Assignment Wk3 Psychopharmacology Paper

Adult/Geriatric Depression Hispanic Male With MDD

ORDER NOW FOR COMPREHENSIVE, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPERS

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The client is a 32-year-old Hispanic American male who came to the United States when he was in high school with his father. His mother died back in Mexico when he was in school. He presents today to the PMHNPs office for an initial appointment for complaints of depression. The client was referred by his PCP after “routine” medical work-up to rule out an organic basis for his depression. He has no other health issues with the exception of some occasional back pain and “stiff” shoulders which he attributes to his current work as a laborer in a warehouse.

 

 

SUBJECTIVE

During today’s clinical interview, client reports that he always felt like an outsider as he was “teased” a lot for being “black” in high school. States that he had few friends, and basically kept to himself. He describes his home life as “good.” Stating “Dad did what he could for us, there were 8 of us.” He also reports a remarkably diminished interest in engaging in usual activities, states that he has gained 15 pounds in the last 2 months. He is also troubled with insomnia which began about 6 months ago, but have been progressively getting worse. He does report poor concentration which he reports is getting in “trouble” at work.

 

MENTAL STATUS EXAM

The client is alert, oriented to person, place, time, and event. He is casually dressed. Speech is clear, but soft. He does not readily make eye contact, but when he does, it is only for a few moments. He is endorsing feelings of depression. Affect is somewhat constricted, but improves as the clinical interview progresses. He denies visual or auditory hallucinations, no overt delusional or paranoid thought processes readily apparent. Judgment and insight appear grossly intact. He is currently denying suicidal or homicidal ideation. The PMHNP administers the “Montgomery- Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)” and obtained a score of 51 (indicating severe depression).

RESOURCES

§ Montgomery, S. A., & Asberg, M. (1979). A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. British Journal of Psychiatry, 134, 382-389.

 

Adult/Geriatric Depression Hispanic Male With MDD

 

Decision Point One

I started Effexor XR 37.5mg orally daily

 

RESULTS OF DECISION POINT ONE

·  Client returns to clinic in four weeks

·  Client reports that there is no change in depressive symptoms at all

Decision Point Two

I increased Effexor XR to 75mg orally daily.

 

RESULTS OF DECISION POINT TWO

·  Client returns to clinic in four weeks

·  Client reports an improvement in depressive symptoms

·  Montgomery- Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) decreased from 51 to 38 (25% reduction)

Decision Point Three

I chose to continue the same dose of medication.

 

Guidance to Student At this point, the PMHNP would have two choices to discuss with the client- the current dose of drug can be maintained if the client is feeling better and is not offering any complaints of side effects. The dose can also be increased at this point, but the PMHNP must counsel client regarding the possibility of side effects. The use of an augmenting agent is not appropriate at this time as we have not reached a maximum dose with Effexor (in fact, 75 mg is still a relatively small dose), displaying primarily SSRI properties only (recall that at lower doses, Effexor exerts a greater effect on serotonergic receptors than norepinephrine at low doses). Assignment Wk3 Psychopharmacology Paper

 

The Assignment

Examine Case Study: An Elderly Hispanic Man With Major Depressive Disorder. You will be asked to make three decisions concerning the medication to prescribe to this client. Be sure to consider factors that might impact the client’s pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes.

 

· At each decision point stop to complete the following:

 

· Decision #1

· Which decision did you select?

· Why did you select this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

· What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

· Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #1 and the results of the decision. Why were they different?

 

· Decision #2

· Why did you select this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

· What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

· Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #2 and the results of the decision. Why were they different?

 

· Decision #3

· Why did you select this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

· What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

· Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #3 and the results of the decision. Why were they different?

· Also include how ethical considerations might impact your treatment plan and communication with clients.

Note:  Support your rationale with a minimum of three academic resources. While you may use the course text to support your rationale, it will not count toward the resource requirement.

Case study 1

Case study 5

 

Case Study

Walden University

Name

NURS – 6630N

March 9, 2019

 

Case Study

Optimizing the dosing of medicines for neonates and children remains a challenge. The importance of pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) research is recognized both in medicines regulation and pediatric clinical pharmacology, yet there remain barriers to undertaking high-quality PK and PD studies. While these studies are essential in understanding the dose–concentration–effect relationship and should underpin dosing recommendations, this review examines how challenges affecting the design and conduct of pediatric pharmacological studies can be overcome using targeted pharmacometric strategies. Model-based approaches confer benefits at all stages of the drug life-cycle, from identifying the first dose to be used in children, to clinical trial design, and optimizing the dosing regimens of older, off-patent medications. To benefit patients, strategies to ensure that new PK, PD and trial data are incorporated into evidence-based dosing recommendations are needed.

The client selected is an African American child having depression with normal development milestone. Other aspects reveal that the child has high ratings in depression scale. The criterion is used to diagnose the child.

Decision point one

In this case, we had to prescribe the first choice of drug to get an effective effect. Some Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the drugs of choice to use in children with depressive disorder. The best medicine is Zoloft having sertraline. Now we decided the starting dose and that was 25mg to be administered orally. According to Vitiello (2012), if the medicine does not work in starting dose, we need to increase the dose. The child had been prescribed Zoloft and he came back with no change in his mental health.

 

Decision point two

If the drug is not working in a low dose, we need to increase the dose. Decision point two involved increasing the dose from 25mg to 50mg.The purpose of increasing the dose was to lower the depressive symptoms. Being within the range, we expected minimal desired effects (Stahl, 2013). Giving a single dose is more likely to give persistent desired effects in client. The patient experienced 50 percent decrease in symptoms. Hence Zoloft was successful in managing the patient’s depression. You must be cautious about the side effects of sertraline. One of the major is suicidal thoughts.

 

Decision point three

Decision point three is to decide if the dose will be maintained or increased to get rid of symptoms completely. The best decision is to maintain the dose because if the patient has shown 50 percent improvement then he will show more with the passage of time. His dose had been maintained now he further experienced decrease in symptoms. The best treatment is the complete remission as it is the main aim in contemporary psychopharmacology (Stahl, 2013). Then I recommended that the dose will be maintained for three months for complete omission of symptoms. The dose can be increased to 75mg if the tolerance is developed. Assignment Wk3 Psychopharmacology Paper

 

Ethical considerations

Before a patient is offered a psychotropic medication, a thorough diagnostic evaluation and careful review of the patient’s history (including past symptoms and response to treatment) are essential Vitiello (2012),. Learning what the patient’s hopes, greatest concerns, and motivations are is essential to developing an appropriate therapeutic strategy that may include the use of psychopharmacological agents to address specific target symptoms. The goal is to prescribe psychotropic medications only when they are clearly indicated and when there is a strong evidence base. In many circumstances, combined biological and psychosocial interventions may offer the greatest therapeutic benefit. Another consideration is to develop a good relationship with patient as he has to feel comfortable with you. Then you may be able to treat in a better way. Safe administration should also be ensured.

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

Stahl, S. M. (2013). Stahl’s essential psychopharmacology: Neuroscientific basis and practical applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press

Stahl, S. M. (2014). The prescriber’s guide (5th ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Vitiello, B. (2012). Principles in using psychotropic medication in children and adolescents. In J. M. Rey (Ed.), IACAPAP e-Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Geneva: International Association for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Allied Professions. Retrievedfrom http://iacapap.org/wp-content/uploads/A.7-PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY-072012.pdf