Introduction
Nosology is complex but valuable in classifying diseases using different frameworks. It would not be optimal or wise to rid diagnostic frameworks entirely. Diagnostic frameworks have evolved, as they should and ought to evolve continually. A prime example is DSM II to III, where homosexuality was a “disorder”. The latest versions of the DSM framework do not consider it a disorder. Most frameworks do not cover biopsychosocial dimensions, psychometric testing, cognitive function assessment, and structured risk assessment which are essential in establishing the quality of mental health. Diagnostic frameworks influence the quality of healthcare and the implications for patient attention, review, and strategy. Effective frameworks enhance correctness and objectivity in healthcare and, consequently ensure patients receive positive health outcomes as clinical dynamics are matched with an understanding of the patient’s medical condition. The findings associated with revising the current diagnostic frameworks entail a series of tests for the previous inconsistencies and issues defined by clinical attention in establishing a particular condition. To implement the new diagnostic framework, this analysis reflects the increasing complexity of medical services due to the dynamics in healthcare provisions. The features and functionalities of the current diagnostic framework should be incorporated with the proposed framework to align with the cognitive function assessment.
Recommendations for the Expansion of the DSM-5 Diagnostic Framework to Aid Cognitive Function Assessment
One important and practical way of advancing determination is to advance education and preparation in the healthcare profession. Olson et al. (2019) note that the most crucial phase in this cycle is to characterize the outcomes achieved by registered nurses in each profession. The outcomes must convince individuals of the symptom group and a credible diagnostic process to facilitate efficiency in healthcare provisions. It is affirmed that verifiable information is essential but insufficient in addressing health issues in hospitals. Hence, embedding this knowledge base and integrating it into training is a constant focus of training and preparation for every visit to healthcare providers (Mattheisen et al., 2021). The key change in the new diagnostic framework entails the assumption that training and preparation should provide additional information, skills, and perspectives that are generally not covered (Olson et al., 2019). Knowing how and when to seek support with determination defined by competencies I-5 using selection tools to analyze differences is a crucial concern. In addition, skills I-6 teach assumptions using thinking and acting decisively in a symptomatic cycle.
Changes in the frameworks should include a structured risk assessment to establish the factors that are a threat to one’s mental health. Implementation of the risk assessment also covers the explosive factors to medical personnel, ensuring their safety at work. Such changes would ensure the framework establishes crucial skills among physicians and define new group-based and framework-based skills to promote diagnosis. As Olson et al. (2019) report, working in groups is the main suggestion for reducing symptom errors in healthcare reports. The risk assessment would also ensure there is an effective communication channel that eliminates most of the challenges associated with health assessment frameworks.
The framework ought to include cognitive function assessment in order to establish a patient’s level of mental function. Most frameworks such as DMS-5 and RDoC do not take this assessment into consideration, raising questions about the reliability of their results in extreme cases. Assessment of mental health does not currently include psychometric testing. Including the test in mental health, the diagnosis would help registered nurses quickly establish what the patients are able or not able to do, with respect to specific setups.
Although biopsychosocial dimensions are not incorporated in most health assessment frameworks, they are essential in understanding the client’s environmental conditions. The dimensions are mainly employed to study the theoretical models used in establishing client concerns. Implementing the biopsychosocial dimensions in health assessment frameworks would improve the quality of results obtained. It would ensure that the facilities, professionals, tools, and the framework themselves appreciate the client’s concerns, leading to a more effective and reliable diagnosis.
Critique Of The DSM-5 And Its Role In Revising The Diagnostic Framework
DSM-5 has proven to be a major stepping stone and guidance in mental health research. It is comprised of checklists that guide different researchers into examining the same disorder. The framework is highly standardized, ensuring clients receive helpful and appropriate diagnoses (Reddy et al., 2018). One’s ability to pay, social class, or location does not affect the diagnosis process. The framework is great therapeutic guidance for professionals, eliminating any chances of guesswork, as it serves as a guide map to the professional.
However, the framework presents its limitations in several ways. First, it is oversimplified and has been criticized for summarizing the complex nature of human behavior. It is argued that the reduction of complex issues to numbers and labels leads the scientific community in the wrong direction in tracking mental health (Reddy et al., 2018). Also, the framework has been associated with overdiagnosis and misdiagnosis. In some instances, people have been diagnosed with a disorder due to their behavior, which turned out to be wrong on most occasions. The results of the framework assessment have subjected individuals to labeling and stigmatization as some disorders can easily trigger stigmatization.
RDoC as a Good Alternative for the Diagnostic Framework
DSM-5 presents several limitations in aspects such as the disregard of semantic knowledge and reasoning in its assessment patterns. A key controversy surrounding the DSM-5 revolves around whether a problem can be viewed subjectively as not identical to the ordinary or falls on a continuum without a clear qualification between the typical function and the problem. To address issues associated with insufficient cognitive function assessment by the current diagnostic framework, RDoC facilitates the provision of information on the general transmission of work based on inaccuracies and possible flaws (Balling, 2022). This mechanism allows physicians to correct inaccuracies, address potential limitations to cognitive function assessment and, in turn, promote diagnostic processes for given health issues.
As for the RDoC framework, some aspects that limit cognitive function assessment are not addressed to ensure efficient diagnosis. RDoC includes a translational way of dealing with disagreement and, for this exploration, understanding the pathology associated with deviance within a basic practice framework (Balling, 2022). While translational review has almost become an issue in modern research, the RDoC marks a simple but critical shift in cognitive assessment. The usual way to treat mental illness is to characterize the psychological problem and then seek the pathophysiology associated with these side effects.
Conclusion
DSM-5 and RDoC are well-founded assessment frameworks, with wide adoption among professionals in diagnoses of mental health. The framework, however, does not cover biopsychosocial dimensions, structured risk assessment, cognitive function testing, and psychometric testing. DSM-5 disregards semantic knowledge and reasoning in its assessment patterns, which are a major controversy surrounding it. As a result, it should be expanded to cover such domains, paying attention to any fine detail that may contribute to the reliability of its results. RDoC is a good alternative to DSM-5, but not sufficient to cover all issues surrounding the latter as it does not address the issues that affect the accuracy of its results. Both frameworks should hence be expanded and refined to resolve the issues surrounding their respective accuracies.
References
Balling, C. (2022). The congruence of dimensional diagnostic approaches to personality: Ffm, ampd, icd-11, HiTOP, and RDoC. Web.
Mattheisen, M., Pato, M. T., Pato, C. N., & Knowles, J. A. (2021). What Have We Learned About the Genetics of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders in Recent Years?. Focus, 19(4), 384-391. Web.
Olson, A., Rencic, J., Cosby, K., Rusz, D., Papa, F., Croskerry, P., Zierler, B., Harkless, G., Giuliano, M. A., Schoenbaum, S., Colford, C., Cahill, M., Gerstner, L., Grice, G. R., & Graber, M. L. (2019). Competencies for improving diagnosis: An interprofessional framework for education and training in health care. Diagnosis, 6(4), 335-341. Web.
Reddy, Y. J., Simpson, H. B., & Stein, D. J. (2018). Obsessive-compulsive and related disorders in international classification of Diseases-11 and its relation to international classification of Diseases-10 and diagnostic and statistical manual of mental Disorders-5. Indian Journal of Social Psychiatry, 34(5), 34. Web.