Executive Solution Overview
**files (2)** – ## topic.docx – ## CaseStudyonEthicalPrinciples.docx **## topic.docx** The topic I have selected for my practice change scholarly project is the implementation of measurement-based care (MBC) using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) …
Instant Solution Download
$6.99Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Need a Fresh Custom Paper?
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Assignment Prompt & Instructions
**files (2)**
– ## topic.docx
– ## CaseStudyonEthicalPrinciples.docx
**## topic.docx**
The topic I have selected for my practice change scholarly project is the implementation of measurement-based care (MBC) using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) screening tools to enhance treatment outcomes for adults with depression and anxiety in an outpatient psychiatric setting. Depression and anxiety are among the most prevalent mental health conditions encountered in outpatient mental health clinics, significantly affecting emotional well-being and daily functioning. Standard clinical assessment often relies on subjective clinical judgment without consistent use of validated tools, which can lead to variability in symptom monitoring and delays in treatment adjustments (Forand et al., 2025; Azhar et al., 2025). Measurement-based care offers a structured approach where clinicians regularly assess symptom severity, document treatment response quantitatively, and use data to guide clinical decision-making.
The population I will research includes adult patients aged 18 years and older who present to outpatient psychiatric services with symptoms of depression and/or anxiety. These patients commonly experience depressive and anxiety disorders, and they benefit from systematic symptom tracking to inform personalized care plans. The possible intervention will be the routine application of PHQ-9 and GAD-7 as standardized screening tools at each clinical visit, combined with clear workflows for follow-up actions based on score changes. These workflows will include documentation in the electronic health record, scheduled follow-up assessments, and timely adjustments to treatment plans such as medication optimization or referral to psychotherapy when clinically indicated. The PHQ-9 and GAD-7 are validated, brief symptom measures that reliably detect changes in depression and anxiety severity, making them ideal for repeated use in outpatient settings (Faro et al., 2025; Siniscalchi et al., 2020).
The present situation of the problem is that many outpatient psychiatric practices lack a consistent measurement framework, relying instead on traditional clinical interviews and subjective impressions that may miss significant symptom fluctuations over time. Inconsistent symptom monitoring can contribute to delayed identification of treatment nonresponse or emerging safety concerns, which undermines overall care quality. Measurement-based care has been demonstrated to improve clinician documentation behaviors and patient outcomes when systematically adopted; for example, implementation of PHQ-9 and GAD-7 as part of MBC was associated with significant improvements in combined symptom scores and enhanced clinician engagement with outcome data (Forand et al., 2025). Moreover, standardized use of these tools facilitates more objective tracking of treatment progress and supports early identification of symptom exacerbation, which can improve timely care adjustments.
The desired outcome of this project is to enhance the consistency of symptom assessment, improve patient outcomes as reflected in reduced PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores, and increase clinician responsiveness to changes in clinical status. Outcome measures will include changes in depression and anxiety scores across visits, frequency of documented follow-up plans tailored to symptom severity, and evidence of timely treatment modifications. The time planned for the intervention is eight weeks, which allows for integration of the measurement protocol into routine practice, collection of baseline and follow-up data, and preliminary evaluation of symptom trends and treatment responses.
Implementing this evidence-based measurement protocol is expected to enhance clinical care quality by providing systematic symptom data that can guide personalized treatment decisions, improve patient engagement, and ultimately support better mental health outcomes.
References
Azhar, E., Haider, A., & Smith, J. (2025). Increasing utilization of standardized tools for measurement-based care.
_Journal of Psychiatric Services Research_.
Faro, A., Silva, P., & Gomez, R. (2025). Severity classification of anxiety and depression using GAD-7 and PHQ-9.
_Journal of Mental Health Metrics_.
Forand, N. R., Patel, V., & Liu, S. (2025). The impact of measurement-based care at scale: PHQ-9 and GAD-7 outcomes.
_Psychiatric Outcome Research_.
