Case Study: Vee Purpose:Analyze and apply critical thinking skills in the psych

Case Study: Vee
Purpose:Analyze and apply critical thinking skills in the psychopathology of mental health patients and provide treatment and health promotion while applying evidence-based research.
Scenario:Vee is a 26-year-old African-American woman who presents with a history of non-suicidal self-injury, specifically cutting her arms and legs, since she was a teenager. She has made two suicide attempts by overdosing on prescribed medications, one as a teenager and one six months ago; she also reports chronic suicidal ideation, explaining that it gives her relief to think about suicide as a “way out.”
When she is stressed, Vee says that she often “zones out,” even in the middle of conversations or while at work. She states, “I don’t know who Vee really is,” and describes a longstanding pattern of changing her hobbies, style of clothing, and sometimes even her job based on who is in her social group. At times, she thinks that her partner is “the best thing that’s ever happened to me” and will impulsively buy him lavish gifts, send caring text messages, and the like; however, at other times she admits to thinking “I can’t stand him,” and will ignore or lash out at him, including yelling or throwing things. Immediately after doing so, she reports feeling regret and panic at the thought of him leaving her. Vee reports that, before she began dating her current partner, she sometimes engaged in sexual activity with multiple people per week, often with partners whom she did not know.
Questions:Remember to answer these questions from your textbooks and NP guidelines. At all times, explain your answers. Describe the presenting problems.
Generate a primary and differential diagnosis using the DSM5 and ICD 10 codes.
Discuss which cluster the primary diagnosis belongs to.
Formulate and prioritize a treatment plan.
Submission Instructions:
Your initial post should be at least 500 words, formatted and cited in current APA style with support from at least 2 academic sources. Your initial post is worth 8 points.
You should respond to at least two of your peers by extending, refuting/correcting, or adding additional nuance to their posts. Your reply posts are worth 2 points (1 point per response.) All replies must be constructive and use literature where possible.
Please post your initial response by 11:59 PM ET Thursday, and comment on the posts of two classmates by 11:59 PM ET Sunday.
Late work policies, expectations regarding proper citations, acceptable means of responding to peer feedback, and other expectations are at the discretion of the instructor.
You can expect feedback from the instructor within 48 to 72 hours from the Sunday due date.
Grading Rubric Your assignment will be graded according to the grading rubric.
Discussion Rubric
CriteriaRatingsPoints
Identification of Main Issues, Problems, and ConceptsDistinguished – 4 points Post is substantively accurate. Identifies and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the issues, problems, and concepts surrounding the assignment. Provides exceptional and thought-provoking analysis that directly addresses details and/or examples of the main topic.Excellent – 3 points Post is mostly related to the topic. Demonstrates understanding of most of the issues, problems, and concepts surrounding the assignment. It provides some supporting details and/or examples. Analyses not as clear as they could be.Fair – 1-2 points Demonstrates limited understanding of most of the issues, problems, and concepts surrounding the assignment. No details and/or examples are given.Poor – 0 points
Post is off-topic, incorrect and/or irrelevant to the issues, problems, and concepts surrounding the assignment. Analyses are not well organized or clear.4 points
APA Formatting GuidelinesDistinguished – 2 points The reference page contains at least the required current scholarly academic reference and text reference. Follows APA guidelines of components: double space, 12 pt. font, abstract, level headings, hanging indent, and in-text citations.Excellent – 1 point
The reference page contains one current scholarly academic resource and text reference. Follows most APA guidelines of components: double space, 12 pt. font, abstract, level headings, hanging indent, and in-text citations.Fair – 0.5 points
The reference page contains one current or outdated scholarly academic resource. Many errors of APA guidelines: double space, 12 pt. font, abstract, level headings, hanging indent, and in-text citations.Poor – 0 points The reference page contains no current scholarly academic resources, only internet web pages, or no reference page. Lack of APA guidelines for references provided or in-text citations.2 points
Writing MechanicsDistinguished – 2 points Rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are followed; spelling is correct.Excellent – 1 point
Few grammatical errors, but sentences could be clearer and more precise.Fair – 0.5 points
The paper contains a few grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors.Poor – 0 points The paper contains numerous grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors.2 points
Response to Posts of PeersDistinguished – 2 points Constructively responded to two other posts and either extended, expanded, or provided a rebuttal to each.Fair – 1 point Constructively responded to one other post and either extended, expanded, or provided a rebuttal.Poor – 0 points Provided no response to a peer’s post. 2 points
Total Points 10