SOCW 6111 Discussions Assessment Tools
SOCW 6111 Discussions Assessment Tools
SOCW 6111 Discussions Assessment Tools Discussion: Assessment Tools
Assessments are an integral part of the planned change process. During this part of the process, you will accumulate, organize, and review the information you will need to begin the planning and intervention phases of treatment. Content and information are obtained from multiple sources (the child, family members, school personnel, etc.) and in various forms (interviews, records, and observation).
It is essential to collect data in a comprehensive manner—understanding the presenting problem from an ecological model that seeks to gain insight into the concern on a micro, mezzo, and macro level. Focusing on a multilevel approach to a client’s concern and taking into account the environmental factors that contribute to the presenting problem distinguishes social work from other disciplines.
- Post a description of the importance of using multiple evidence-based tools (including quantitative, open ended, and ecologically focused) to assess children. Explain how each complements the other in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the young client’s concerns and situation. Then, describe the use of an eco-map in assessment and explain the different systems you will account for in your assessment of a child.
SOCW 6111 Discussions Assessment Tools Assignment: Cultural Competence
As with all areas of the social work process, cultural competence is essential when engaging and assessing a child’s concerns. Being culturally competent includes understanding the unique needs of your client and asking how those needs can be fulfilled. Using an empowerment perspective treating clients as experts on their lives and their needs is essential.
Not only does this establish your commitment to being culturally sensitive and aware, but it will enhance the therapeutic relationship. While it is essential to learn and master social work skills and techniques to be a successful practitioner, another significant indicator of a successful intervention is the relationship a social worker builds with his or her client.
Some research suggests that the quality of the therapeutic relationship will account for 30% of the clinical outcome of the treatment (Miller, Duncan, and Hubble, 2005, as stated in Walsh, 2010, p. 7). Exhibiting a dedication to learning about a client’s culture, history, and current environmental factors exemplifies a social worker’s desire to build that client–worker bond.
For this Assignment, read the case study for Claudia and find two to three scholarly articles on social issues surrounding immigrant families.
By Day 7 of SOCW 6111 Discussions Assessment Tools
- In a 2- to 4-page paper, explain how the literature informs you about Claudia and her family when assessing her situation.
- Describe two social issues related to the course-specific case study for Claudia that inform a culturally competent social worker.
- Describe culturally competent strategies you might use to assess the needs of children.
- Describe the types of data you would collect from Claudia and her family in order to best serve them.
- Identify other resources that may offer you further information about Claudia’s case.
- Create an eco-map to represent Claudia’s situation. Describe how the ecological perspective of assessment influenced how the social worker interacted with Claudia.
- Describe how the social worker in the case used a strengths perspective and multiple tools in her assessment of Claudia. Explain how those factors contributed to the therapeutic relationship with Claudia and her family.
Support your posts with specific references to this week’s resources. Be sure to provide full APA citations for your references.
Also Read:
DNP835 All Modules Discussions
Dependent Personality Disorder (DPD)
HCA 459 Week 4 Discussion Question 2
Case 1 Discussion: Allied health program
Assessment Tools and Diagnostic Tests in Adults and Children
Establishing the diagnosis for patient presentations requires reliable assessment criteria, including diagnostic tests and assessment tools. These assessments and investigations support clinicians in managing the patient by identifying the cause, predicting treatment outcomes, or monitoring these outcomes. These investigations, tools, and tests need to be reliable and viable for the best outcomes.
Epstein-Barr virus is associated with various diseases in humans. Human reaction to this viral infection is through the humoral immunity system. Identification of this virus can be done through various tests. Monospot testing is one of the tests to diagnose the presence of EBV in various diseases associated with it. This discussion explains Monospot testing regarding its reliability in children and adults.
Monospot Testing
Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) is commonly associated with infectious mononucleosis (IM) (Naughton et al., 2021). This disease is extremely common in the US and worldwide. Being a viral illness, most diagnostic tests for IM are serological. The human body produces heterophile antibodies toward EBV infection (Byrne et al., 2020). Monospot testing is a serological test that is classified under the agglutination type. This test is a latex agglutination test that uses equine erythrocytes as the substrate.
When the human serological sample containing antibodies against EBV is added to the substrate, the erythrocytes clump together due to agglutination with the antibodies and antigens on the red cell surface. The outcome is interpreted as a positive result. When the sample added does not contain these antibodies, agglutination will not occur.
