of contracted health care providers and the offering of limited accessibility to some medications. For many coverage programs, the above-mentioned restrictions can have a negative outcome and hamper a patient’s choices for improving their wellbeing and health; more so within the mental and behavioral health ground.

Within the entirety of Pennsylvania, Medicaid coverage had been broadened to factor in American patients with a higher purchasing power parity that are still deemed to be of low earning jobs. Listed below is the number of programs in the Pennsylvania Medicaid system intended to better the livelihood of disadvantaged people.

1. Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)

2. Medicaid for Former Foster Care Youth

3. Dental Services

4. Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening and Treatment

5. Medical Assistance for Children and Pregnant Women

6. Medicare Part D Drug Coverage Information

7. Family Planning Services

8. Help with Medical Appointments if your English is Limited

9. Sign Language Interpreter Services for Medical Appointments

10. Substance Abuse Services

11. Office of Long-Term Living

12. Long-Term Care Services

13. Long-Term Living in PA

14. Get a Ride to the Doctor: Medical Assistance Transportation Program

15. Phillyhealthinfo.org

16. Special Kids Network

17. Medical Assistance Eligibility Handbook

18. Long-Term Care Handbook

In as much as it is never advertised publicly, my social work practice has been very efficacious in assisting a host of undocumented individuals to realize Medicaid treatment coverage for hospitalizations. In the event that the undocumented patient has been within American borders for over half a decade and is troubled by a life-threatening illness, they may be qualified for long-term Medicaid aids.

Expanding my answer

Public health insurance refers to insurance that is paid for entirely or in part by government (public) funds for the people being covered. Some different public options are at the disposition of citizens within every state, but stringent suitability requirements exist. On the other hand, the American health care industry has it that private health insurance is offered through an employer or can be bought by individuals. Concerning private health insurance plans, some bosses only provide a single type of health insurance plan. Some of them may not permit the employee to choose from more than a separate program. All the same, it is worth mentioning that employees benefit from insurance plans offered by employers since buying health insurance on your own, as opposed to getting a plan through an employer, usually is expensive.

Medicaid and Medicare are different concerning cost, eligibility, benefits, limitations in services and services provided. Medicare and Medicaid are both state provisions for healthcare (Darnell, 2013). Medicaid can be defined as a state-run, insurance program of the government that assists individuals with lower purchasing power parity to afford the payment of medical care. What Medicaid does is that it pays the health care provider. Though, there are instances where patients may be required to make a small payment for specific medical care. Medicaid is open only to specific low earning families and individuals who are deemed worthy. Requirements regarding who is eligible and the nature of services that are covered are different depending on the state.

Medicare is health insurance accorded by the government for individuals that are considered senior citizens (age of 65 and beyond). Individuals challenged with health problems or disabilities like chronic (long-term) failure of the kidney treated with a transplant or dialysis, may also realize insurance using Medicare. It covers some, but never all, medical costs for individuals that qualify (Reisch, 2012).

The state I live in is considerate and always offers to better access to medical care for populations that are vulnerable. These include pregnant women, children, single mothers, and immigrants. For pregnant women and children under the age of five years, treatment is free. In addition to that single moms and their children together with immigrants are treated at meager rates considering the economic challenges they are bound to face every once in a while.

Reference

Darnell, J. S. (2013). Navigators and assisters: Two case management roles for social workers in the Affordable Care Act. Health & Social Work, 38(2), 123–126.

Reisch, M. (2012). The challenges of health care reform for hospital social work in the United States. Social Work in Health Care, 51(10), 873–893.

Flint, S. S. (2014). Who loses when a state declines the Medicaid expansion? Health & Social Work. pp. 69-72

Fitzpatrick, A. L., Powe, N. R., Cooper, L. S., Ives, D. G., & Robbins, J. A. (2004). Barriers to health care access among the elderly and who perceives them. American Journal of Public Health, 94(10), 1788-1794.

Hom, J. K., Stillson, C., Robin, R., Kruger, E., & Grande, D. (2017). Effect of outreach messages on Medicaid enrollment. American Journal of Public Health, 107S71-S73. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.303845

PA. Gov. (n.d.). Retrieved January 02, 2018, from

http://www.dhs.pa.gov/citizens/healthcaremedicalassistance/index/htm

Reply

Quote

Bottom of Form

Work #1 Answer in APA format with 1 citations per paragraph treat each answer as a separate work or file and each work or file need separate references. At least 350 word each answer if you can.
Support your posts with specific references to the Learning Resources given in this work. Be sure to provide full APA citations for your references. Treat each work, file or answer as a separate work and each work or answer needs separate references.

Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the resources and the current literature given in the work using appropriate APA format and style

Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you have learned and/or any insights you have gained as a result of your colleagues’ comments.

Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the resources and the current literature using appropriate APA format and style.

Work #1 Andrea Houston-Wilson

RE: Discussion 1 – Week 6

COLLAPSE

Top of Form

Cheraldo,

I like that fact that you explained Medicare as an entitlement insurance program and the limitations that exist with this program. Medicaid, the other insurance program has its limitations, too. Both Medicare and Medicaid are public health care insurance programs that were created in 1965. The main differences between the two insurance programs are Medicare is available to all United States citizens age 65 or older to include individuals with certain disabilities (UWIRE Text, 2014). With Medicare, there is no income restrictions because it is a federal program. Medicaid has certain eligibility restrictions that are income based and the program varies from states to states.

Reference

UWIRE Text. (2014). Business Basics: Medicare vs. Medicaid. Uloop Inc. Retrieved from

http://link.galegroup.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/apps/doc/A356346242/EAIM?u=minn4020&sid=EAIM&xid=ccf3cdeb

Name: SOCW_6204_Week6_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View

List View

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Responsiveness to
Directions

Points:

Points Range: 27 (27%) – 30 (30%)

Discussion posting fully addresses all instruction prompts, including responding to the required number of peer posts.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 24 (24%) – 26.97 (26.97%)

Discussion posting addresses most of the instruction prompts, including responding to the required number of peer posts. However, one or more prompts may have been insufficiently addressed.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 21 (21%) – 23.97 (23.97%)

Discussion posting addresses some of the instructions prompts, but may have missed several prompts, did not sufficiently address the majority of prompts, and/or made less than the required number of response posts.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 20.97 (20.97%)

Discussion posting does not address the majority of instruction prompts, insufficiently addresses all instruction prompts, and/or made less than the required number of response posts.

Feedback:

Content

Points:
Points Range: 27 (27%) – 30 (30%)

Discussion posting demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting provides significant detail including multiple relevant examples, evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas.

Feedback:

Points:
Points Range: 24 (24%) – 26.97 (26.97%)

Discussion posting demonstrates a good understanding of most of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting provides moderate detail (including at least one pertinent example), evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas.

Feedback:

Points:
Points Range: 21 (21%) – 23.97 (23.97%)

Discussion posting demonstrates a fair understanding of the concepts and key points as presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting may be lacking or incorrect in some area, or in detail and specificity, and/or may not include sufficient pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings.

Feedback:

Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 20.97 (20.97%)

Discussion posting demonstrates poor or no understanding of the concepts and key points of the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting is incorrect and/or shallow, and/or does not include any pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings.

Feedback:

Peer Feedback and
Interaction

Points:

Points Range: 22.5 (22.5%) – 25 (25%)

The feedback postings and responses to questions are excellent and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 20 (20%) – 22.48 (22.48%)

The feedback postings and responses to questions are good but may not fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 17.5 (17.5%) – 19.98 (19.98%)

The feedback postings and responses to questions only partially contribute to the quality of interaction by offering insufficient constructive critique or suggestions, shallow questions, or providing poor quality additional resources.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 17.48 (17.47%)

Student does not interact with peers (0 points) or the feedback postings and responses to questions do not contribute to the quality of interaction by offering any constructive critique, suggestions, questions, or additional resources.

Feedback:

Writing

Points:

Points Range: 13.5 (13.5%) – 15 (15%)

Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, follow APA style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduate level writing style.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13.48 (13.48%)

Postings are mostly consistent with graduate level writing style. Postings may have some small organization, scholarly tone, writing, or APA style issues, and/or may contain a few writing and spelling errors.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 10.5 (10.5%) – 11.98 (11.98%)

Postings are somewhat below graduate level writing style. Postings may be lacking in organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and/or contain many writing and/or spelling errors, or show moderate reliance on quoting vs. original writing and paraphrasing.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 10.48 (10.48%)

Postings are well below graduate level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and writing, or show heavy reliance on quoting.

