Write My Paper Button

WhatsApp Widget

NRNP 6635 Week 10: Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Neurocognitive and Neurodevelopmental Disorders

NRNP 6635 Week 10: Assessing and Diagnosing Patients With Neurocognitive and Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Neurodevelopmental disorders usually show up in childhood and make it hard to learn, pay attention, and get along with other people. They may last into adulthood. Conversely, neurocognitive diseases entail a deterioration from a previously achieved level of functioning and typically manifest later in life. This paper provides a thorough psychiatric assessment of Harold Brown, a 60-year-old adult facing attention-related challenges. The assessment will encompass subjective and objective findings, differential diagnoses, mental status evaluation, and a critical analysis of diagnostic reasoning.

Subjective:

CC (chief complaint): “I am having trouble focusing and making silly mistakes.”

HPI: Harold Brown is a 60-year-old Caucasian male with a bachelor’s degree in engineering, seeking psychiatric treatment owing to persistent challenges with attention and concentration, particularly in high-pressure job environments. He recounts committing substantial architectural blunders, including the improper placement of windows and the erroneous routing of air ducts. His difficulties escalate with more stringent deadlines, and he indicates a tendency to disengage during meetings and lectures. Attention difficulties have persisted throughout childhood, characterized by challenges in studying or concentrating, frequently diverted by outside stimuli. He additionally delineates disorganization, inadequate time management, difficulties in work completion, and a history of procrastination, especially with bill payments. The symptoms have continued and intensified in his high-stress work environment, hindering job performance and amplifying self-doubt.

Past Psychiatric History:

  • General Statement: The patient has never had an official mental health diagnosis or treatment.
  • Caregivers (if applicable): Not currently applicable.
  • Hospitalizations: denies ever being admitted to a mental health facility.
  • Medication trials: No prior use of psychotropic drugs.
  • Psychotherapy or Previous Psychiatric Diagnosis: Never had a mental diagnosis or therapy before.

Substance Current Use and History: denies using illegal drugs. On weekends, he smokes a cigar and occasionally drinks one scotch—no history of withdrawal or abuse.

Family Psychiatric/Substance Use History: There was no documented family history of substance use issues or mental disease.

Psychosocial History: They were born and brought up with a younger sibling in the US. He has never been married, lives alone, and has no kids. He continues to work for a primary architecture business. Has an engineering bachelor’s degree. He describes himself as a casual dater and socially active person. Despite his enjoyment of his employment, he reports significant levels of stress at work because of the heightened expectations. Denies any legal problems. He claims to have a healthy appetite and to get enough sleep. Hobbies are not mentioned. No history of violence or trauma has been noted.

Medical History: The patient states that he has a history of benign prostatic hyperplasia, hypertension, angina, and hypertriglyceridemia.

  • Current Medications: The patient is currently prescribed Cozaar 50 mg daily for hypertension, ASA 81 mg daily for cardiac health, Valsartan 160 mg daily for blood pressure, Fenofibrate 145 mg daily for lipid management, and Tamsulosin 0.4 mg nightly for benign prostatic hyperplasia. No over-the-counter medications or supplements.
  • Allergies: Dilaudid induces nausea. No sensitivities to food or the environment.
  • Reproductive Hx: Not applicable.

ROS:

  • GENERAL: Reports a steady appetite and enough sleep. Denies experiencing chills, fever, exhaustion, or recent weight fluctuations.
  • HEENT: denies dental problems, headaches, sore throats, nasal congestion, visual changes, and hearing loss.
  • SKIN: Free of itching, bruises, sores, or rashes.
  • CARDIOVASCULAR: Angina and hypertension history. Denies edema, palpitations, or chest pain.
  • RESPIRATORY: rejects hemoptysis, coughing, wheezing, or shortness of breath.
  • GASTROINTESTINAL: denies constipation, diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, or pain in the abdomen.
  • GENITOURINARY: Benign prostatic hyperplasia in the past. Denies frequency, hematuria, or dysuria.
  • NEUROLOGICAL: rejects tremors, weakness, numbness, disorientation, and convulsions.
  • MUSCULOSKELETAL: denies muscle weakness, stiffness, edema, or joint pain.
  • HEMATOLOGIC: Disavows anemia, bleeding tendencies, and bruises.
  • LYMPHATICS: denies swelling or lymphadenopathy.
  • ENDOCRINOLOGICAL: denies thyroid problems, polyuria, polydipsia, and heat/cold intolerance.

