Salient Features of John’s Case Study

For the provision of optimum treatment pertaining to the enhancement of betterment concerning the psychological health of a concerned individual, it is of utmost importance that the clinician or nurse in question adopt collaborative functioning principles in the development of an adequate diagnosis of the concerned patient, upon which, the ongoing treatment procedure will be based upon (Rabbitt, Kazdin & Scasselati, 2015). For the formulation and design of the salient features of a concerned patient’s required treatment procedure, the recognition of the available signs and symptoms presented by the patient, is imperative and essential (Wahlbeck, 2015).

As opined by the American Psychological Association, the emergence of a distressing mental disorder in a concerned patient, is not a sudden or unpredictable occurrence, but is the resulting amalgamation of a several minute behavioral, attitudinal, cognitive and emotional modifications, which can be observed clearly by the familial relationships in the immediate vicinity prior to the clinician’s observation (American Psychological Association, 2015). Hence, the need for optimum recognition of the signs and symptoms pertaining to the mental state of a concerned patient is of utmost importance for the deliverance of significant treatment procedures, followed by a maintenance of quality standards and consumer satisfaction in a clinical scenario (Insel, 2014).

The following essay highlights salient features of the case study of John, followed by a discussion regarding the various signs and symptoms to be noted for observation, in order to identify his mental state. There is also an adequate discussion of the biopsychosocial model of case for the purpose of treating the concerned patient John, along with an evaluation, assessment and management of the various risks pertaining to mental health practice.

Discussion

The following paragraphs highlight the salient features of John’s case study and his deteriorating mental health.

Recognizing signs of deterioration in a Person’s Mental State

As opined by the Queensland Government, disorders of mental illnesses imply a collective occurrence of several detrimental signs and symptoms, pertaining to one’s mental state, similar to the presence of physiological signs and symptoms during disease conditions pertaining to the physical aspects of the human body (Vigo, Thornicroft & Atun, 2016). Similar to any physical illness, psychological illness are also identifiable and quantifiable, which is of utmost importance for the diagnosis and required treatment for the concerned patient. There is a primary need for the recognition of several behavioral features presented by the concerned patient, which would yield aspects regarding his deteriorating mental health (Correll et al., 2017).

According to Beyond Blue, a non government initiative in Australia aiming to provide care services for mental disorders, the prevalence of several signs and symptoms are indicative of a patients deteriorating mental state. These include: a feeling of discouragement by the patient regarding the existence of a bleak future followed by a detrimental view regarding oneself or incapable for optimum life performance and a sense of denial (Modini et al., 2016).

With respect to John, his deteriorating mental health can be recognized with the presence of depression, accompanied by a feeling of failure, exhaustion and lack of motivation, due to his recent deprivation of a job. Upon conductance of conversation with the nurse, he also states a lack of future for himself and a constant denial of his present condition, further emphasizing his deteriorating depressive mental health .

Recognizing Signs of Deterioration in a Person’s Mental State

As stated by the Victoria State Government of Australia, the assessment and evaluation of symptoms is of utmost importance for the recognition of a concerned patient’s mental health state, followed by necessary guidelines pertaining to the diagnosis and the resultant treatment which will aid in the betterment of the patient. For the purpose of evaluation and assessment of symptoms, the collection of baseline information is of utmost importance, for which the usage of mental health assessment tools is imperative (Pillai et al., 2016). This will not only aid in the diagnosis of the concerning mental disorder, but will also aid in distinguishing signs and symptoms between a physiological and a psychological level.

Concerning the recognition evaluation of the deteriorating signs and symptoms of John, the usage of the ‘Mental Health Trial Tool’ may prove to be beneficial in highlighting the required supervision, diagnosis and resultant treatment (La Vonne, Zun & Burke, 2015). The triage tool measures ongoing patient symptoms, by grading in accordance to the magnitude of possible harm infliction and the need for immediate treatment procedures. Hence, baseline information regarding John’s deteriorating mental health can be utilized through a conductance of an assessment in which his symptoms will be graded as Immediate, Emergency, Urgent, Semi urgent and non urgent (Gil et al., 2017).

The rationale behind usage of the ‘Mental Health Trial Tool’ is based upon the principle, that treatment outlines and outcome of the concerned patient, can be designated based on their urgency (Sands et al., 2017). Regarding the case study of John, none of his presented symptoms seem to required classification as ‘Immediate’ due to an absence of immediate feeling of violence, suicide or self harm presented by the concerned patient. However, as noted during the end of the concerned case, John expresses a desire to leave treatment procedures, upon his denial of existing depressive symptoms, and the refusal of which, may lead to implication of harmful, aggressive behavior.