Feedback:

Show Descriptions Show Feedback

Responsiveness to
Directions–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent 27 (27%) – 30 (30%)

Discussion posting fully addresses all instruction prompts, including responding to the required number of peer posts.

Good 24 (24%) – 26.97 (26.97%)

Discussion posting addresses most of the instruction prompts, including responding to the required number of peer posts. However, one or more prompts may have been insufficiently addressed.

Fair 21 (21%) – 23.97 (23.97%)

Poor 0 (0%) – 20.97 (20.97%)

Discussion posting does not address the majority of instruction prompts, insufficiently addresses all instruction prompts, and/or made less than the required number of response posts.
Feedback:

Content–

Levels of Achievement:
Excellent 27 (27%) – 30 (30%)
Discussion posting demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting provides significant detail including multiple relevant examples, evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas.
Good 24 (24%) – 26.97 (26.97%)
Discussion posting demonstrates a good understanding of most of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting provides moderate detail (including at least one pertinent example), evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas.
Fair 21 (21%) – 23.97 (23.97%)
Discussion posting demonstrates a fair understanding of the concepts and key points as presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting may be lacking or incorrect in some area, or in detail and specificity, and/or may not include sufficient pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings.
Poor 0 (0%) – 20.97 (20.97%)
Discussion posting demonstrates poor or no understanding of the concepts and key points of the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting is incorrect and/or shallow, and/or does not include any pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings.
Feedback:

Peer Feedback and
Interaction–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent 22.5 (22.5%) – 25 (25%)

Good 20 (20%) – 22.48 (22.48%)

Fair 17.5 (17.5%) – 19.98 (19.98%)

Poor 0 (0%) – 17.48 (17.47%)

Writing–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent 13.5 (13.5%) – 15 (15%)

Good 12 (12%) – 13.48 (13.48%)

Fair 10.5 (10.5%) – 11.98 (11.98%)

Poor 0 (0%) – 10.48 (10.48%)

Postings are well below graduate level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and writing, or show heavy reliance on quoting.
Feedback:
Name: SOCW_6204_Week6_Discussion_Rubric

SOCW 90 week6 discussion 1 return to my posted discussion

Learning Resources to be used as references to support your answer.

Note:
To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

· “Anxiety Disorders” (pp. 189–223)

· “Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders” (pp. 235–264)