Objective:

  • Vital Signs: Temperature: 98.8°F; Pulse: 74 bpm; Respiratory Rate: 18 breaths/min; Blood Pressure: 134/70 mmHg; Height: 5’10”; Weight: 170 lbs.; BMI: 24.4 (normal range).
  • Physical Exam – General: The patient is attentive, oriented, and suitably groomed. The individual presents as their reported age and demonstrates cooperation during the assessment, exhibiting everyday speech and conduct.

Diagnostic Results: A MOCA score of 28/30 signifies mild challenges with attention and delayed memory. A score of 21/24 on the ASRS-5 strongly indicates ADHD, predominantly inattentive type—no anomalies observed throughout the comprehensive physical checkup.

Assessment:

Mental Status Examination: Mr. Harold Brown is a 60-year-old Caucasian individual who exhibits his stated age and appears in a cooperative and respectful demeanor. He is well-groomed, seasonally attired, and shows typical posture plus psychomotor activity. No atypical motions or tics were noted. His speech is articulate, coherent, and impromptu, exhibiting a typical tempo, rhythm, and volume. His mood is characterized as “adequate,” plus his affect is little constrained yet coherent with his mood. His cognitive processes are rational, sequential, and purpose-driven, exhibiting no signs of disorganized associations, rapid ideation, or thinking obstruction. The thought content exhibits no delusions, paranoia, obsessions, or preoccupations. He refutes any suicidal or homicidal thoughts, both past and current. No evidence of hallucinations, illusions, or perceptual abnormalities is present. He is awake and oriented to person and place, but slightly inaccurate regarding time, consistent with stated attentional difficulties. Cognitive assessment indicates mild short-term memory impairment and diminished focus. His insight, alongside judgment, is sound; he recognizes his challenges and seeks assistance, yet occasionally underestimates their significance.

Differential Diagnoses:

  1. Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominantly Inattentive Presentation (ADHD-PI): Harold’s ASRS-5 score (21/24) signifies intense inattentive symptoms, encompassing distractibility, lack of memory, disorganization, and challenges in task completion—symptoms that have persisted from childhood. The DSM-5-TR mandates that symptom onset occurs before age 12, manifests in two or more contexts, and results in impairment of function, all of which Harold affirms (Sasaki et al., 2022). The persistent lifelong symptoms substantiate ADHD-PI as the principal diagnosis.
  2. Mild Neurocognitive Disorder: Harold reports recent cognitive difficulties and slight memory lapses. The MOCA score of 28/30 indicates only minor abnormalities that do not substantially impede independence, aligning with DSM-5-TR criteria for Mild Neurocognitive Disorder (Swinnen et al., 2021). Nonetheless, the symptoms are chronic rather than progressing or newly manifested, rendering this diagnosis a lesser priority.
  3. Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD): Occupational stress and pressure may lead to difficulties in concentration. Nonetheless, Harold does not exhibit excessive concern, sleep disturbances, irritability, or somatic complaints that fulfill the DSM-5-TR criteria for Generalized Anxiety Disorder (Landreville et al., 2021). The lack of widespread anxiety and emphasis on attentional symptoms excludes this diagnosis.

Reflections: Should I have the opportunity to do this session anew, I would investigate Harold’s academic and social history more thoroughly to elucidate early-onset symptoms and exclude other potential contributing variables, such as undiagnosed learning impairments or mood dysregulation (Wu et al., 2023). I would additionally get input from his employer (with consent) regarding functional impairment. It is essential to consider his age and professional consequences when diagnosing ADHD in adulthood, particularly for employment accommodations and non-discrimination safeguards under the ADA (Dobrosavljevic et al., 2023). From a health promotion perspective, it is essential to address lifestyle issues such as stress management, cardiovascular health, and sleep hygiene, considering his medical history (hypertension, angina, benign prostatic hyperplasia) (Levine et al., 2023). It is imperative to engage in educational discussions regarding stimulant versus non-stimulant therapy, given his cardiovascular risk. Harold’s reluctance to pursue previous mental health care may indicate generational or cultural stigma; psychoeducation can facilitate the normalization of treatment and bolster behavioral techniques.