Hence, this particular symptom of John’s may be highlighted as an ‘emergency’, according to the triage scale, further resulting in alerting of the required medial workforce for mitigation of the same. According to the case study, John’s symptoms also fail to require classification as ‘urgent’ or ‘semi urgent’ for which, immediate medical supervision may be required. However, the presence of possible self harm signs and constant feelings of discouragement of John regarding his future and self-worth, will required constant medical supervision, general conventional .

care and empathetic conversation, as outlined in the ‘non-urgent’ symptoms in the mental health triage tool. Hence, the rationale behind usage of the mental health triage scale for assessing John’s symptoms is due to its efficient detailing regarding the urgency of treatment, followed by highlighting the requirement of further observation and treatment for the concerned patient.

The Biopsychosocial Model of Care in Mental Health Practice

The biopsychosocial model is a comprehensive an elaborate for the provision of useful insights concerning the disorders presented by a concerned patient. The model was developed in the year 1977, by George L. Engel, as an attempt to explain the salient causative factors regarding a concerned patient’s disease condition as a collaborative interaction amongst three factors (Rogers, Paxton & McLean, 2014). The aforementioned model is considered as one of the most defining informative frameworks prior to the 21^st century, in clinical medical practice. In accordance to the biopsychosocial model of care in mental health practice.

Evaluation and Assessment of Symptoms

prior to the analysis of the symptoms of the concerned patient, along with execution of the required treatment plan, there is a need for the recognition of the interplay of several factors at the biological, social and psychological platforms of the concerned patient (Jensen et al., 2015). The biological factors outline the possible genetic as well as biochemical distortions outlined by the patient. The interplaying of the patient’s behavior, attitudes and personality highlight the social factors, whereas surrounding familial, cultural and social relationships present as social factors of the concerned patient (Barker et al., 2015). Associating this model with John’s case study, it can be observed that the major causative factors behind John’s depressive symptoms, are present at his social, psychological as well as biological platforms.

The sudden removal from his job as an immediate social factor, coupled with his biological phenomenon concerning his debilitating back aches and possible genetic inheritance from his father, may be a key reason behind John’s occurrences of depression. Additional psychological factors, as a resultant of the occurrences of the alternative factor as mentioned above, such as a feeling of hopelessness and constant denial regarding oneself and one’s future, further seems to aggravate the depressive symptoms of John.

The biopsychosocial model of treatment is considered as one of the best practices pertaining to the diagnosis and treatment of mental health disorders in clinical practice, due to its recognition of the usage of humanistic and empathetic models for understanding the mental shortcomings of the patient, resulting in the provision of a patient-oriented care treatment plan, rather than the mere provision of medicinal interventions for the alleviation of somatic symptoms of the concerned treatment (Mitchell et al., 2017). One of the key advantages of this model is the recognition of a patient’s case history along with the intervening interpersonal relationships, as essential, in the treatment of a concerned mental health patient.

One of the major advantages of the biopsychosocial model of treatment, making it as one of the best diagnosis and treatment practices in the field of provision of mental health services, is the recognition of the requirement of involvement of the patient in the necessary treatment plan (Heery et al., 2015). Hence, the treatment of the patient, will be determined, not only by the concerned medical professional, but also the patient himself, who will be equally involved in the formulation and progressions of diagnostic procedures, through self awareness and evaluation of his own psychological signs and symptoms (Elliott & Richardson, 2014).

Hence, during implementation of the same for the purpose of provision of John’s mental health treatment plan, John himself will be encouraged to discuss actively the magnitude of his signs and symptoms and the required procedures which he may prefer for the purpose of alleviation of the same.

Identifying and Managing Risk in the Clinical Setting

With regards to the clinical scenario of mental health patient, it is imperative to consider the possibility of risk encountered by the clinical workforce, including nurses, who are key characters in the provision of adequate treatment and care for the concerned patient. This pertains to the possible displaying of aggressive and violent behavior by the concerned patient, or behaviors of self harm, which not only pose to be dangerous for the patient, but also for the required nursing staff and the resultant comprise in the required treatment and health care (McKeown & White, 2015). As opined by the Department of Health in the Australian Government, and also the Royal College of Psychiatrists, there is a need for the implementation of adequate risk management strategies and practices by the concerned clinical organization (Kramer, Kinn & Mischkind, 2015).

