Assignment: Assessing and Treating Patients With Impulsivity, Compulsivity, and Addiction Walden University

Assignment: Assessing and Treating Patients With Impulsivity, Compulsivity, and Addiction Walden University

Assignment: Assessing and Treating Patients With Impulsivity, Compulsivity, and Addiction Walden University

Impulsivity, compulsivity, and addiction are challenging disorders for patients across the life span. Impulsivity is the inclination to act upon sudden urges or desires without considering potential consequences; patients often describe impulsivity as living in the present moment without regard to the future (MentalHelp.net, n.d.). Thus, these disorders often manifest as negative behaviors, resulting in adverse outcomes for patients. For example, compulsivity represents a behavior that an individual feels driven to perform to relieve anxiety (MentalHelp.net, n.d.). The presence of these behaviors often results in addiction, which represents the process of the transition from impulsive to compulsive behavior.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE ON: Assignment: Assessing and Treating Patients With Impulsivity, Compulsivity, and Addiction Walden University

Thanks for stopping by this assessment. We can assist you in completing it and other subsequent ones. Our expert writers will comprehensively review instructions, synthesize external evidence sources, and customize an A-grade paper for YOU!!!

In your role as the psychiatric nurse practitioner (PNP), you have the opportunity to help patients address underlying causes of the disorders and overcome these behaviors. For this Assignment, as you examine the client case study in this week’s Learning Resources, consider how you might assess and treat clients presenting with impulsivity, compulsivity, and addiction.

_Reference: MentalHelp.net. (n.d.). Impaired decision-making, impulsivity, and compulsivity: Addictions’ effect on the cerebral cortex. https://www.mentalhelp.net/addiction/impulsivity-and-compulsivity-addictions-effect-on-the-cerebral-cortex/

Resources

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

Learning Resources

Required Readings

• Kelly, J. E., & Renner, J. A. (2016). Alcohol-Related disorders. In T. A. Stern, M. Favo, T. E. Wilens, & J. F. Rosenbaum. (Eds.), Massachusetts General Hospital psychopharmacology and neurotherapeutics (pp. 163–182). Elsevier.
• Renner, J. A., & Ward, N. (2016). Drug addiction. In T. A. Stern, M. Favo, T. E. Wilens, & J. F. Rosenbaum. (Eds.), Massachusetts General Hospital psychopharmacology and neurotherapeutics (pp. 163–182). Elsevier.
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (1999). Treatment of adolescents with substance use disorders: Treatment improvement protocol series

Links to an external site., no. 32. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK64350/

• Chapter 1, “Substance Use Among Adolescents”
• Chapter 2, “Tailoring Treatment to the Adolescent’s Problem”
• Chapter 7, “Youths with Distinctive Treatment Needs”

University of Michigan Health System. (2016). Childhood trauma linked to worse impulse control. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing & Mental Health Services

Links to an external site., 54(4), 15.

Grant, J. E., Odlaug, B. L., & Schreiber, L. N. (2014). Pharmacological treatments in pathological gambling. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Links to an external site., 77(2), 375–381. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04457.x

Hulvershorn, L. A., Schroeder, K. M., Wink, L. K., Erickson, C. A., & McDougle, C. J. (2015). Psychopharmacologic treatment of children prenatally exposed to drugs of abuse. Human Psychopharmacology

Links to an external site., 30(3), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/hup.2467

Loreck, D., Brandt, N. J., & DiPaula, B. (2016). Managing opioid abuse in older adults: Clinical considerations and challenges. Journal of Gerontological Nursing

Links to an external site., 42(4), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20160314-04

Salmon, J. M., & Forester, B. (2012). Substance abuse and co-occurring psychiatric disorders in older adults: A clinical case and review of the relevant literature. Journal of Dual Diagnosis

Links to an external site., 8(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/15504263.2012.648439

Sanches, M., Scott-Gurnell, K., Patel, A., Caetano, S. C., Zunta-Soares, G. B., Hatch, J. P., Olvera, R., Swann, A. C., & Soares, J. C. (2014). Impulsivity in children and adolescents with mood disorders and unaffected offspring of bipolar parents. Comprehensive Psychiatry

• Links to an external site., 55(6), 1337–1341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.04.018

Medication Resources

• U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (n.d.). Drugs@FDA: FDA-approved drugs
• Links to an external site.. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm
• Links to an external site.

Note: To access the following medications, use the Drugs@FDA resource. Type the name of each medication in the keyword search bar. Select the hyperlink related to the medication name you searched. Review the supplements provided and select the package label resource file associated with the medication you searched. If a label is not available, you may need to conduct a general search outside of this resource provided. Be sure to review the label information for each medication as this information will be helpful for your review in preparation for your Assignments.