Siniscalchi, K. A., Nguyen, L. T., & Brown, T. (2020). Screening for depression and anxiety using PHQ-9 and GAD-7.
_Journal of Clinical Psychiatry_.
**## CaseStudyonEthicalPrinciples.docx**
_Case Study on Ethical Principles_
Instructions:
Using the following link:
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1979).
_The Belmont report._ Office for Human Research Protections.
[https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.htmlLinks to an external site.](https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html)
Read the Belmont’s Report: Using the topic selected for your practice change project, create a case study that describes how the ethical principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice will be protected during your project.
Contribute a minimum of 5-6 pages. It should include at least 3 academic sources, formatted and cited in APA.
Be sure to review the
[academic expectations](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/1876/pages/expectations-and-best-practices-for-assignments) for your submission.
**Official Rubric for Case Study Rubric**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| – Official Rubric for Case Study Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Thinking and Logical Reasoning<br>Development of Ideas | **40 to >36.0 ptsExcellent** The case study provided all basic and complex details are considered, and the situation, problem, or diagnosis is identified. Next, the thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents excellent evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information.<br> <br>**36 to >32.0 ptsGood** The case study provided the most basic and complex details are considered, and the situation, problem, or diagnosis is identified. Next, the thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents good evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information.<br> <br>**32 to >28.0 ptsFair** The case study provided some basic and complex details, identifying the situation, problem, or diagnosis. Next, the thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents limited evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information.<br> <br>**28 to >24.0 ptsPoor** The case study provided only minimal details and lacked a clear identification of the situation, problem, or diagnosis. The thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is not linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents weak or no evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information.<br> <br>**24 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 40 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent<br>Mastery | **25 to >23.0 ptsExcellent** The response shows exemplary mastery of the theoretical concepts applicable to the situation, recognizing all basic and complex factors. Furthermore, based on the case study presented, the response exceeds the requested information.<br> <br>**23 to >20.0 ptsGood** The response shows good mastery of the theoretical concepts applicable to the situation, recognizing the most basic and complex factors. Based on the situation presented, the response complies with the information requested.<br> <br>**20 to >18.0 ptsFair** The response shows fair mastery of the theoretical concepts applicable to the situation, recognizing the basic factors. However, based on the situation presented, the response minimally complies with the information requested.<br> <br>**18 to >15.0 ptsPoor** The response does not show mastery of the professional theoretical concepts applicable to the situation. Analysis misses many factors and details. The response does not comply with the information requested.<br> <br>**15 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInformation Literacy<br>Quality of Resources | **15 to >14.0 ptsExcellent** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, up to date (depending on what is acceptable in the field), from credible and trusted sources, and the number of sources meets the requested amount.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsGood** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 1 source is not a credible and trusted source; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount.<br> <br>**12 to >11.0 ptsFair** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 2 or more sources are not credible and trusted sources; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount.<br> <br>**11 to >9.0 ptsPoor** The following criteria would apply, supporting information is not pertinent to the topic, none of the sources are from credible or trusted sources, or the number of sources requested was not met.<br> <br>**9 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** Resources did not reflect the requested outcomes, were off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 15 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting<br>Mechanics, Grammar, and APA | **10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent** Excellence in grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. Sentences are not too long and are complete sentences.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** Minimal (1 – 3) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**8 to >7.0 ptsFair** Multiple (4 -7) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**7 to >6.0 ptsPoor** Severe (8 – 10) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** Unacceptable (11 or more) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors. | 10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFormat<br>Organization and Presentation of Information | **10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent** The document has a high level of professional appearance. Material is formatted exceptionally well, presented in a highly organized fashion, and aligned with assignment requirements. Includes sections and subtitles as required.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** The document has a good, professional appearance. Overall, the material is formatted and presented in an organized fashion, aligned with assignment requirements. Includes sections and subtitles as required.<br> <br>**8 to >7.0 ptsFair** The presentation of information does not appear professional or approaching proficiency. For example, the assignment missed required sections, subtitles, or other elements.<br> <br>**7 to >6.0 ptsPoor** The presentation of information lacks a clear demonstration of a professional appearance. The assignment is missing several required sections, subtitles, or other elements.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 10 pts |
Total Points: 100
**## CaseStudyonEthicalPrinciples.docx**
_Case Study on Ethical Principles_
Instructions:
Using the following link:
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1979).