Usage of the ‘Mental Health Trial Tool’ for Symptom Evaluation and Severity Grading

With regards to the case study of John, it is imperative for the nurse to implement adequate risk management strategies due to the possible self harm symptoms presented by John. The nurse should communicate the importance of the same, empathetically, to John’s family, prior to this treatment, through the utilization family-centered care principles (Coyne, 2015). This would involve updating and communicating with John’s family regarding the his treatment plans, his symptoms, and the possibility of violent behavior which will immediate medical response. The factors which may position John at a platform of higher risk, are predisposing factors, whereas, precipitating factors act as triggers to the current problem of the patient, that is depression, in this case.

Perpetuating factors adhere to the maintenance of a common problem, upon their salient establishments (Racine et al., 2015). In accordance to the case study, we see that John is overcome by a sense of depression and feelings of hopelessness concerning his future and employment capabilities. It can be observed that John is a moderate risk patient. Despite an absence of triggers or precipitating  and predisposing factors which cause self harm by John, there is abundant presence of perpetuating factors, since the loss of a job, his physical incapability and low self esteem is allowing the persistence of depression and a denial of symptoms, which may cause future aggressive behavior as noted in the end of the case study.

In such situations, the nurse should engage in empathetic conversation with John , in order to ensure calm and composure in John, along with establishment of immediate communications with his family, as a principle of provision of family-centered care (Vohra et al., 2015).

However, with regards to John, there may be a presence of controversy and dilemma, concerning the conflict of interest between availability of duty of care, and the ethical treatment John as a right to receive, with regards to the medical workforce. Duty of Care is a legal framework pertaining to the assurance of adequate safe and healthy occupational environments by the organizational leaders pertaining to the optimum functioning and safety of the concerned workforce (Moss et al., 2015). Hence, there is due requirement of a risk assessment and risk management plan, to be implemented by the concerned medical staff, due to the possibility of harm inflicted upon the ongoing workforce from the presence of patients who may exhibit violent of aggressive behavior.

However, this above may pose to be a major conflicting scenario to the concerned patient and their families, since implementation of ethical considerations are equally important in the management of patient health and safety, in a clinical scenario (Mestdagh & Hansen, 2014). A patient and the concerned family possess a right for compensation regarding the infliction of any form of self harm encountered by the patient, and hence, the development of a modified duty of care plan may be required to resolve this conflict (Dimick & Ryan, 2014).

 As a solution, the organizational management may discuss and communicate the possible policy frameworks, through initiation of a joint discussion involving a multidisciplinary approach, involving the clinicians, the nurses as well as the concerned family of the patient. John’s family must be adequately educated regarding the possible occurrences of John’s aggressive behavior, which may result in immediate medical emergencies, pertaining to the safety of the patient as well as the concerned medical staff responsible for discipline of the required patient care.

Conclusion

Hence, to conclude, the above essay outlines an elaborative and extensive approach, to the case study of John. With respect to John’s treatment plan, there is an immediate need for the implementation of adequate assessment and evaluation procedures in order to recognize the presented signs and symptoms. A mental triage tool can be utilized for assessment of John’s signs and symptoms, along with the identification of specific behavioral characteristics presented by him, which are behaving as resultant factors in the exhibition of his depressive mentality.

While the signs and symptoms presented by John may not require immediate medical emergencies, however, his tendencies of denial, escape and possible self harm, may necessitate the need for close supervision and the required risk management procedures, as evident from his act of attempting to leave the hospital scenario.

While the biopsychosocial model seems to be an effective treatment tool for the management of John’s clinical symptoms, there is a need for the formulation of a sensitive duty of care action plan, concerning the ethical issues which are essential to be followed, in the procedures of treatment provision and care planning for the concerned patient, as well as his family.

References

American Psychological Association. (2015). Guidelines for psychological practice with transgender and gender nonconforming people. American Psychologist, 70(9), 832-864.

Barker, V., Gumley, A., Schwannauer, M., & Lawrie, S. M. (2015). An integrated biopsychosocial model of childhood maltreatment and psychosis. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 206(3), 177-180.

Correll, C. U., Solmi, M., Veronese, N., Bortolato, B., Rosson, S., Santonastaso, P., … & Pigato, G. (2017). Prevalence, incidence and mortality from cardiovascular disease in patients with pooled and specific severe mental illness: a large?scale meta?analysis of 3,211,768 patients and 113,383,368 controls. World Psychiatry, 16(2), 163-180.