• naltrexone (revia/vivitrol)
• naloxone
• acamprosate
• disulfiram

Required Media

• Case Study: A Puerto Rican Woman with Comorbid Addiction
• Links to an external site.
• Note: This case study will serve as the foundation for this week’s Assignment.

Optional Resources

• Lupi, M., Martinotti, G., Acciavatti, T., Pettorruso, M., Brunetti, M., Santacroce, R., Cinose, E., Di Iorio, G., Di Nicola, M., & Di Giannantonio, M. (2014). Pharmacological treatments in gambling disorder: A qualitative review. Biomed Research International, 2014

Links to an external site.. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/537306

To prepare for this Assignment:

• Review this week’s Learning Resources, including the Medication Resources indicated for this week.
• Reflect on the psychopharmacologic treatments you might recommend for the assessment and treatment of patients requiring therapy for impulsivity, compulsivity, and addiction.

The Assignment: 5 pages

Examine Case Study: A Puerto Rican Woman With Comorbid Addiction. You will be asked to make three decisions concerning the medication to prescribe to this client. Be sure to consider factors that might impact the client’s pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes.

At each decision point, you should evaluate all options before selecting your decision and moving throughout the exercise. Before you make your decision, make sure that you have researched each option and that you evaluate the decision that you will select. Be sure to research each option using the primary literature.

Introduction to the case (1 page)

• Briefly explain and summarize the case for this Assignment. Be sure to include the specific patient factors that may impact your decision making when prescribing medication for this patient.

Decision #1 (1 page)

• Which decision did you select?
• Why did you select this decision? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature.
• Why did you not select the other two options provided in the exercise? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature.
• What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources (including the primary literature).
• Explain how ethical considerations may impact your treatment plan and communication with patients. Be specific and provide examples.

Decision #2 (1 page)

• Why did you select this decision? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature.
• Why did you not select the other two options provided in the exercise? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature.
• What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources (including the primary literature).
• Explain how ethical considerations may impact your treatment plan and communication with patients. Be specific and provide examples.

Decision #3 (1 page)

• Why did you select this decision? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature.
• Why did you not select the other two options provided in the exercise? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature.
• What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources (including the primary literature).
• Explain how ethical considerations may impact your treatment plan and communication with patients. Be specific and provide examples.

Conclusion (1 page)

• Summarize your recommendations on the treatment options you selected for this patient. Be sure to justify your recommendations and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature.

Note: Support your rationale with a minimum of five academic resources. While you may use the course text to support your rationale, it will not count toward the resource requirement. You should be utilizing the primary and secondary literature.

Reminder : The College of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references. The Sample Paper provided at the Walden Writing Center provides an example of those required elements (available at https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templates/general#s-lg-box-20293632). All papers submitted must use this formatting

Links to an external site..

By Day 7

Submit your Assignment.

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 WK10Assgn1_LastName_Firstinitial
2. Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
3. Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.

BUY A CUSTOM PAPER HERE ON: Assignment: Assessing and Treating Patients With Impulsivity, Compulsivity, and Addiction Walden University

Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Introduction to the case (1 page)Briefly explain and summarize the case for this Assignment. Be sure to include the specific patient factors that may impact your decision making when prescribing medication for this patient.

10 to >8.0 pts Excellent Point range: 90–100

The response accurately, clearly, and fully summarizes in detail the case for the Assignment…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the specific patient factors that impact decision making when prescribing medication for this patient.

8 to >7.0 pts Good Point range: 80–89

The response accurately summarizes the case for the Assignment…. The response accurately explains the specific patient factors that impact decision making with prescribing medication for this patient.

7 to >6.0 pts Fair Point range: 70–79

The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the case for the Assignment…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the specific patient factors that impact decision making with prescribing medication for this patient.

6 to >0 pts Poor Point range: 0–69

The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the case for the Assignment, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the specific patient factors that impact decision making with prescribing medication for this patient.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Decision #1 (1–2 pages)• Which decision did you select?• Why did you select this decision? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature.• Why did you not select the other two options provided in the exercise? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature.• What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources (including the primary literature).• Explain how ethical considerations may impact your treatment plan and communication with patients. Be specific and provide examples.

20 to >17.0 pts Excellent Point range: 90–100

The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the decision selected…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the decision selected…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the response…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the response…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients…. Examples provided fully support the decisions and responses provided.

