Neurocognitive disorder
The DSM-5-TR lists multiple disorders under the classification of neurocognitive disorders. For this research question, please identify one neurocognitive disorder and locate at least one peer-reviewed journal article that provides an intervention strategy for that disorder.
For your discussion post:
Define the neurocognitive disorder you are most interested in.
Discuss the intervention strategy you identified through your research and provide an APA-formatted reference. In addition:
Provide an analysis of this intervention.
Explain what you as a leader within the social work sector would recommend to your community as an intervention for this particular diagnosis, including your rationale for recommending it.
Sample Solution
I am most interested in the neurocognitive disorder of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). This disorder is characterized by a decline in cognitive functioning relative to age-appropriate norms but does not yet meet criteria for dementia. Common symptoms of MCI can include memory problems, difficulty concentrating and making decisions as well as impaired language comprehension (Chui & Thapa, 2017).
My research identified an intervention strategy for this condition published by Chui and Thapa (2017) that focused on utilizing a multi-disciplinary team approach to assessing patients with MCI. The authors argued that such an approach would improve diagnosis accuracy as well as provide more comprehensive treatments – including both pharmacological interventions such as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors alongside non-pharmacological strategies like cognitive stimulation therapy or physical exercise programs (Chui & Thapa, 2017).
An analysis of this intervention reveals its potential strengths and weaknesses. On one hand; by combining multiple disciplines into one assessment process it improves the quality of care which can be provided to patients with MCI due to the additional expertise available – particularly when diagnosing underlying causes which might require specialized attention (Chui & Thapa, 2017). Additionally; having input from different fields also allows for a wider range of treatment plans tailored specifically to each individual case rather than relying upon generic prescribing methods (Chui & Thapa, 2017).
On the other hand though – implementing such an approach requires greater resources allocation than working within single discipline models. In addition there is always potential risk associated with introducing new challenges or unfamiliar environments into care plans which could lead to further stresses or anxieties that need addressing beyond simply treating any existing medical conditions.
Overall then – while this intervention does offer some advantages over traditional single-discipline frameworks – it’s important that any implementation takes into account additional resource needs and potential risks involved before incorporating it into patient care practices.