Dimick, J. B., & Ryan, A. M. (2014). Methods for evaluating changes in health care policy: the difference-in-differences approach. Jama, 312(22), 2401-2402.

Elliott, J. O., & Richardson, V. E. (2014). The biopsychosocial model and quality of life in persons with active epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 41, 55-65.

Gill, P. J., Saunders, N., Gandhi, S., Gonzalez, A., Kurdyak, P., Vigod, S., & Guttmann, A. (2017). Emergency department as a first contact for mental health problems in children and youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 56(6), 475-482.

Heery, E., Kelleher, C. C., Wall, P. G., & McAuliffe, F. M. (2015). Prediction of gestational weight gain–a biopsychosocial model. Public health nutrition, 18(8), 1488-1498.

Insel, T. R. (2014). The NIMH research domain criteria (RDoC) project: precision medicine for psychiatry. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(4), 395-397.

Jensen, M. P., Adachi, T., Tomé-Pires, C., Lee, J., Osman, Z. J., & Miró, J. (2015). Mechanisms of hypnosis: toward the development of a biopsychosocial model. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 63(1), 34-75.

Kramer, G. M., Kinn, J. T., & Mishkind, M. C. (2015). Legal, regulatory, and risk management issues in the use of technology to deliver mental health care. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 22(3), 258-268.

La Vonne, A. D., Zun, L. S., & Burke, T. (2015). Comparison of Canadian triage acuity scale to Australian Emergency Mental Health Scale triage system for psychiatric patients. International emergency nursing, 23(2), 138-143.

McKeown, M., & White, J. (2015). The future of mental health nursing: are we barking up the wrong tree?. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 22(9), 724-730.

Mestdagh, A., & Hansen, B. (2014). Stigma in patients with schizophrenia receiving community mental health care: a review of qualitative studies. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 49(1), 79-87.

Mitchell, S. H., Petrie, T. A., Greenleaf, C. A., & Martin, S. B. (2017). A biopsychosocial model of dietary restraint in early adolescent boys. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 37(5), 593-617.

Modini, M., Tan, L., Brinchmann, B., Wang, M. J., Killackey, E., Glozier, N., … & Harvey, S. B. (2016). Supported employment for people with severe mental illness: systematic review and meta-analysis of the international evidence. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 209(1), 14-22.

Moss, C., Nelson, K., Connor, M., Wensley, C., McKinlay, E., & Boulton, A. (2015). Patient experience in the emergency department: inconsistencies in the ethic and duty of care. Journal of clinical nursing, 24(1-2), 275-288.

Pillai, K., Rouse, P., McKenna, B., Skipworth, J., Cavney, J., Tapsell, R., … & Madell, D. (2016). From positive screen to engagement in treatment: a preliminary study of the impact of a new model of care for prisoners with serious mental illness. BMC psychiatry, 16(1), 9.

Rabbitt, S. M., Kazdin, A. E., & Scassellati, B. (2015). Integrating socially assistive robotics into mental healthcare interventions: Applications and recommendations for expanded use. Clinical psychology review, 35, 35-46.

Racine, N. M., Pillai Riddell, R. R., Khan, M., Calic, M., Taddio, A., & Tablon, P. (2015). Systematic review: predisposing, precipitating, perpetuating, and present factors predicting anticipatory distress to painful medical procedures in children. Journal of pediatric psychology, 41(2), 159-181.

Rodgers, R. F., Paxton, S. J., & McLean, S. A. (2014). A biopsychosocial model of body image concerns and disordered eating in early adolescent girls. Journal of youth and adolescence, 43(5), 814-823.

Sands, N., Elsom, S., Corbett, R., Keppich?Arnold, S., Prematunga, R., Berk, M., & Considine, J. (2017). Predictors for clinical deterioration of mental state in patients assessed by telephone?based mental health triage. International journal of mental health nursing, 26(3), 226-237.

Vigo, D., Thornicroft, G., & Atun, R. (2016). Estimating the true global burden of mental illness. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(2), 171-178.

Vohra, R., Madhavan, S., Sambamoorthi, U., & St Peter, C. (2014). Access to services, quality of care, and family impact for children with autism, other developmental disabilities, and other mental health conditions. Autism, 18(7), 815-826.

Wahlbeck, K. (2015). Public mental health: the time is ripe for translation of evidence into practice. World Psychiatry, 14(1), 36-42.

