Therapy for Persons with Personality Disorder (Coursework Sample)

WK 11: Therapy for Clients With Personality Disorders Review this week’s Learning Resources and reflect on the insights they provide. Select one of the personality disorders from the DSM-5. Post a description of the personality disorder you selected. Explain a therapeutic approach (including psychotropic medications if appropriate) you might use to treat a client presenting with this disorder, including how you would share your diagnosis of this disorder to the client in order to avoid damaging the therapeutic relationship. Support your approach with evidence-based literature Learning Resources Required Readings American Nurses Association. (2014). Psychiatric-mental health nursing: Scope and standards of practice (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Standard 5H “Psychotherapy” (pages 63-64) Wheeler, K. (Ed.). (2014). Psychotherapy for the advanced practice psychiatric nurse: A how-to guide for evidence-based practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company. Chapter 20, “Termination and Outcome Evaluation” (Review pp. 693–712) American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Dixon-Gordon, K. L., Turner, B. J., & Chapman, A. L. (2011). Psychotherapy for personality disorders. International Review Of Psychiatry, 23(3), 282-302. doi:10.3109/09540261.2011.586992 Lorentzen, S., Ruud, T., Fjeldstad, A., & Høglend, P. A. (2015). Personality disorder moderates outcome in short- and long-term group analytic psychotherapy: A randomized clinical trial. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54(2), 129-146. doi:10.1111/bjc.12065 Paris, J. (2004). Personality disorders over time: implications for psychotherapy. American Journal Of Psychotherapy, 58(4), 420-429. Swift, J. K., & Greenberg, R. P. (2015). What is premature termination, and why does it occur? In Premature termination in psychotherapy: Strategies for engaging clients and improving outcomes (pp. 11–31). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14469-002 Optional Resources Dorr, D. (1999). Approaching psychotherapy of the personality disorders from the Millon perspective. Journal of Personality Assessment, 72(3), 407–425. PMID: 10491846 Bach, B., Lee, C., Mortensen, E. L., & Simonsen, E. (2016). How do DSM-5 personality traits align with schema therapy constructs? Journal of Personality Disorders, 30(4), 502–529. doi:10.1521/pedi_2015_29_212 Rubric Detail Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout. Name: NURS_6640_Week11_Discussion_Rubric Grid View List View Outstanding Performance Excellent Performance Competent Performance Proficient Performance Room for Improvement Main Posting: Response to the discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. 44 (44%) - 44 (44%) Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s) is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. supported by at least 3 current, credible sources 40 (40%) - 43 (43%) Responds to the discussion question(s) is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth supported by at least 3 credible references 35 (35%) - 39 (39%) Responds to most of the discussion question(s) is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of post has exceptional depth and breadth supported by at least 3 credible references 31 (31%) - 34 (34%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s) one to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references 0 (0%) - 30 (30%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. contains only 1 or no credible references Main Posting: Writing 6 (6%) - 6 (6%) Written clearly and concisely Contains no grammatical or spelling errors Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style 5.5 (5.5%) - 5.5 (5.5%) Written clearly and concisely May contain one or no grammatical or spelling error Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Written concisely May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style 4.5 (4.5%) - 4.5 (4.5%) Written somewhat concisely May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors Contains some APA formatting errors 0 (0%) - 4 (4%) Not written clearly or concisely Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style Main Posting: Timely and full participation 10 (10%) - 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely and full participation posts main discussion by due date 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) Does not meet requirement for full participation First Response: Post to colleague's main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) - 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings responds to questions posed by faculty the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives 8.5 (8.5%) - 8.5 (8.5%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings 7.5 (7.5%) - 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting 6.5 (6.5%) - 7 (7%) Response is on topic, may have some depth 0 (0%) - 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic, lacks depth First Response: Writing 6 (6%) - 6 (6%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English 5.5 (5.5%) - 5.5 (5.5%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues Response to faculty questions are answered if posed Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources Response is written in Standard Edited English 4.5 (4.5%) - 4.5 (4.5%) Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed Few or no credible sources are cited 0 (0%) - 4 (4%) Responses posted in the discussion lack effective Response to faculty questions are missing No credible sources are cited First Response: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely and full participation posts by due date 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) Does not meet requirement for full participation Second Response: Post to colleague's main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) - 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings * responds to questions posed by faculty the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives 8.5 (8.5%) - 8.5 (8.5%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings 7.5 (7.5%) - 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting 6.5 (6.5%) - 7 (7%) Response is on topic, may have some depth 0 (0%) - 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic, lacks depth Second Response: Writing 6 (6%) - 6 (6%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English 5.5 (5.5%) - 5.5 (5.5%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues Response to faculty questions are answered if posed Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources Response is written in Standard Edited English 4.5 (4.5%) - 4.5 (4.5%) Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed Few or no credible sources are cited 0 (0%) - 4 (4%) Responses posted in the discussion lack effective Response to faculty questions are missing No credible sources are cited Second Response: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely and full participation Posts by due date 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) NA 0 (0%) - 0 (0%) Does not meet requirement for full participation Total Points: 100 Name: NURS_6640_Week11_Discussion_Rubric source..