_The Belmont report._ Office for Human Research Protections.
[https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.htmlLinks to an external site.](https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html)
Read the Belmont’s Report: Using the topic selected for your practice change project, create a case study that describes how the ethical principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice will be protected during your project.
Contribute a minimum of 5-6 pages. It should include at least 3 academic sources, formatted and cited in APA.
Be sure to review the
[academic expectations](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/1876/pages/expectations-and-best-practices-for-assignments) for your submission.
**Official Rubric for Case Study Rubric**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| – Official Rubric for Case Study Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Thinking and Logical Reasoning<br>Development of Ideas | **40 to >36.0 ptsExcellent** The case study provided all basic and complex details are considered, and the situation, problem, or diagnosis is identified. Next, the thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents excellent evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information.<br> <br>**36 to >32.0 ptsGood** The case study provided the most basic and complex details are considered, and the situation, problem, or diagnosis is identified. Next, the thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents good evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information.<br> <br>**32 to >28.0 ptsFair** The case study provided some basic and complex details, identifying the situation, problem, or diagnosis. Next, the thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents limited evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information.<br> <br>**28 to >24.0 ptsPoor** The case study provided only minimal details and lacked a clear identification of the situation, problem, or diagnosis. The thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is not linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents weak or no evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information.<br> <br>**24 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 40 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent<br>Mastery | **25 to >23.0 ptsExcellent** The response shows exemplary mastery of the theoretical concepts applicable to the situation, recognizing all basic and complex factors. Furthermore, based on the case study presented, the response exceeds the requested information.<br> <br>**23 to >20.0 ptsGood** The response shows good mastery of the theoretical concepts applicable to the situation, recognizing the most basic and complex factors. Based on the situation presented, the response complies with the information requested.<br> <br>**20 to >18.0 ptsFair** The response shows fair mastery of the theoretical concepts applicable to the situation, recognizing the basic factors. However, based on the situation presented, the response minimally complies with the information requested.<br> <br>**18 to >15.0 ptsPoor** The response does not show mastery of the professional theoretical concepts applicable to the situation. Analysis misses many factors and details. The response does not comply with the information requested.<br> <br>**15 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInformation Literacy<br>Quality of Resources | **15 to >14.0 ptsExcellent** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, up to date (depending on what is acceptable in the field), from credible and trusted sources, and the number of sources meets the requested amount.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsGood** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 1 source is not a credible and trusted source; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount.<br> <br>**12 to >11.0 ptsFair** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 2 or more sources are not credible and trusted sources; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount.<br> <br>**11 to >9.0 ptsPoor** The following criteria would apply, supporting information is not pertinent to the topic, none of the sources are from credible or trusted sources, or the number of sources requested was not met.<br> <br>**9 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** Resources did not reflect the requested outcomes, were off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 15 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting<br>Mechanics, Grammar, and APA | **10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent** Excellence in grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. Sentences are not too long and are complete sentences.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** Minimal (1 – 3) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**8 to >7.0 ptsFair** Multiple (4 -7) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**7 to >6.0 ptsPoor** Severe (8 – 10) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** Unacceptable (11 or more) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors. | 10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFormat<br>Organization and Presentation of Information | **10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent** The document has a high level of professional appearance. Material is formatted exceptionally well, presented in a highly organized fashion, and aligned with assignment requirements. Includes sections and subtitles as required.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** The document has a good, professional appearance. Overall, the material is formatted and presented in an organized fashion, aligned with assignment requirements. Includes sections and subtitles as required.<br> <br>**8 to >7.0 ptsFair** The presentation of information does not appear professional or approaching proficiency. For example, the assignment missed required sections, subtitles, or other elements.<br> <br>**7 to >6.0 ptsPoor** The presentation of information lacks a clear demonstration of a professional appearance. The assignment is missing several required sections, subtitles, or other elements.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 10 pts |
Total Points: 100
**## topic.docx**
The topic I have selected for my practice change scholarly project is the implementation of measurement-based care (MBC) using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) screening tools to enhance treatment outcomes for adults with depression and anxiety in an outpatient psychiatric setting. Depression and anxiety are among the most prevalent mental health conditions encountered in outpatient mental health clinics, significantly affecting emotional well-being and daily functioning. Standard clinical assessment often relies on subjective clinical judgment without consistent use of validated tools, which can lead to variability in symptom monitoring and delays in treatment adjustments (Forand et al., 2025; Azhar et al., 2025). Measurement-based care offers a structured approach where clinicians regularly assess symptom severity, document treatment response quantitatively, and use data to guide clinical decision-making.