Salient Features of John’s Case Study

For the provision of optimum treatment pertaining to the enhancement of betterment concerning the psychological health of a concerned individual, it is of utmost importance that the clinician or nurse in question adopt collaborative functioning principles in the development of an adequate diagnosis of the concerned patient, upon which, the ongoing treatment procedure will be based upon (Rabbitt, Kazdin & Scasselati, 2015). For the formulation and design of the salient features of a concerned patient’s required treatment procedure, the recognition of the available signs and symptoms presented by the patient, is imperative and essential (Wahlbeck, 2015).

As opined by the American Psychological Association, the emergence of a distressing mental disorder in a concerned patient, is not a sudden or unpredictable occurrence, but is the resulting amalgamation of a several minute behavioral, attitudinal, cognitive and emotional modifications, which can be observed clearly by the familial relationships in the immediate vicinity prior to the clinician’s observation (American Psychological Association, 2015). Hence, the need for optimum recognition of the signs and symptoms pertaining to the mental state of a concerned patient is of utmost importance for the deliverance of significant treatment procedures, followed by a maintenance of quality standards and consumer satisfaction in a clinical scenario (Insel, 2014).

The following essay highlights salient features of the case study of John, followed by a discussion regarding the various signs and symptoms to be noted for observation, in order to identify his mental state. There is also an adequate discussion of the biopsychosocial model of case for the purpose of treating the concerned patient John, along with an evaluation, assessment and management of the various risks pertaining to mental health practice.

Discussion

The following paragraphs highlight the salient features of John’s case study and his deteriorating mental health.

Recognizing signs of deterioration in a Person’s Mental State

As opined by the Queensland Government, disorders of mental illnesses imply a collective occurrence of several detrimental signs and symptoms, pertaining to one’s mental state, similar to the presence of physiological signs and symptoms during disease conditions pertaining to the physical aspects of the human body (Vigo, Thornicroft & Atun, 2016). Similar to any physical illness, psychological illness are also identifiable and quantifiable, which is of utmost importance for the diagnosis and required treatment for the concerned patient. There is a primary need for the recognition of several behavioral features presented by the concerned patient, which would yield aspects regarding his deteriorating mental health (Correll et al., 2017).

According to Beyond Blue, a non government initiative in Australia aiming to provide care services for mental disorders, the prevalence of several signs and symptoms are indicative of a patients deteriorating mental state. These include: a feeling of discouragement by the patient regarding the existence of a bleak future followed by a detrimental view regarding oneself or incapable for optimum life performance and a sense of denial (Modini et al., 2016).

With respect to John, his deteriorating mental health can be recognized with the presence of depression, accompanied by a feeling of failure, exhaustion and lack of motivation, due to his recent deprivation of a job. Upon conductance of conversation with the nurse, he also states a lack of future for himself and a constant denial of his present condition, further emphasizing his deteriorating depressive mental health .

Recognizing Signs of Deterioration in a Person’s Mental State

As stated by the Victoria State Government of Australia, the assessment and evaluation of symptoms is of utmost importance for the recognition of a concerned patient’s mental health state, followed by necessary guidelines pertaining to the diagnosis and the resultant treatment which will aid in the betterment of the patient. For the purpose of evaluation and assessment of symptoms, the collection of baseline information is of utmost importance, for which the usage of mental health assessment tools is imperative (Pillai et al., 2016). This will not only aid in the diagnosis of the concerning mental disorder, but will also aid in distinguishing signs and symptoms between a physiological and a psychological level.

Concerning the recognition evaluation of the deteriorating signs and symptoms of John, the usage of the ‘Mental Health Trial Tool’ may prove to be beneficial in highlighting the required supervision, diagnosis and resultant treatment (La Vonne, Zun & Burke, 2015). The triage tool measures ongoing patient symptoms, by grading in accordance to the magnitude of possible harm infliction and the need for immediate treatment procedures. Hence, baseline information regarding John’s deteriorating mental health can be utilized through a conductance of an assessment in which his symptoms will be graded as Immediate, Emergency, Urgent, Semi urgent and non urgent (Gil et al., 2017).

The rationale behind usage of the ‘Mental Health Trial Tool’ is based upon the principle, that treatment outlines and outcome of the concerned patient, can be designated based on their urgency (Sands et al., 2017). Regarding the case study of John, none of his presented symptoms seem to required classification as ‘Immediate’ due to an absence of immediate feeling of violence, suicide or self harm presented by the concerned patient. However, as noted during the end of the concerned case, John expresses a desire to leave treatment procedures, upon his denial of existing depressive symptoms, and the refusal of which, may lead to implication of harmful, aggressive behavior.

