PUP 4101 Working with clinical complexity in contemporaneous mental health practice
ASSIGNMENT GUIDANCE WRITTEN
Learning Outcomes
- Evaluate critically the complex health and social care needs of an individual with challenging mental health problems, demonstrating a critical application of contemporary theory.
- Critically analyse the application of judicial precedent and statute in a mental health law context, considering its relevance to the development of clinical practice and care delivery in mental health.
- Critically appraise recovery focussed care in challenging situations including pharmacological and therapeutic approaches for the management of severe mental illness.
- Demonstrate proficiency in numeracy in order to apply pharmacological aspects safely.
- To demonstrate the ability to adhere, concisely, to the requirements contained within the assessment brief.
What does the assignment entail?
Both the written assignment and the presentation expect the students to select an individual with complex needs and critically analyse key aspects in their care from a recovery perspective. This will include a critical evaluation of assessment, care planning and risk management (to include psycho-social approaches and the legal, ethical and professional issues relating to the service user) taking into consideration the current evidence base.
4000 notional words for the written assignment;
This must meet Learning Outcomes nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5;
In order to pass the module, both parts of the assessment must be passed. This assignment at 40% or above and the maths at 100%.
It is essential that you follow the word count guidance and rules on confidentiality as detailed in the Programme Handbook.
This structure is intended as a guidance only.
Introduction (approximately 200 words).
Set the scene, identify how you intend to meet the learning outcomes for this assignment (1, 2 & 3). Declare confidentiality (NMC & EHU). Write in the third person (the author).
Identifying information (maximum 150-200 words).
Brief synopsis. Name of client (pseudonym), age, social contacts, hobbies/interests, brief account of episodes of care to date, pre-morbid history (some details may need to be omitted to maintain confidentiality).
Presenting problem(s) (approx 150-200 words).
Current diagnosis (ICD-10 or DSM-V), nature of current symptoms/experiences, support networks. Client’s main concerns/difficulties, and any family concerns (if applicable).
Assessment and formulation phase (approximately 1000 words).
How was assessment of needs conducted? (Consider CPA framework). What methods/approaches were used e.g. face-to-face, self-rating scales, family/carer interviews? PSI formulation framework? e.g. stress-vulnerability model, ABCDE model. Strengths and limitations of various assessment methods. What is the evidence that underpins such approaches? How were health and social needs prioritised? Where there challenges to conducting assessment e.g. engagement issues, mental capacity? How sensitive and emotive areas were approached e.g. history of psychological trauma and/or abuse? How was risk assessed? Are there issues of safeguarding? What evidence-based tools were used? Please fully reference any measurement tools that are cited.
Planning and Implementation phase (approximately 1200 words).
What pharmacological and psychosocial interventions were agreed as part of the CPA care plan? What is the evidence underpinning care planning approaches? How would risk be managed? Was a positive risk taking approach adopted? Was this a collaborative process? Was mental capacity acknowledged? Was a recovery-based model used? What is the underpinning evidence in terms of recovery approaches? In terms of the client’s goals and aspirations, what did he/she understand by the notion of recovery? How motivated was the individual in terms of a recovery-based approach? How may this contrast or compliment against a medical model approach? What MH legislation was indicated in the care package and delivery? e.g. CTO, Section 117, Guardianship.
Evaluation (approximately 1000 words).
Critical appraisal of care. Were there challenges or setbacks on the client’s journey? If so why? Were there any challenges to ensuring the client received a fair and equitable experience of services? (Consider Equality Act, 2010). Was the care delivery defensive or defensible? (Consider MH legislation and professional accountability). Can risk be measured, quantified or predicted? How empowered was the client? Was the approach largely risk aversive or not? If so, how might this collide with the ethos of recovery based care? Was one treatment approach more strongly indicated than others e.g. pharmacological? Is a stand-alone treatment approach more effective? Can one size fit all? Are there challenges to achieving best practice and equality in the current climate of service cutbacks?
Conclusion (approximately 200 words).
Summary of key points discussed, new insights, key considerations for future practice.
Common errors in the assignment which will affect your mark or fail.
- The focus ends up being on telling the story of the client, this is descriptive and not analytical. You want to weave the client through the assignment linking theory to practice, what does the evidence say and how do you support what was done if it doesn’t match the evidence base?
- The client is barely mentioned and ends up being a critique of care in the general sense.
- Level of criticality is weak. At level 7 it’s about making those connections between theory and practice and being able to really dig deep into the areas that need exploring and come up with a balanced argument which starts to show independent thought and new ideas whilst using comprehensive references.
For students who choose to deliver a PowerPoint presentation, there is a separate presentation assignment guidance.
