Homework answers / question archive / Assignment: Case Collaboration Meeting Collaboration is a key part of social work practice

Assignment: Case Collaboration Meeting Collaboration is a key part of social work practice

Sociology

Share With

---

Assignment: Case Collaboration Meeting

Collaboration is a key part of social work practice. Most MSW professionals engage in these processes during the postgraduate practice years that each state requires before their licensing moves from supervised to independent status. Even beyond those requirements, peer consultation and collaboration are key aspects of most social work practice settings.

For this Assignment, your Instructor has paired you with a consultation colleague. Imagine that you and your colleague are working with the client featured in the case study your Instructor assigned. Your task is to provide a diagnosis and present your findings in the Week 7 Discussion.

Your diagnosis can come from any part of the DSM-5, so frequent communication and research with your colleague may be needed. Your colleague is there to help you think out, consult on, challenge, research, and polish your process before you record and post your own final analysis of this case in Week 7.

The collaboration that begins in this Assignment is intended to provide a safe venue for developing your differential diagnosis and case discussion skills with your colleague. This week you meet with your assigned partner at least once via Collaborate Ultra and begin considering the assigned case. In this Assignment, you describe that meeting and any initial analysis of the case.

To prepare:

• Using the case study provided to you by your instructor.
• Consult the Case Collaboration Meeting Guidelines document found in the Learning Resources.
• Read ahead to the Week 7 Discussion instructions so that you can plan and reflect accordingly.

Note: In the Week 7 Discussion, you make your final findings presentation as an individual, not with your partner.

By Day 7

Submit a 1- to 2-page paper in which you describe your team meeting. In your write-up, make sure to address the following:

• Describe the quality of your working relationship with your colleague.
  • Critically reflect on strengths of collaborative relationship and areas for improvement.
• Describe your case in 100–150 words.
• Identify the red flags in your case study to be further evaluated.
• Outline your and your partner’s plan for further research and consultation, identifying specific tasks that you are each doing in this regard.
  • Identify days/times you have agreed to meet together, including the date planned to complete the CFI interview required for the Week 5 Assignment.

CASE OF IVANDER

Intake Date: February 2020

IDENTIFYING/DEMOGRAPHIC DATA: Ivander is a 19-year-old, biracial male who was raised in Hugo, Oklahoma. Ivander’s mom is Caucasian and his father is African American. Ivander is the only child from his parents union. Ivander is in his first year at college and lives on campus.

 

CHIEF COMPLAINT/PRESENTING PROBLEM: Ivander presented in the emergency room (ER) having been brought in by his mother and a friend. Ivander indicated that he was having a strange experience - “I go into another world. I can hear people talking, but I can't talk back. I can no longer trust my roommate - he is taking my food and hiding it"

 

HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS: Ivander reports beginning to feel strange one month after he started school in August. He reports hearing voices outside his window in the dorm. It was an angel’s voice calling his name. That is when he realized he cannot trust his roommate. He realized the roommate would put TV shows on that were referencing how Ivander was doing in his classes. His school papers were all over his room and he could not organize them the way he wants. At times, the fireflies outside told him not to trust his roommate.

 

In high school, Ivander socialized with his classmates and was engaged in leisure activities. He went to the senior prom and enjoyed the summer prior to college. Since coming to college, Ivander’s roommate reports Ivander was socially withdrawn.

 

PAST PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY: Ivander’s mom does not report any psychiatric issues with Ivander in the past. His behavior was a typical teenage behavior, video games, dressing unusual, thinking in a way that differs from his parents beliefs.

 

SUBSTANCE USE HISTORY: Ivander denies consumption of alcohol or illicit drugs. He denies ever using illicit drugs that were not prescribed to him. Ivander reports now that he thinks about it he is glad he never used drugs since drug dealers will kill their clients.

 

PAST MEDICAL HISTORY: Mother reports Ivander broke his arm at 7 years old. The arm healed successfully. Ivander had all his childhood shots, but she does recall her fear of his health early on when Ivander was 2 ½ weeks old he came down with a spring cold.

 

FAMILY MEDICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY: There was no significant information about the family history.

 

CURRENT FAMILY ISSUES AND DYNAMICS: Ivander was incoherent during most of the interview. He was able to indicate some history that was inconsistent with history taken from his mother. Mother indicated that Ivander was picked up several times within the past two months by campus police for "talking in public”.

 

MENTAL STATUS EXAM: Ivander presented as a casually dressed, unwashed young man. He has a fluctuating mood and an anxious expression on his face. Motor activity appeared agitated. Mood was anxious alternating with hostility and depression. Speech was pressured at times and inappropriately loud. His affect was inappropriate and at times blunted. Ivander’s thought processes were at times incoherent and at times displayed a marked loosening of associations. He also reported bizarre delusions and auditory hallucinations. Ivander’s wishes for 5 years from now were unobtainable. Ivander is oriented to time, place, and person. He was able to state the season. Ivander can name 3 different objects correctly (bed, apple, shoe). He needed to calculate 100 - 3 five times.

 

SUICIDAL/HOMICIDAL ASSESSMENT: Unable to ascertain.