Hence, this particular symptom of John’s may be highlighted as an ‘emergency’, according to the triage scale, further resulting in alerting of the required medial workforce for mitigation of the same. According to the case study, John’s symptoms also fail to require classification as ‘urgent’ or ‘semi urgent’ for which, immediate medical supervision may be required. However, the presence of possible self harm signs and constant feelings of discouragement of John regarding his future and self-worth, will required constant medical supervision, general conventional .

care and empathetic conversation, as outlined in the ‘non-urgent’ symptoms in the mental health triage tool. Hence, the rationale behind usage of the mental health triage scale for assessing John’s symptoms is due to its efficient detailing regarding the urgency of treatment, followed by highlighting the requirement of further observation and treatment for the concerned patient.

The Biopsychosocial Model of Care in Mental Health Practice

The biopsychosocial model is a comprehensive an elaborate for the provision of useful insights concerning the disorders presented by a concerned patient. The model was developed in the year 1977, by George L. Engel, as an attempt to explain the salient causative factors regarding a concerned patient’s disease condition as a collaborative interaction amongst three factors (Rogers, Paxton & McLean, 2014). The aforementioned model is considered as one of the most defining informative frameworks prior to the 21^st century, in clinical medical practice. In accordance to the biopsychosocial model of care in mental health practice.

Evaluation and Assessment of Symptoms

prior to the analysis of the symptoms of the concerned patient, along with execution of the required treatment plan, there is a need for the recognition of the interplay of several factors at the biological, social and psychological platforms of the concerned patient (Jensen et al., 2015). The biological factors outline the possible genetic as well as biochemical distortions outlined by the patient. The interplaying of the patient’s behavior, attitudes and personality highlight the social factors, whereas surrounding familial, cultural and social relationships present as social factors of the concerned patient (Barker et al., 2015). Associating this model with John’s case study, it can be observed that the major causative factors behind John’s depressive symptoms, are present at his social, psychological as well as biological platforms.

The sudden removal from his job as an immediate social factor, coupled with his biological phenomenon concerning his debilitating back aches and possible genetic inheritance from his father, may be a key reason behind John’s occurrences of depression. Additional psychological factors, as a resultant of the occurrences of the alternative factor as mentioned above, such as a feeling of hopelessness and constant denial regarding oneself and one’s future, further seems to aggravate the depressive symptoms of John.

The biopsychosocial model of treatment is considered as one of the best practices pertaining to the diagnosis and treatment of mental health disorders in clinical practice, due to its recognition of the usage of humanistic and empathetic models for understanding the mental shortcomings of the patient, resulting in the provision of a patient-oriented care treatment plan, rather than the mere provision of medicinal interventions for the alleviation of somatic symptoms of the concerned treatment (Mitchell et al., 2017). One of the key advantages of this model is the recognition of a patient’s case history along with the intervening interpersonal relationships, as essential, in the treatment of a concerned mental health patient.

One of the major advantages of the biopsychosocial model of treatment, making it as one of the best diagnosis and treatment practices in the field of provision of mental health services, is the recognition of the requirement of involvement of the patient in the necessary treatment plan (Heery et al., 2015). Hence, the treatment of the patient, will be determined, not only by the concerned medical professional, but also the patient himself, who will be equally involved in the formulation and progressions of diagnostic procedures, through self awareness and evaluation of his own psychological signs and symptoms (Elliott & Richardson, 2014).

Hence, during implementation of the same for the purpose of provision of John’s mental health treatment plan, John himself will be encouraged to discuss actively the magnitude of his signs and symptoms and the required procedures which he may prefer for the purpose of alleviation of the same.

Identifying and Managing Risk in the Clinical Setting

With regards to the clinical scenario of mental health patient, it is imperative to consider the possibility of risk encountered by the clinical workforce, including nurses, who are key characters in the provision of adequate treatment and care for the concerned patient. This pertains to the possible displaying of aggressive and violent behavior by the concerned patient, or behaviors of self harm, which not only pose to be dangerous for the patient, but also for the required nursing staff and the resultant comprise in the required treatment and health care (McKeown & White, 2015). As opined by the Department of Health in the Australian Government, and also the Royal College of Psychiatrists, there is a need for the implementation of adequate risk management strategies and practices by the concerned clinical organization (Kramer, Kinn & Mischkind, 2015).