Conclusion

Harold Brown’s presentation, persistent attentional difficulties, and elevated ASRS-5 score substantiate a diagnosis of ADHD, Predominantly Inattentive Presentation. Although a minor neurocognitive disorder was contemplated, the persistence and context of symptoms were more consistent with a neurodevelopmental issue rather than a degenerative one. Recognizing ADHD in adulthood facilitates specific interventions that can enhance occupational performance, minimize mistakes, and improve overall quality of life. Continuous education, therapy formulation, and monitoring are essential to meet his psychological and medical requirements.

References

Dobrosavljevic, M., Larsson, H., & Cortese, S. (2023). The diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in older adults. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, 23(10), 883–893. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737175.2023.2250913

Landreville, P., Gosselin, P., Grenier, S., & Carmichael, P. (2021). Self-help guided by trained lay providers for generalized anxiety disorder in older adults: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Geriatrics, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-021-02221-x

Levine, S. Z., Rotstein, A., Kodesh, A., Sandin, S., Lee, B. K., Weinstein, G., Beeri, M. S., & Reichenberg, A. (2023). Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and the risk of dementia. JAMA Network Open, 6(10), e2338088. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.38088

Sasaki, H., Jono, T., Fukuhara, R., Honda, K., Ishikawa, T., Boku, S., & Takebayashi, M. (2022). Late-manifestation of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in older adults: an observational study. BMC Psychiatry, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-03978-0

Swinnen, N., Vandenbulcke, M., De Bruin, E. D., Akkerman, R., Stubbs, B., Firth, J., & Vancampfort, D. (2021). The efficacy of exergaming in people with major neurocognitive disorder residing in long-term care facilities: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Alzheimer S Research & Therapy, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-021-00806-7

Wu, Z., Wang, P., Liu, J., Liu, L., Cao, X., Sun, L., Yang, L., Cao, Q., Wang, Y., & Yang, B. (2023). The clinical, neuropsychological, and brain functional characteristics of the ADHD restrictive inattentive presentation. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1099882

CLICK HERE TO ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER

Assignment

Neurodevelopmental disorders begin in the developmental period of childhood and may continue through adulthood. They may range from the very specific to a general or global impairment, and often co-occur (APA, 2022). They include specific learning and language disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorders, and intellectual disabilities. Neurocognitive disorders, on the other hand, represent a decline in one or more areas of prior mental function that is significant enough to impact independent functioning. They may occur at any time in life and be caused by factors such brain injury; diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, or Huntington’s; infection; or stroke, among others.

For this Assignment, you will assess a patient in a case study who presents with a neurocognitive or neurodevelopmental disorder.

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

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Neurocognitive disorders. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
  • Links to an external site. (5th ed., text rev.). https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url= https://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787.x17_Neurocognitive_Disorders
  • American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Neurodevelopmental disorders. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
  • Links to an external site. (5th ed., text rev.). https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url= https://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787.x01_Neurodevelopmental_Disorders
  • Boland, R. & Verduin, M. L. & Ruiz, P. (2022). Kaplan & Sadock’s synopsis of psychiatry (12th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
    • Chapter 3, “Neurocognitive Disorders”
    • Chapter 2- sections 2.1 “Intellectual Disability”, 2.2 “Communication Disorders”, 2.3 Autism Spectrum Disorder, 2.4 Attention-Deficit Disorder, 2.5 “Specific Learning Disorder”, 2.6 “Motor Disorders”
    • Chapter 26 “Level of Care”
    • Chapter 29 “End-of-Life Issues and Palliative Care
  • Document: Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Template
  • Download Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Template
  • Document: Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Exemplar
  • Download Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Exemplar