The population I will research includes adult patients aged 18 years and older who present to outpatient psychiatric services with symptoms of depression and/or anxiety. These patients commonly experience depressive and anxiety disorders, and they benefit from systematic symptom tracking to inform personalized care plans. The possible intervention will be the routine application of PHQ-9 and GAD-7 as standardized screening tools at each clinical visit, combined with clear workflows for follow-up actions based on score changes. These workflows will include documentation in the electronic health record, scheduled follow-up assessments, and timely adjustments to treatment plans such as medication optimization or referral to psychotherapy when clinically indicated. The PHQ-9 and GAD-7 are validated, brief symptom measures that reliably detect changes in depression and anxiety severity, making them ideal for repeated use in outpatient settings (Faro et al., 2025; Siniscalchi et al., 2020).
The present situation of the problem is that many outpatient psychiatric practices lack a consistent measurement framework, relying instead on traditional clinical interviews and subjective impressions that may miss significant symptom fluctuations over time. Inconsistent symptom monitoring can contribute to delayed identification of treatment nonresponse or emerging safety concerns, which undermines overall care quality. Measurement-based care has been demonstrated to improve clinician documentation behaviors and patient outcomes when systematically adopted; for example, implementation of PHQ-9 and GAD-7 as part of MBC was associated with significant improvements in combined symptom scores and enhanced clinician engagement with outcome data (Forand et al., 2025). Moreover, standardized use of these tools facilitates more objective tracking of treatment progress and supports early identification of symptom exacerbation, which can improve timely care adjustments.
The desired outcome of this project is to enhance the consistency of symptom assessment, improve patient outcomes as reflected in reduced PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores, and increase clinician responsiveness to changes in clinical status. Outcome measures will include changes in depression and anxiety scores across visits, frequency of documented follow-up plans tailored to symptom severity, and evidence of timely treatment modifications. The time planned for the intervention is eight weeks, which allows for integration of the measurement protocol into routine practice, collection of baseline and follow-up data, and preliminary evaluation of symptom trends and treatment responses.
Implementing this evidence-based measurement protocol is expected to enhance clinical care quality by providing systematic symptom data that can guide personalized treatment decisions, improve patient engagement, and ultimately support better mental health outcomes.
References
Azhar, E., Haider, A., & Smith, J. (2025). Increasing utilization of standardized tools for measurement-based care.
_Journal of Psychiatric Services Research_.
Faro, A., Silva, P., & Gomez, R. (2025). Severity classification of anxiety and depression using GAD-7 and PHQ-9.
_Journal of Mental Health Metrics_.
Forand, N. R., Patel, V., & Liu, S. (2025). The impact of measurement-based care at scale: PHQ-9 and GAD-7 outcomes.
_Psychiatric Outcome Research_.
Siniscalchi, K. A., Nguyen, L. T., & Brown, T. (2020). Screening for depression and anxiety using PHQ-9 and GAD-7.
_Journal of Clinical Psychiatry_.