Working With Clients With Severe Persistent Mental Illness: The Case of Emily (PDF) Working With Clients With Severe Persistent Mental Illness: The Case of Emily Emily is a 62-year-old, single, heterosexual, African American female who seeks treatment for anxiety. She says she often hears a female voice directing her to punish herself by tweezing the hair from her head or by scrubbing her home clean. She reported that tweezing her hair eases her anxiety. She has arthritis in her spine and knee and uses a walker to help her manage mobility safely. She receives Social Security income and is not employed. Emily lives alone in a subsidized apartment in the same building as her 72-year-old, unmarried sister. She is reliant upon her sister for transportation and for a sense of social and emotional connection. Emily and her sister shared an apartment for over 30 years, beginning when each of their marriages dissolved. When her sister began a romantic relationship 5 years ago, Emily reported that she began to feel very anxious and started to cry often. Emily moved into an apartment down the hall in the building and began to tweeze the hair from her head, hiding her hair loss by wearing wigs. Her sister learned of Emily’s tweezing after her wig slipped off one evening, and she encouraged Emily to seek treatment. During our initial visit at a local mental health center, Emily shared that when she was 2 years old her mother died from tuberculosis, and the following year her father, an army officer, died from colon cancer. After his death, Emily lived with her paternal aunt from whom she felt no love. Her older brother and sister were placed in an orphanage, and Emily was permitted to see them on Sundays. When it became apparent that the children were entitled to death benefits, Emily’s aunt agreed to take custody of all three siblings. The household then consisted of Emily’s paternal aunt, her husband (who Emily described as an alcoholic), their three children, and Emily and her two older siblings. Working With Clients With Severe Persistent Mental Illness: The Case of Emily / Page 2 of 3 © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Emily was briefly married in her early 20s but was disappointed and hurt by her husband’s infidelity. She moved in with her sister and enrolled in a cosmetology school, but had to stop working for health reasons when she was 58 years old. Emily and I met for 50 minutes each week for counseling. She identified two goals of treatment: to integrate the female voice and to disengage from trichotillomania (the compulsive urge to pull out one’s own hair). Emily was collaborative during our sessions, conveying warmth and enthusiasm when she arrived to her appointments. During the sessions, I provided room for Emily to express her feelings so that she might develop healthy coping strategies for anxiety and find acceptance of past events and memories. Reflection Questions The social worker in this case answered these additional questions as follows. 1. What specific intervention strategies (skills, knowledge, etc.) did you use to address this client situation? I used two specific strategies with Emily. First, I used a Hearing Voices Recovery Movement strategy to help Emily identify the voice giving her commands and find out what its needs were. I used cognitive behavioral therapy interventions to help Emily learn to “boss it back” when she felt compelled to pull out her hair. 2. Which theory or theories did you use to guide your practice? I used behavioral theories to help guide my understanding of how to help Emily. 3. What were the identified strengths of the client(s)? Emily was motivated for treatment. 4. What were the identified challenges faced by the client(s)? Emily has a very limited support system, making it is easy for her to isolate and for her selfharm to go unnoticed. 5. What were the agreed-upon goals to be met to address the concern? Working With Clients With Severe Persistent Mental Illness: The Case of Emily / Page 3 of 3 © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Emily wanted to feel less frightened of the voice she heard and less driven to comply with its demands of her. 6. Did you have to address any issues around cultural competence? Did you have to learn about this population/group prior to beginning your work with this client system? If so, what type of research did you do to prepare? In reading scholarly articles about trichotillomania I learned more about the importance of having “good hair” among some African American women. I used this information to open discussions with Emily about how she felt about her hair and what caring for her hair and removing her hair means to her. 7. How can evidence-based practice be integrated into this situation? Using Emily’s treatment plan, Emily and I were able to identify which interventions worked to reduce the amount of time Emily thought of pulling her hair and how often she actually removed hair. Adapted from: Working with clients with severe persistent mental illness. (2014). In Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen S. M. (Eds.). Social work case studies: Concentration year (pp. 25–26, 106–107). Baltimore, MD: Laureate Publishing. [Vital Source e-reader]

Olatunji, B. O., Cisler, J. M., & Tolin, D. F. (2007). Quality of life in the anxiety disorders: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 27(5), 572–581.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

This is my posted discussion from which the student is making the comments from. Not a work READ ONLY!

RE: Discussion – Week 6

Collapse

Top of Form

Total views: 24 (Your views: 5)

Emily’s diagnosis

F28 Other Psychotic Disorder, persistent auditory hallucinations

F41.8 Other Specified Anxiety Disorder, limited symptom attacks

Z59.6 Low Income

Z62.29 Upbringing Away from Parents

Z62.891 Sibling Relational Problem

Emily showed up in my clinic for the treatment of anxiety (Plummer, Makris & Brocken, 2014). In as much as she reported to feeling anxious and was bothered by her increased crying, Emily hardly meets the measures for Generalized Anxiety Disorder because her symptoms demonstrate an inability to meet criteria C with three or more of the six signs needed for diagnosis (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013). As an outcome, Other Specified Anxiety Disorder has been utilized as a diagnosis is that there is an option to disclose the exact reason for choosing this particular analysis through suing limited-symptom attacks.

There is a gripping need to affiliate Emily’s case with a diagnosis of F63.2, Trichotillomania; this is supported by the continuous pulling of her hair culminating in the loss of hair, insistent trials to limit this behavior, bringing about clinically noteworthy deficiency, not credited to an additional medical condition. Also, there happened to be an investigative feature of the tendency of pulling the hair on her head to relieve her nervousness. All the same, the differential analysis affirms that if the signs show a possibility for a psychotic condition with hallucinations or delusions, Trichotillomania ought not to be utilized. The grounds for F28, i.e., Other Psychotic Disorder with continuous hearing hallucinations happens to be the auditory hallucination characterized by a female voice convincing her to give herself punishment through tweezing her hair. These compulsions would even make a health professional think that she is troubled by obsessive compulsive disorder A host of other conditions which may be of concentrated on when it comes to clinical attention as is with regards to Emily’s case revolves around a sibling relational problem as shown by her anxiety with respect to her sister’s romantic relationship, the death of her parents which brought about a life of upbringing away from parents, and being predisposed to low-income as shown by residing in a rent-controlled flat and surviving on social security (Plummer et al., 2014 & APA, 2013).