The Purpose of Monospot Testing
The Monospot test replaced the Paul-Bunnell test that was used to diagnose infectious mononucleosis. Infectious mononucleosis presents with fever, malaise, sore throat, tonsilitis, fatigue, and lymphadenopathy. The triad of pharyngitis, lymphadenopathy, and fever is considered classical in infectious mononucleosis. However, atypical cases can also present to physicians and nurses, which can change the clinician’s decisions regarding diagnosis. Monospot testing is, therefore, a rapid test that can be used to confirm the presence of disease.
However, other disease entities can also present with symptoms similar to those of infectious mononucleosis. Bacterial tonsilitis and other viral upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) can present with the above symptoms (Naughton et al., 2021). The duration of the symptoms and the high clinician’s index suspicion are required. Infectious mononucleosis can have serious complications such as splenomegaly that risks rupture and hemorrhage. Therefore, early identification of infectious mononucleosis by Monospot testing helps provide a timely and insightful objective understanding of the patient’s presentation.
Conducting a Monospot Test
Monospot testing is rapid and requires few materials to conduct and interpret. The kit and the blood sample from the patient are the essential requirements. The blood sample is obtained intravenously, either through a finger prick or phlebotomy. The kits are commercially acquired. Once the blood sample is withdrawn, a drop is placed into the kit and left for about 5 to 10 minutes. The presence of an additional indicator to the control indicator shows a positive test, while the presence of the control indicator alone shows a negative test result.
The Kind of Information Gathered by Monospot Test
The Monospot test is a qualitative test whose findings are either interpreted as positive or negative. A positive test only indicates that antibodies against EBV are present and can be interpreted that the symptoms could result from infectious mononucleosis. Notably, antibodies against infections and illness sometimes stay in the patient’s system longer, and even after the patient recovers from the disease, the antibodies can still be identified. With time, the quantities of these antibodies wane off, but the tests cannot quantify their amount and thus cannot be used to identify the stage or monitor the disease. The absence of these antibodies in a clinically evident disease also presents a challenge.
The Monospot test, from the above description, is a test that can have false positives and negatives. It has high specificity but low sensitivity. Sensitivity is the ability of a test to identify true positives (Ball et al., 2022). According to Stuempfig & Seroy (2021), the Monospot test’s sensitivity ranges between 70% and 90%. Put into perspective; this implies that among 100 people with infectious mononucleosis confirmed by a gold standard test, Monospot will correctly identify about 70 to 90 people from the 100 people. Specificity, the ability to identify true negative cases (Dains et al., 2019), is, however, higher for the Monospot test.
According to a study by Wang et al. (2021), the specificity of this test ranged between 80.0% and 90.6%. However, this study acknowledged that these values were lower than previously reported values – 95% to 100% (Stuempfig & Seroy, 2021). Factors such as age and timing between sample collection and testing are critical contributors to false negatives. High rates of false negatives are in children younger than four years. The longer the sample delays before the test, the higher the rates of false negatives. Samples taken between the time of infection and 1 to 2 weeks can also yield false negatives.
Concussion
The Monospot test is a rapid and cheap test for diagnosing infectious mononucleosis. It is a latex agglutination test that qualitatively identifies heterophile antibodies against EBV in a patient’s sample. This test is highly specific but not highly sensitive. More tests with high specificity and sensitivity are currently in use, and Monospot should best be used in resource-limited settings. Timely and accurate diagnosis is essential in improving outcomes in patients with IM. Feared complications such as splenomegaly are preventable through early diagnosis and treatment.
References
Ball, J. W., Dains, J. E., Flynn, J. A., Solomon, B. S., & Stewart, R. W. (2022). Seidel’s guide to physical examination: An interprofessional approach (10th ed.). Elsevier – Health Sciences Division.
Byrne, A., Bush, R., Johns, F., & Upadhyay, K. (2020). Limited utility of serology and heterophile test in the early diagnosis of Epstein–Barr virus mononucleosis in a child after renal transplantation. Medicines (Basel, Switzerland), 7(4), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicines7040021
Dains, J. E., Baumann, L. C., & Scheibel, P. (2019). Advanced health assessment & clinical diagnosis in primary care (6th ed.). Mosby.
Naughton, P., Healy, M., Enright, F., & Lucey, B. (2021). Infectious Mononucleosis: Diagnosis and clinical interpretation. British Journal of Biomedical Science, 78(3), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/09674845.2021.1903683
Stuempfig, N. D., & Seroy, J. (2021). Monospot Test. In StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK539739/
Wang, E. X., Kussman, A., & Hwang, C. E. (2021). Use of Monospot testing in the diagnosis of infectious mononucleosis in the collegiate student-athlete population. Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine: Official Journal of the Canadian Academy of Sports Medicine, Publish Ahead of Print. https://doi.org/10.1097/jsm.0000000000000996