**## CaseStudyonEthicalPrinciples.docx**
_Case Study on Ethical Principles_
Instructions:
Using the following link:
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1979).
_The Belmont report._ Office for Human Research Protections.
[https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.htmlLinks to an external site.](https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html)
Read the Belmont’s Report: Using the topic selected for your practice change project, create a case study that describes how the ethical principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice will be protected during your project.
Contribute a minimum of 5-6 pages. It should include at least 3 academic sources, formatted and cited in APA.
Be sure to review the
[academic expectations](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/1876/pages/expectations-and-best-practices-for-assignments) for your submission.
**Official Rubric for Case Study Rubric**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| – Official Rubric for Case Study Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Thinking and Logical Reasoning<br>Development of Ideas | **40 to >36.0 ptsExcellent** The case study provided all basic and complex details are considered, and the situation, problem, or diagnosis is identified. Next, the thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents excellent evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information.<br> <br>**36 to >32.0 ptsGood** The case study provided the most basic and complex details are considered, and the situation, problem, or diagnosis is identified. Next, the thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents good evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information.<br> <br>**32 to >28.0 ptsFair** The case study provided some basic and complex details, identifying the situation, problem, or diagnosis. Next, the thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents limited evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information.<br> <br>**28 to >24.0 ptsPoor** The case study provided only minimal details and lacked a clear identification of the situation, problem, or diagnosis. The thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is not linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents weak or no evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information.<br> <br>**24 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 40 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent<br>Mastery | **25 to >23.0 ptsExcellent** The response shows exemplary mastery of the theoretical concepts applicable to the situation, recognizing all basic and complex factors. Furthermore, based on the case study presented, the response exceeds the requested information.<br> <br>**23 to >20.0 ptsGood** The response shows good mastery of the theoretical concepts applicable to the situation, recognizing the most basic and complex factors. Based on the situation presented, the response complies with the information requested.<br> <br>**20 to >18.0 ptsFair** The response shows fair mastery of the theoretical concepts applicable to the situation, recognizing the basic factors. However, based on the situation presented, the response minimally complies with the information requested.<br> <br>**18 to >15.0 ptsPoor** The response does not show mastery of the professional theoretical concepts applicable to the situation. Analysis misses many factors and details. The response does not comply with the information requested.<br> <br>**15 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInformation Literacy<br>Quality of Resources | **15 to >14.0 ptsExcellent** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, up to date (depending on what is acceptable in the field), from credible and trusted sources, and the number of sources meets the requested amount.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsGood** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 1 source is not a credible and trusted source; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount.<br> <br>**12 to >11.0 ptsFair** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 2 or more sources are not credible and trusted sources; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount.<br> <br>**11 to >9.0 ptsPoor** The following criteria would apply, supporting information is not pertinent to the topic, none of the sources are from credible or trusted sources, or the number of sources requested was not met.<br> <br>**9 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** Resources did not reflect the requested outcomes, were off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 15 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting<br>Mechanics, Grammar, and APA | **10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent** Excellence in grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. Sentences are not too long and are complete sentences.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** Minimal (1 – 3) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**8 to >7.0 ptsFair** Multiple (4 -7) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**7 to >6.0 ptsPoor** Severe (8 – 10) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** Unacceptable (11 or more) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors. | 10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFormat<br>Organization and Presentation of Information | **10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent** The document has a high level of professional appearance. Material is formatted exceptionally well, presented in a highly organized fashion, and aligned with assignment requirements. Includes sections and subtitles as required.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** The document has a good, professional appearance. Overall, the material is formatted and presented in an organized fashion, aligned with assignment requirements. Includes sections and subtitles as required.<br> <br>**8 to >7.0 ptsFair** The presentation of information does not appear professional or approaching proficiency. For example, the assignment missed required sections, subtitles, or other elements.<br> <br>**7 to >6.0 ptsPoor** The presentation of information lacks a clear demonstration of a professional appearance. The assignment is missing several required sections, subtitles, or other elements.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 10 pts |
Total Points: 100
**## topic.docx**
The topic I have selected for my practice change scholarly project is the implementation of measurement-based care (MBC) using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) screening tools to enhance treatment outcomes for adults with depression and anxiety in an outpatient psychiatric setting. Depression and anxiety are among the most prevalent mental health conditions encountered in outpatient mental health clinics, significantly affecting emotional well-being and daily functioning. Standard clinical assessment often relies on subjective clinical judgment without consistent use of validated tools, which can lead to variability in symptom monitoring and delays in treatment adjustments (Forand et al., 2025; Azhar et al., 2025). Measurement-based care offers a structured approach where clinicians regularly assess symptom severity, document treatment response quantitatively, and use data to guide clinical decision-making.