Usage of the ‘Mental Health Trial Tool’ for Symptom Evaluation and Severity Grading

With regards to the case study of John, it is imperative for the nurse to implement adequate risk management strategies due to the possible self harm symptoms presented by John. The nurse should communicate the importance of the same, empathetically, to John’s family, prior to this treatment, through the utilization family-centered care principles (Coyne, 2015). This would involve updating and communicating with John’s family regarding the his treatment plans, his symptoms, and the possibility of violent behavior which will immediate medical response. The factors which may position John at a platform of higher risk, are predisposing factors, whereas, precipitating factors act as triggers to the current problem of the patient, that is depression, in this case.

Perpetuating factors adhere to the maintenance of a common problem, upon their salient establishments (Racine et al., 2015). In accordance to the case study, we see that John is overcome by a sense of depression and feelings of hopelessness concerning his future and employment capabilities. It can be observed that John is a moderate risk patient. Despite an absence of triggers or precipitating  and predisposing factors which cause self harm by John, there is abundant presence of perpetuating factors, since the loss of a job, his physical incapability and low self esteem is allowing the persistence of depression and a denial of symptoms, which may cause future aggressive behavior as noted in the end of the case study.

In such situations, the nurse should engage in empathetic conversation with John , in order to ensure calm and composure in John, along with establishment of immediate communications with his family, as a principle of provision of family-centered care (Vohra et al., 2015).

However, with regards to John, there may be a presence of controversy and dilemma, concerning the conflict of interest between availability of duty of care, and the ethical treatment John as a right to receive, with regards to the medical workforce. Duty of Care is a legal framework pertaining to the assurance of adequate safe and healthy occupational environments by the organizational leaders pertaining to the optimum functioning and safety of the concerned workforce (Moss et al., 2015). Hence, there is due requirement of a risk assessment and risk management plan, to be implemented by the concerned medical staff, due to the possibility of harm inflicted upon the ongoing workforce from the presence of patients who may exhibit violent of aggressive behavior.

However, this above may pose to be a major conflicting scenario to the concerned patient and their families, since implementation of ethical considerations are equally important in the management of patient health and safety, in a clinical scenario (Mestdagh & Hansen, 2014). A patient and the concerned family possess a right for compensation regarding the infliction of any form of self harm encountered by the patient, and hence, the development of a modified duty of care plan may be required to resolve this conflict (Dimick & Ryan, 2014).

 As a solution, the organizational management may discuss and communicate the possible policy frameworks, through initiation of a joint discussion involving a multidisciplinary approach, involving the clinicians, the nurses as well as the concerned family of the patient. John’s family must be adequately educated regarding the possible occurrences of John’s aggressive behavior, which may result in immediate medical emergencies, pertaining to the safety of the patient as well as the concerned medical staff responsible for discipline of the required patient care.

Conclusion

Hence, to conclude, the above essay outlines an elaborative and extensive approach, to the case study of John. With respect to John’s treatment plan, there is an immediate need for the implementation of adequate assessment and evaluation procedures in order to recognize the presented signs and symptoms. A mental triage tool can be utilized for assessment of John’s signs and symptoms, along with the identification of specific behavioral characteristics presented by him, which are behaving as resultant factors in the exhibition of his depressive mentality.

While the signs and symptoms presented by John may not require immediate medical emergencies, however, his tendencies of denial, escape and possible self harm, may necessitate the need for close supervision and the required risk management procedures, as evident from his act of attempting to leave the hospital scenario.

While the biopsychosocial model seems to be an effective treatment tool for the management of John’s clinical symptoms, there is a need for the formulation of a sensitive duty of care action plan, concerning the ethical issues which are essential to be followed, in the procedures of treatment provision and care planning for the concerned patient, as well as his family.

References

American Psychological Association. (2015). Guidelines for psychological practice with transgender and gender nonconforming people. American Psychologist, 70(9), 832-864.

Barker, V., Gumley, A., Schwannauer, M., & Lawrie, S. M. (2015). An integrated biopsychosocial model of childhood maltreatment and psychosis. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 206(3), 177-180.

Correll, C. U., Solmi, M., Veronese, N., Bortolato, B., Rosson, S., Santonastaso, P., … & Pigato, G. (2017). Prevalence, incidence and mortality from cardiovascular disease in patients with pooled and specific severe mental illness: a large?scale meta?analysis of 3,211,768 patients and 113,383,368 controls. World Psychiatry, 16(2), 163-180.