The Trichotillomania Symptoms Questionnaire happens to be an eight-question diagnosis tool characterized by closed questions (responded to with a yes or no) approach (Shusterman, Feld, Baer & Keuthen, 2009b). The questions fall in line with the diagnostic criteria for Trichotillomania within the DSM-V irrespective of the utilization of DSM-IV methodology in their study. The authors made use of the above-mentioned questionnaire within their analysis to find out affect regulation bothering people suffering from Trichotillomania via the initial seven closed questions (Shusterman, Feld, Baer & Keuthen, 2009a). In the event that the respondent gave yes as an answer to any of the initial six questions, they were factored in the Trichotillomania cohort and respondents that responded no to all of the initials six queries were factored in the No Trichotillomania (Shusterman et al., 2009a). The research affirmed that there was a link between the intensity and type of hair pulling and if there happened to be an automatic feature revealed in the boredom of an attentive characteristic inspired by anxiety. What this type of questionnaire helped in achieving is finding out the methodology for Trichotillomania, all the same, never got to address the differential diagnosis that is characteristic of the DSM-V.

Concerning Emily’s self-reported anxiety, The Structured Clinical Interview for Separation Anxiety Symptoms is fit for use. This 18-item set of questions has the potentials of helping in the determination of separation anxiety indications. What’s more, the questions are normally rated on a Likert scale from 0 (not at all) to 2 (often) with a satisfactory answer of -? – that demonstrates don’t recall (Cyranowski et al., 2002a). The case study is an affirmation that Emily’s feelings of anxiety came about after her sister began dating a certain man and that is a surefire way of suggesting separation anxiety (Plummer et al., 2014). This author’s statement with a tentative answer (hypothesis) that ‘adult separation anxiety could be identified from yet related to childhood separation anxiety and the measures in adult panic disorder’ (Cyranowski et al., 2002b). Cyranowski et al. (2002b) discovered that a third of females attest to have experienced symptoms about adult separation anxiety concerning the DSM IV that aligned to the standards for separation anxiety. With respect to Emily’s case, there is limited evidence to diagnose her with separation anxiety since there lacks sufficient indications within criteria A to align to the diagnosis, all the same this diagnostic tool can be utilized to rule out indications of separation anxiety (American Psychiatric Association, 2013 & Cyranowski et al., 2002a).

In situations that necessitate searching for a tool, discovering one for Trichotillomania proved to be less complicated as opposed to one for anxiety. In the field of psychology, there happens to be a host of anxiety tools, but a majority of them are linked to particular phobias and have nothing to do with comprehensive anxiety disorder. I made a point of choosing the one I did since there was some constituent within the case study tied to separation anxiety.

Expanding my answer

Being that Emily was troubled with anxiety and a tendency to want to pull her hair, a DSM-5 diagnosis would be beneficial. Concerning DSM-5, unspecified anxiety disorder is coded as 300.00. What’s more, specified anxiety disorder is coded as 300.09. It is also worth mentioning that Emily is troubled by Trichotillomania (TTM); an obsessive-compulsive disorder that has a classification in DSM-5 and DSM-4. More frequently referred to a disorder of hair-pulling, it has to do with a patient pulling hair from any of his or her body parts while being insensitive to the pain. It is coded as 312.-39-(f63.2) under DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

In as much as Emily is faced with a constant challenge of anxiety and Trichotillomania, other current and past occurrences that have defined her life may be causing her to have a low self-esteem and depression. The part of the past that may be stressing Emily up to date is growing up without her parents and under the care of an ignorant aunt and unloving aunt, not being successful in marriage and cosmetology, not having friends to socialize with, moving out of her sister’s apartment, and finally not having a boyfriend while her sister has one. All the above-mentioned factors will be a focus of clinical attention in my diagnosis because ‘sweeping them under the carpet’ would not be wise and would be an assumption of a

false

sense of wellbeing on my part (Olatunji, Cisler & Tolin, 2007).

For my diagnoses, both the DSM-5 and DSM-4 approaches are appropriate and complement each other. Usually, my preference is to make use of both of them when dealing with a client. The relevance of this is that room for comparison is created. As for person-in-environment approach, my take is that a patient such as Emily should find more involvements so that she does not surround herself with negative energy.