Required Media

  • Classroom Productions. (Producer). (2016). Neurocognitive disorders
  • Links to an external site. [Video]. Walden University.
  • Classroom Productions. (Producer). (2016). Neurodevelopmental disorders
  • Links to an external site. [Video]. Walden University.
  • MedEasy. (2016). Progressive neurocognitive disorders. | USMLE & COMLEX
  • Links to an external site. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdcjyHvaAuQ

Video Case Selections for Assignment

Select one of the following videos to use for your Assignment this week. Then, access the document “Case History Reports” and review the additional data about the patient in the specific video number you selected.

  • Symptom Media. (Producer). (2017). Training title 48
  • Links to an external site. [Video]. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://video.alexanderstreet.com/watch/training-title-48
  • Symptom Media. (Producer). (2017). Training title 50
  • Links to an external site. [Video]. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://video.alexanderstreet.com/watch/training-title-50
  • Document: Case History Reports
  • Download Case History Reports

To Prepare:

  • Review this week’s Learning Resources and consider the insights they provide. Consider how neurocognitive impairments may have similar presentations to other psychological disorders.
  • Review the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation template, which you will use to complete this Assignment.
  • By Day 1 of this week, select a specific video case study to use for this Assignment from the Video Case Selections choices in the Learning Resources. View your assigned video case and review the additional data for the case in the “Case History Reports” document, keeping the requirements of the evaluation template in mind.
  • Consider what history would be necessary to collect from this patient.
  • Consider what interview questions you would need to ask this patient.
  • Identify at least three possible differential diagnoses for the patient.

By Day 7 of Week 10

Complete and submit your Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation, including your differential diagnosis and critical-thinking process to formulate primary diagnosis.
Incorporate the following into your responses in the template:

  • Subjective: What details did the patient provide regarding their chief complaint and symptomology to derive your differential diagnosis? What is the duration and severity of their symptoms? How are their symptoms impacting their functioning in life?
  • Objective: What observations did you make during the psychiatric assessment??
  • Assessment: Discuss the patient’s mental status examination results. What were your differential diagnoses? Provide a minimum of three possible diagnoses with supporting evidence, listed in order from highest priority to lowest priority. Compare the DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for each differential diagnosis and explain what DSM-5-TR criteria rules out the differential diagnosis to find an accurate diagnosis. Explain the critical-thinking process that led you to the primary diagnosis you selected. Include pertinent positives and pertinent negatives for the specific patient case.
  • Reflection notes: What would you do differently with this client if you could conduct the session over??Also include in your reflection a discussion related to legal/ethical considerations (demonstrate critical thinking beyond confidentiality and consent for treatment!), health promotion and disease prevention taking into consideration patient factors (such as age, ethnic group, etc.), PMH, and other risk factors (e.g., socioeconomic, cultural background, etc.).

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 WK10Assgn_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.

24/7 Nursing Help Online – Fast, Reliable, and Expert-Approved.
From NCLEX prep to clinical advice, get instant nursing help from licensed professionals. Trusted by students and nurses worldwide.

Rubric

NRNP_6635_Week10_Assignment_Rubric

NRNP_6635_Week10_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Create documentation in the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Template about the patient you selected. In the Subjective section, provide: • Chief complaint• History of present illness (HPI)• Past psychiatric history• Medication trials and current medications• Psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis• Pertinent substance use, family psychiatric/substance use, social, and medical history• Allergies• ROS 20 to >17.0 pts Excellent The response throughly and accurately describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, past psychiatric history, medication trials and current medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, pertinent histories, allergies, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis.

17 to >15.0 pts Good The response accurately describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, past psychiatric history, medication trials and current medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, pertinent histories, allergies, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis.

15 to >13.0 pts Fair The response describes the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, past psychiatric history, medication trials and current medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, pertinent histories, allergies, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis, but is somewhat vague or contains minor innacuracies.

13 to >0 pts Poor The response provides an incomplete or inaccurate description of the patient’s subjective complaint, history of present illness, past psychiatric history, medication trials and current medications, psychotherapy or previous psychiatric diagnosis, pertinent histories, allergies, and review of all systems that would inform a differential diagnosis. Or, subjective documentation is missing.