Dimick, J. B., & Ryan, A. M. (2014). Methods for evaluating changes in health care policy: the difference-in-differences approach. Jama, 312(22), 2401-2402.

Elliott, J. O., & Richardson, V. E. (2014). The biopsychosocial model and quality of life in persons with active epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 41, 55-65.

Gill, P. J., Saunders, N., Gandhi, S., Gonzalez, A., Kurdyak, P., Vigod, S., & Guttmann, A. (2017). Emergency department as a first contact for mental health problems in children and youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 56(6), 475-482.

Heery, E., Kelleher, C. C., Wall, P. G., & McAuliffe, F. M. (2015). Prediction of gestational weight gain–a biopsychosocial model. Public health nutrition, 18(8), 1488-1498.

Insel, T. R. (2014). The NIMH research domain criteria (RDoC) project: precision medicine for psychiatry. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(4), 395-397.

Jensen, M. P., Adachi, T., Tomé-Pires, C., Lee, J., Osman, Z. J., & Miró, J. (2015). Mechanisms of hypnosis: toward the development of a biopsychosocial model. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 63(1), 34-75.

Kramer, G. M., Kinn, J. T., & Mishkind, M. C. (2015). Legal, regulatory, and risk management issues in the use of technology to deliver mental health care. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 22(3), 258-268.

La Vonne, A. D., Zun, L. S., & Burke, T. (2015). Comparison of Canadian triage acuity scale to Australian Emergency Mental Health Scale triage system for psychiatric patients. International emergency nursing, 23(2), 138-143.

McKeown, M., & White, J. (2015). The future of mental health nursing: are we barking up the wrong tree?. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 22(9), 724-730.

Mestdagh, A., & Hansen, B. (2014). Stigma in patients with schizophrenia receiving community mental health care: a review of qualitative studies. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 49(1), 79-87.

Mitchell, S. H., Petrie, T. A., Greenleaf, C. A., & Martin, S. B. (2017). A biopsychosocial model of dietary restraint in early adolescent boys. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 37(5), 593-617.

Modini, M., Tan, L., Brinchmann, B., Wang, M. J., Killackey, E., Glozier, N., … & Harvey, S. B. (2016). Supported employment for people with severe mental illness: systematic review and meta-analysis of the international evidence. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 209(1), 14-22.

Moss, C., Nelson, K., Connor, M., Wensley, C., McKinlay, E., & Boulton, A. (2015). Patient experience in the emergency department: inconsistencies in the ethic and duty of care. Journal of clinical nursing, 24(1-2), 275-288.

Pillai, K., Rouse, P., McKenna, B., Skipworth, J., Cavney, J., Tapsell, R., … & Madell, D. (2016). From positive screen to engagement in treatment: a preliminary study of the impact of a new model of care for prisoners with serious mental illness. BMC psychiatry, 16(1), 9.

Rabbitt, S. M., Kazdin, A. E., & Scassellati, B. (2015). Integrating socially assistive robotics into mental healthcare interventions: Applications and recommendations for expanded use. Clinical psychology review, 35, 35-46.

Racine, N. M., Pillai Riddell, R. R., Khan, M., Calic, M., Taddio, A., & Tablon, P. (2015). Systematic review: predisposing, precipitating, perpetuating, and present factors predicting anticipatory distress to painful medical procedures in children. Journal of pediatric psychology, 41(2), 159-181.

Rodgers, R. F., Paxton, S. J., & McLean, S. A. (2014). A biopsychosocial model of body image concerns and disordered eating in early adolescent girls. Journal of youth and adolescence, 43(5), 814-823.

Sands, N., Elsom, S., Corbett, R., Keppich?Arnold, S., Prematunga, R., Berk, M., & Considine, J. (2017). Predictors for clinical deterioration of mental state in patients assessed by telephone?based mental health triage. International journal of mental health nursing, 26(3), 226-237.

Vigo, D., Thornicroft, G., & Atun, R. (2016). Estimating the true global burden of mental illness. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(2), 171-178.

Vohra, R., Madhavan, S., Sambamoorthi, U., & St Peter, C. (2014). Access to services, quality of care, and family impact for children with autism, other developmental disabilities, and other mental health conditions. Autism, 18(7), 815-826.

Wahlbeck, K. (2015). Public mental health: the time is ripe for translation of evidence into practice. World Psychiatry, 14(1), 36-42.