Symptoms and target behaviors assessed by the DSM-5 and DSM-4 scales resonate with actions that are contrary to what would otherwise be referred to as normative social constructs. Normative social constructs resonate with socially acceptable behavior. A scale such as DSM-5 is administered by juxtaposing the behavior of a patient to the scale’s descriptions. Time and again the DSM-5 and four scales have been the talisman approach to my diagnoses.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Cyranowski, J. M., Shear, M. K., Rucci, P., Fagiolini, A., Frank, E., Grochocinski, V. J., Kupfer,

D. J., Banti, S., Armani, A., & Cassano, G. (2002a). Structured Clinic\’; al Interview for Separation Anxiety Symptoms [Database record]. Retrieved from PsycTESTS. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/t59728-000

Cyranowski, Jill M., Shear, M. Katherine, Rucci, Paola, Fagiolini, Andrea, Frank, Ellen,

Grochocinski, Victoria J., Kupfer, David J., Banti, Susanna, Armani, Antonella, & Cassano, Giovanni. (2002b). Adult separation anxiety: Psychometric properties of a new structured clinical interview. Journal of Psychiatric Research, Vol 36(2), 77-86. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3956(01)00051-6

Bottom of Form

Work #2 Answer in APA format with 1 citations per paragraph treat each answer as a separate work or file and each work or file need separate references. At least 350 word each answer if you can.
Support your posts with specific references to the Learning Resources given in this work. Be sure to provide full APA citations for your references. Treat each work, file or answer as a separate work and each work or answer needs separate references.

Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the resources and the current literature given in the work using appropriate APA format and style

Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you have learned and/or any insights you have gained as a result of your colleagues’ comments.
Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the resources and the current literature using appropriate APA format and style.

Work #2 Kimberly Wilmore

RE: Discussion – Week 6

Collapse

Top of Form

Total views: 4 (Your views: 1)

Hello Cheraldo,

After reviewing Emily case, I see the connection to diagnosis Emily with Trichotillomania as well due to the hair pulling. Statistic also demonstrate this disorder is mainly among women and that it impacts between 0.6% to 3.6% of adults with 11.03% of college-aged individuals pull their hair occasionally. However, considering obsessive compulsive disorder with house cleaning is a reoccurring behavior. It’s a possibility I could still diagnosis Emily with obsessive compulsive disorder to cover both repetitive behaviors (National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2015).

Reference

National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine (2015), Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4143797/

Name: SOCW_6090_Week6_Discussion_Rubric

· Grid View
· List View

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Writing

Responsiveness to Directions		Points: Points Range: 27 (27%) – 30 (30%) Discussion posting fully addresses all instruction prompts, including responding to the required number of peer posts. Feedback:		Points: Points Range: 24 (24%) – 26.97 (26.97%) Discussion posting addresses most of the instruction prompts, including responding to the required number of peer posts. However, one or more prompts may have been insufficiently addressed. Feedback:		Points: Points Range: 21 (21%) – 23.97 (23.97%) Discussion posting addresses some of the instructions prompts, but may have missed several prompts, did not sufficiently address the majority of prompts, and/or made less than the required number of response posts. Feedback:		Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 20.97 (20.97%) Discussion posting does not address the majority of instruction prompts, insufficiently addresses all instruction prompts, and/or made less than the required number of response posts. Feedback:
Discussion Posting Content		Points: Points Range: 27 (27%) – 30 (30%) Discussion posting demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting provides significant detail including multiple relevant examples, evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas. Feedback:		Points: Points Range: 24 (24%) – 26.97 (26.97%) Discussion posting demonstrates a good understanding of most of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting provides moderate detail (including at least one pertinent example), evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas. Feedback:		Points: Points Range: 21 (21%) – 23.97 (23.97%) Discussion posting demonstrates a fair understanding of the concepts and key points as presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting may be lacking or incorrect in some area, or in detail and specificity, and/or may not include sufficient pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings. Feedback:		Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 20.97 (20.97%) Discussion posting demonstrates poor or no understanding of the concepts and key points of the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting is incorrect and/or shallow, and/or does not include any pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings. Feedback:
Peer Feedback and Interaction		Points: Points Range: 22.5 (22.5%) – 25 (25%) The feedback postings and responses to questions are excellent and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes. Feedback:		Points: Points Range: 20 (20%) – 22.48 (22.48%) The feedback postings and responses to questions are good but may not fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes. Feedback:		Points: Points Range: 17.5 (17.5%) – 19.98 (19.98%) The feedback postings and responses to questions only partially contribute to the quality of interaction by offering insufficient constructive critique or suggestions, shallow questions, or providing poor quality additional resources. Feedback:		Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 17.48 (17.47%) Student does not interact with peers (0 points) or the feedback postings and responses to questions do not contribute to the quality of interaction by offering any constructive critique, suggestions, questions, or additional resources. Feedback:
	Points: Points Range: 13.5 (13.5%) – 15 (15%) Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, follow APA style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduate level writing style. Feedback:		Points: Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13.48 (13.48%) Postings are mostly consistent with graduate level writing style. Postings may have some small organization, scholarly tone, writing, or APA style issues, and/or may contain a few writing and spelling errors. Feedback:		Points: Points Range: 10.5 (10.5%) – 11.98 (11.98%) Postings are somewhat below graduate level writing style. Postings may be lacking in organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and/or contain many writing and/or spelling errors, or show moderate reliance on quoting vs. original writing and paraphrasing. Feedback:		Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 10.48 (10.48%) Postings are well below graduate level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and writing, or show heavy reliance on quoting. Feedback:

Show Descriptions Show Feedback

Responsiveness to Directions–

Levels of Achievement:
Excellent 27 (27%) – 30 (30%)
Discussion posting fully addresses all instruction prompts, including responding to the required number of peer posts.
Good 24 (24%) – 26.97 (26.97%)
Discussion posting addresses most of the instruction prompts, including responding to the required number of peer posts. However, one or more prompts may have been insufficiently addressed.
Fair 21 (21%) – 23.97 (23.97%)
Discussion posting addresses some of the instructions prompts, but may have missed several prompts, did not sufficiently address the majority of prompts, and/or made less than the required number of response posts.
Poor 0 (0%) – 20.97 (20.97%)
Discussion posting does not address the majority of instruction prompts, insufficiently addresses all instruction prompts, and/or made less than the required number of response posts.
Feedback:

Discussion Posting Content–

Peer Feedback and Interaction–

Levels of Achievement:
Excellent 22.5 (22.5%) – 25 (25%)
The feedback postings and responses to questions are excellent and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.
Good 20 (20%) – 22.48 (22.48%)
The feedback postings and responses to questions are good but may not fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.
Fair 17.5 (17.5%) – 19.98 (19.98%)
The feedback postings and responses to questions only partially contribute to the quality of interaction by offering insufficient constructive critique or suggestions, shallow questions, or providing poor quality additional resources.
Poor 0 (0%) – 17.48 (17.47%)
Student does not interact with peers (0 points) or the feedback postings and responses to questions do not contribute to the quality of interaction by offering any constructive critique, suggestions, questions, or additional resources.
Feedback:
Writing–
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent 13.5 (13.5%) – 15 (15%)
Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, follow APA style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduate level writing style.
Good 12 (12%) – 13.48 (13.48%)
Postings are mostly consistent with graduate level writing style. Postings may have some small organization, scholarly tone, writing, or APA style issues, and/or may contain a few writing and spelling errors.
Fair 10.5 (10.5%) – 11.98 (11.98%)
Postings are somewhat below graduate level writing style. Postings may be lacking in organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and/or contain many writing and/or spelling errors, or show moderate reliance on quoting vs. original writing and paraphrasing.
Poor 0 (0%) – 10.48 (10.48%)
Postings are well below graduate level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and writing, or show heavy reliance on quoting.
Feedback:
Name: SOCW_6090_Week6_Discussion_Rubric
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form

Exit

e777dbce-50ba-4

false

PUBLISHED

f7c38dba-1bd8-44

false

%7B%220.270000

%7B%220.240000

%7B%220.210000

%7B%220.000000

%7B%220.225000

%7B%220.200000

%7B%220.175000

%7B%220.135000

%7B%220.120000

%7B%220.105000

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Please follow the instructions and follow the rubric for each course work answer in proper APA format treat each work as a separate file and each work needs a separate References , use the learning resources to support your anxswer. ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now