The population I will research includes adult patients aged 18 years and older who present to outpatient psychiatric services with symptoms of depression and/or anxiety. These patients commonly experience depressive and anxiety disorders, and they benefit from systematic symptom tracking to inform personalized care plans. The possible intervention will be the routine application of PHQ-9 and GAD-7 as standardized screening tools at each clinical visit, combined with clear workflows for follow-up actions based on score changes. These workflows will include documentation in the electronic health record, scheduled follow-up assessments, and timely adjustments to treatment plans such as medication optimization or referral to psychotherapy when clinically indicated. The PHQ-9 and GAD-7 are validated, brief symptom measures that reliably detect changes in depression and anxiety severity, making them ideal for repeated use in outpatient settings (Faro et al., 2025; Siniscalchi et al., 2020).
The present situation of the problem is that many outpatient psychiatric practices lack a consistent measurement framework, relying instead on traditional clinical interviews and subjective impressions that may miss significant symptom fluctuations over time. Inconsistent symptom monitoring can contribute to delayed identification of treatment nonresponse or emerging safety concerns, which undermines overall care quality. Measurement-based care has been demonstrated to improve clinician documentation behaviors and patient outcomes when systematically adopted; for example, implementation of PHQ-9 and GAD-7 as part of MBC was associated with significant improvements in combined symptom scores and enhanced clinician engagement with outcome data (Forand et al., 2025). Moreover, standardized use of these tools facilitates more objective tracking of treatment progress and supports early identification of symptom exacerbation, which can improve timely care adjustments.
The desired outcome of this project is to enhance the consistency of symptom assessment, improve patient outcomes as reflected in reduced PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores, and increase clinician responsiveness to changes in clinical status. Outcome measures will include changes in depression and anxiety scores across visits, frequency of documented follow-up plans tailored to symptom severity, and evidence of timely treatment modifications. The time planned for the intervention is eight weeks, which allows for integration of the measurement protocol into routine practice, collection of baseline and follow-up data, and preliminary evaluation of symptom trends and treatment responses.
Implementing this evidence-based measurement protocol is expected to enhance clinical care quality by providing systematic symptom data that can guide personalized treatment decisions, improve patient engagement, and ultimately support better mental health outcomes.
References
Azhar, E., Haider, A., & Smith, J. (2025). Increasing utilization of standardized tools for measurement-based care.
_Journal of Psychiatric Services Research_.
Faro, A., Silva, P., & Gomez, R. (2025). Severity classification of anxiety and depression using GAD-7 and PHQ-9.
_Journal of Mental Health Metrics_.
Forand, N. R., Patel, V., & Liu, S. (2025). The impact of measurement-based care at scale: PHQ-9 and GAD-7 outcomes.
_Psychiatric Outcome Research_.
Siniscalchi, K. A., Nguyen, L. T., & Brown, T. (2020). Screening for depression and anxiety using PHQ-9 and GAD-7.
_Journal of Clinical Psychiatry_.
**## CaseStudyonEthicalPrinciples.docx**
_Case Study on Ethical Principles_
Instructions:
Using the following link:
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1979).
_The Belmont report._ Office for Human Research Protections.