17 to >15.0 pts Good Point range: 80–89

The response accurately explains the decision selected…. The response explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the decision selected…. The response accurately explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the response…. The response accurately explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the response…. The response accurately explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients…. Examples provided support the decisions and responses provided.

15 to >13.0 pts Fair Point range: 70–79

The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the decision selected…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the decision selected…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the response…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the response…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients…. Examples provided may support the decisions and responses provided.

13 to >0 pts Poor Point range: 0–69

The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the decision selected…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the response, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients, or is missing…. Examples provided do not support the decisions and responses provided, or is missing.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Decision #2 (1–2 pages)• Which decision did you select?• Why did you select this decision? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature.• Why did you not select the other two options provided in the exercise? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature.• What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources (including the primary literature).• Explain how ethical considerations may impact your treatment plan and communication with patients. Be specific and provide examples.

20 to >17.0 pts Excellent Point range: 90–100

The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the decision selected…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the decision selected…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the response…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the response…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients…. Examples provided fully support the decisions and responses provided.

17 to >15.0 pts Good Point range: 80–89

The response accurately explains the decision selected…. The response explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the decision selected…. The response accurately explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the response…. The response accurately explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the response…. The response accurately explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients…. Examples provided support the decisions and responses provided.

15 to >13.0 pts Fair Point range: 70–79

The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the decision selected…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the decision selected…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the response…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the response…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients…. Examples provided may support the decisions and responses provided.

13 to >0 pts Poor Point range: 0–69

The response inaccurately and vaguely explains in detail the decision selected…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the response, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients, or is missing…. Examples provided do not support the decisions and responses provided, or is missing.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Decision #3 (1–2 pages)• Which decision did you select?• Why did you select this decision? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature.• Why did you not select the other two options provided in the exercise? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature.• What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources (including the primary literature).• Explain how ethical considerations may impact your treatment plan and communication with patients. Be specific and provide examples.

20 to >17.0 pts Excellent Point range: 90–100

The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the decision selected…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the decision selected…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the response…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the response…. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients…. Examples provided fully support the decisions and responses provided.

17 to >15.0 pts Good Point range: 80–89

The response accurately explains the decision selected…. The response explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the decision selected…. The response accurately explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the response…. The response accurately explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the response…. The response accurately explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients…. Examples provided support the decisions and responses provided.

15 to >13.0 pts Fair Point range: 70–79

The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the decision selected…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the decision selected…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the response…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the response…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients…. Examples provided may support the decisions and responses provided.

13 to >0 pts Poor Point range: 0–69

The response inaccurately and vaguely explains in detail the decision selected…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the response, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients, or is missing…. Examples provided do not support the decisions and responses provided, or is missing.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Conclusion (1 page)• Summarize your recommendations on the treatment options you selected for this patient. Be sure to justify your recommendations and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature.

15 to >13.0 pts Excellent Point range: 90–100

The response accurately and clearly summarizes in detail the recommendations on the treatment options selected for this patient…. The response accurately and clearly explains a justification for the recommendations provided, including clinically relevant resources that fully support the recommendations provided.

13 to >11.0 pts Good Point range: 80–89

The response accurately summarizes the recommendations on the treatment options selected for this patient…. The response accurately explains a justification for the recommendation provided, including clinically relevant resources that support the recommendations provided.

11 to >10.0 pts Fair Point range: 70–79

The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the recommendations on the treatment options selected for this patient…. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains a justification for the recommendations provided, including clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the recommendations provided.

10 to >0 pts Poor Point range: 0–69

The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the recommendations on the treatment options selected for this patient, or is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains a justification for the recommendations provided, including clinically relevant resources that do not support the recommendations provided, or is missing.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 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.

5 to >4.0 pts Excellent Point range: 90–100

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.

4 to >3.5 pts Good Point range: 80–89

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.

3.5 to >3.0 pts Fair Point range: 70–79

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.

3 to >0 pts Poor Point range: 0–69

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time…. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation

5 to >4.0 pts Excellent Point range: 90–100

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

4 to >3.5 pts Good Point range: 80–89

Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

3.5 to >3.0 pts Fair Point range: 70–79

Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

3 to >0 pts Poor Point range: 0–69

Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 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.

5 to >4.0 pts Excellent Point range: 90–100

Uses correct APA format with no errors.

4 to >3.5 pts Good Point range: 80–89

Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.

3.5 to >3.0 pts Fair Point range: 70–79

Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.

3 to >0 pts Poor Point range: 0–69

Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.

5 pts

Total Points: 100