Medical Intervention to Schizophrenia Patients

Medical Intervention to Schizophrenia Patients

Evidence-based Treatment Plans for Schizophrenia in Adults vs. in Children and Adolescents

Schizophrenia alludes to a health condition that damages the mental health of an individual, hence making them live in delusions as well as hallucinations. Mostly, the disease is characterized by loss of sense of feel as well as disorganization in behaviour and speech. The actual cause of this condition has not yet been established. However, it is assumed that a combination of genetics, surrounding as well as the brain structure, might trigger its development. The treatment of this condition is often lifelong and involves a combination of several medical services. The paper will compare two treatment plans in children, adolescents, and adults and explain their side effects. Additionally, the essay will evaluate how the treatment plans vary across the groups.

Medical Administration

            One of the most common medical interventions is the application of second-generation antipsychotic drugs. The treatment is applied to every patient, regardless of their age. However, the treatment leads to abnormal weight gains, a condition that renders patients vulnerable to other health complications (Divac, Prostran, Jakovcevsk, & Cerovac, 2014).  According to Ninan, Stewart, Theall, Katuwapitiya, and Kam (2014), children and youths tend to be very sensitive to this medication as opposed to adults. Hence, the health professional should increase the dosage progressively upon close examination of the patient’s results in these groups. However, a bone of contention is that drug metabolism is higher in children and youth as opposed to adults implying that the latter require a much higher dose (Lu & Rosebun, 2014). Nonetheless, it is essential to take the patients under comprehensive psycho-education while under treatment to minimize the incidence of relapses.

Cognitive Remediation Therapy

            The strategy is used to enhance the damaged cognitive functioning of the patients. According to a recent study conducted by Revell, Neil, Harte, Khan, and Drake (2015), cognitive remediation enhances the cognitive performance of schizophrenia patients’. Additionally, Morin and Franck (2017) suggest that therapy possesses the ability to enhance the cognitive functioning of the patients. However, the duo notes that the degree of enhancement for the patients varies based on their age. Conversely, Dickstein, Cushman, Kim, Weissman, and Wegbreit (2015) notes that there exists a reduction of severity in teenagers as opposed to adults after three months of therapy. The authors suggest that young adults undergoing the program demonstrated a decrease in depressive signs.

Legal and Ethical Issues Involved with Forceful Treatment of Schizophrenia Children and How PMHNP Can Address Them

Legally, a child who has Schizophrenia is limited to making decisions on the choice of medical intervention. Thus, the parent is responsible for the health of the child. However, the choice of the medical intervention for the kid by children might lead to involuntary commitment, mostly if the child is not willing to comply. Two legal tenets encompass the forceful admission, that is, beneficence and autonomy. In beneficence, the health professional is obliged to provide due care to patients. However, beneficence to unwilling patients implies that the treatment alleviates symptoms of a critical health condition and hence threatening the life of the victim. However, if a court orders the patients to seek medical assistance, the patients are forcefully re-admitted to the inpatient program (Sjöstrand et al., 2015). Conversely, The PMHNP should convince the patients that following a medical course is the best decision. The latter can achieve this by devising a friendly approach to facilitate communication.

In autonomy, patients have the right to make their health decisions. However, this principle contradicts the code of beneficence since forcing a patient to undergo medication is viewed as undermining their right to making personalized decisions (Sjöstrand et al., 2015). However, since the healthcare practitioners are tasked with the responsibility of ensuring the wellbeing of the individuals, the legal standards lead to loss of principal autonomy to beneficence. The PMHNP should ensure that they convince patients that forced mediation is temporary and will be lifted once they demonstrate the sign of improvement. However, this process might be intricate, more so if the patients understand the law while the health professionals consider beneficence regardless of the patient’s choice. However, healthcare professionals should opt to achieve the patient’s comfort regardless of the situation.

References

Dickstein, D. P., Cushman, G. K., Kim, K. L., Weissman, A. B., & Wegbreit, E. (2015). Cognitive remediation: potential novel brain-based treatment for bipolar disorder in children and adolescents. CNS spectrums, 20(4), 382-390.

Divac, N., Prostran, M., Jakovcevski, I., & Cerovac, N. (2014). Second-generation antipsychotics and extrapyramidal adverse effects. BioMed research international, 2014.

Lu, H., & Rosenbaum, S. (2014). Developmental pharmacokinetics in pediatric populations. The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 19(4), 262-276.

Morin, L., & Franck, N. (2017). Rehabilitation interventions to promote recovery from schizophrenia: a systematic review. Frontiers in psychiatry, 8, 100.

Ninan, A., Stewart, S. L., Theall, L. A., Katuwapitiya, S., & Kam, C. (2014). Adverse effects of psychotropic medications in children: Predictive factors. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 23(3), 218.

Revell, E. R., Neill, J. C., Harte, M., Khan, Z., & Drake, R. J. (2015). A systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive remediation in early schizophrenia. Schizophrenia research, 168(1-2), 213-222.

Sjöstrand, M., Sandman, L., Karlsson, P., Helgesson, G., Eriksson, S., & Juth, N. (2015). Ethical deliberations about involuntary treatment: interviews with Swedish psychiatrists. BMC medical ethics, 16(1), 37.