[https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.htmlLinks to an external site.](https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html)
Read the Belmont’s Report: Using the topic selected for your practice change project, create a case study that describes how the ethical principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice will be protected during your project.
Contribute a minimum of 5-6 pages. It should include at least 3 academic sources, formatted and cited in APA.
Be sure to review the
[academic expectations](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/1876/pages/expectations-and-best-practices-for-assignments) for your submission.
**Official Rubric for Case Study Rubric**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| – Official Rubric for Case Study Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Thinking and Logical Reasoning<br>Development of Ideas | **40 to >36.0 ptsExcellent** The case study provided all basic and complex details are considered, and the situation, problem, or diagnosis is identified. Next, the thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents excellent evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information.<br> <br>**36 to >32.0 ptsGood** The case study provided the most basic and complex details are considered, and the situation, problem, or diagnosis is identified. Next, the thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents good evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information.<br> <br>**32 to >28.0 ptsFair** The case study provided some basic and complex details, identifying the situation, problem, or diagnosis. Next, the thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents limited evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information.<br> <br>**28 to >24.0 ptsPoor** The case study provided only minimal details and lacked a clear identification of the situation, problem, or diagnosis. The thought process to present alternatives, solutions, or the required information is not linked to the analysis. Finally, the student presents weak or no evidence, arguments, or examples to support the alternatives, solutions, or the required information.<br> <br>**24 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 40 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent<br>Mastery | **25 to >23.0 ptsExcellent** The response shows exemplary mastery of the theoretical concepts applicable to the situation, recognizing all basic and complex factors. Furthermore, based on the case study presented, the response exceeds the requested information.<br> <br>**23 to >20.0 ptsGood** The response shows good mastery of the theoretical concepts applicable to the situation, recognizing the most basic and complex factors. Based on the situation presented, the response complies with the information requested.<br> <br>**20 to >18.0 ptsFair** The response shows fair mastery of the theoretical concepts applicable to the situation, recognizing the basic factors. However, based on the situation presented, the response minimally complies with the information requested.<br> <br>**18 to >15.0 ptsPoor** The response does not show mastery of the professional theoretical concepts applicable to the situation. Analysis misses many factors and details. The response does not comply with the information requested.<br> <br>**15 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInformation Literacy<br>Quality of Resources | **15 to >14.0 ptsExcellent** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, up to date (depending on what is acceptable in the field), from credible and trusted sources, and the number of sources meets the requested amount.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsGood** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 1 source is not a credible and trusted source; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount.<br> <br>**12 to >11.0 ptsFair** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 2 or more sources are not credible and trusted sources; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount.<br> <br>**11 to >9.0 ptsPoor** The following criteria would apply, supporting information is not pertinent to the topic, none of the sources are from credible or trusted sources, or the number of sources requested was not met.<br> <br>**9 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** Resources did not reflect the requested outcomes, were off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 15 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting<br>Mechanics, Grammar, and APA | **10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent** Excellence in grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. Sentences are not too long and are complete sentences.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** Minimal (1 – 3) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**8 to >7.0 ptsFair** Multiple (4 -7) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**7 to >6.0 ptsPoor** Severe (8 – 10) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** Unacceptable (11 or more) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors. | 10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFormat<br>Organization and Presentation of Information | **10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent** The document has a high level of professional appearance. Material is formatted exceptionally well, presented in a highly organized fashion, and aligned with assignment requirements. Includes sections and subtitles as required.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** The document has a good, professional appearance. Overall, the material is formatted and presented in an organized fashion, aligned with assignment requirements. Includes sections and subtitles as required.<br> <br>**8 to >7.0 ptsFair** The presentation of information does not appear professional or approaching proficiency. For example, the assignment missed required sections, subtitles, or other elements.<br> <br>**7 to >6.0 ptsPoor** The presentation of information lacks a clear demonstration of a professional appearance. The assignment is missing several required sections, subtitles, or other elements.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 10 pts |
Total Points: 100