20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome In the Objective section, provide:• Physical exam documentation of systems pertinent to the chief complaint, HPI, and history• Diagnostic results, including any labs, imaging, or other assessments needed to develop the differential diagnoses. 20 to >17.0 pts Excellent The response thoroughly and accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are thoroughly and accurately documented.

17 to >15.0 pts Good The response accurately documents the patient’s physical exam for pertinent systems. Diagnostic tests and their results are accurately documented.

15 to >13.0 pts Fair Documentation of the patient’s physical exam is somewhat vague or contains minor innacuracies. Diagnostic tests and their results are documented but contain minor innacuracies.

13 to >0 pts Poor The response provides incomplete or inaccurate documentation of the patient’s physical exam. Systems may have been unnecessarily reviewed, or, objective documentation is missing.

20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome In the Assessment section, provide: • Results of the mental status examination, presented in paragraph form. • At least three differentials with supporting evidence. List them from top priority to least priority. Compare the DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for each differential diagnosis and explain what DSM-5-TR criteria rules out the differential diagnosis to find an accurate diagnosis. Explain the critical-thinking process that led you to the primary diagnosis you selected. Include pertinent positives and pertinent negatives for the specific patient case. 25 to >22.0 pts Excellent The response thoroughly and accurately documents the results of the mental status exam…. Response lists at least three distinctly different and detailed possible disorders in order of priority for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, and it provides a thorough, accurate, and detailed justification for each of the disorders selected.

22 to >19.0 pts Good The response accurately documents the results of the mental status exam…. Response lists at least three distinctly different and detailed possible disorders in order of priority for a differential diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, and it provides an accurate justification for each of the disorders selected.

19 to >17.0 pts Fair The response documents the results of the mental status exam with some vagueness or innacuracy…. Response lists at least three different possible disorders for a differential diagnosis of the patient and provides a justification for each, but may contain some vaguess or innacuracy.

17 to >0 pts Poor The response provides an incomplete or inaccurate description of the results of the mental status exam and explanation of the differential diagnoses. Or, assessment documentation is missing.

25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Reflect on this case. Discuss what you learned and what you might do differently. Also include in your reflection a discussion related to legal/ethical considerations (demonstrate critical thinking beyond confidentiality and consent for treatment!), social determinates of health, health promotion and disease prevention taking into consideration patient factors (such as age, ethnic group, etc.), PMH, and other risk factors (e.g., socioeconomic, cultural background, etc.). 10 to >8.0 pts Excellent Reflections are thorough, thoughtful, and demonstrate critical thinking.

8 to >7.0 pts Good Reflections demonstrate critical thinking.

7 to >6.0 pts Fair Reflections are somewhat general or do not demonstrate critical thinking.

6 to >0 pts Poor Reflections are incomplete, inaccurate, or missing.

10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Provide at least three evidence-based, peer-reviewed journal articles or evidenced-based guidelines that relate to this case to support your diagnostics and differential diagnoses. Be sure they are current (no more than 5 years old). 15 to >13.0 pts Excellent The response provides at least three current, evidence-based resources from the literature to support the assessment and diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study. The resources reflect the latest clinical guidelines and provide strong justification for decision making.

13 to >11.0 pts Good The response provides at least three current, evidence-based resources from the literature that appropriately support the assessment and diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study.

11 to >10.0 pts Fair Three evidence-based resources are provided to support assessment and diagnosis of the patient in the assigned case study, but they may only provide vague or weak justification.

10 to >0 pts Poor Two or fewer resources are provided to support assessment and diagnosis decisions. The resources may not be current or evidence based.

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 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 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 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 Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 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 punctuation 5 to >4.0 pts Excellent Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors

4 to >3.0 pts Good Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

3 to >2.0 pts Fair Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors

2 to >0 pts Poor Contains many (≥ five) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding

5 pts

Total Points: 100

 


Don`t copy text!
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
???? Hi, how can I help?