Assessment and Screening Tools

Part One: Assessment Session

When assessing mental health and addiction issues, numerous instruments are used. Before executing the assessment process, we need to choose a client to help with this assignment. Therefore, we chose client 1, where two children have been taken into the care of the child welfare system. This was after the caregiver to these children appeared intoxicated on alcohol which is affecting the children. After the interview, the caregiver confirms that he has been drinking daily, but the thought was it would not affect the children. The reason for coming to the addiction assessment is to request the welfare to get the children back.

Some of the common tools used in the assessment of this client include CAGE, TWEAK, AUDIT, and MAST. The assessment done using CAGE is used by applying four questions, which doctors do to detect clients who have had alcohol dependency in their lifetime. The second tool for the assessment is the TWEAK, designed to overcome CAGE’s limitations, screening clients who have been in alcohol for many years. Also, going beyond CAGE and TWEAK is AUDIT, which screens all levels of problem drinkers; this useful even on drinkers who are not yet dependent on alcohol but with alcohol problems (Kuteesa et al., 2019). This tool is helpful as it is designed and validated for international use across cultures, populations, and languages. Lastly is the Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (MAST), designed to identify dependent drinkers in the adult population, especially those associated with heavy drinking. Based on these tools, the children's welfare will decide whether to give back the children to the client.

Part Two: Written Report

In assessing the addiction conditions of a drunker, it is essential to use some addiction tools. These tools help determine the history of a client’s drug use; through this exercise, it is possible to establish the severity of the drug use and the consequent disruption in biopsychosocial areas of an individual’s life. The clinician essentially aims to identify the addiction severity index (ASI) commonly done through interviews. As we had stated in the first section, we are dealing with client 1; we would seek to offer the client questionnaires during the intake. The reason for administering the questions is to find out the type of service the client is looking for (Matano et al., 2003). These questions are also useful in getting information about the client’s substance use pattern, which will be useful in planning treatment plans and, more importantly, determining the intervention program's suitability to this client.

However, to make this assessment successful, we need to appreciate the relevance of the tools used. As stated earlier in part one, these assessment tools include CAGE, TWEAK, AUDIT, and MAST. For the overall assessment, CAGE administers four questions in 1 to 2 minutes, used in primary-case settings, the importance of this tool is to detect clients who might have had signs of alcohol dependency in their lifetime. The latter role makes this tool so essential; however, associated with a limitation as it cannot do screening for hazardous drinkers who have not yet become dependent on alcohol (Matano et al., 2003). In the bid to overcome the limitation of CAGE, then the TWEAK tool is used; this tool can screen clients who are starting to drink more heavily but yet are not dependent on alcohol. The benefit of this tool in assessment is the capability to assess populations with mixed ethnicities.

Another screening tool is the AUDIT, which surpasses CAGE and TWEAK. This tool is outstanding as it assesses all levels of problem drinkers. The advantage of this tool is to screen clients who have not yet been dependent on alcohol, which is a common experience with the majority of drinkers but has hazardous drinking patterns. This tool collectively identifies clients with harmful use, hazardous drinking, and dependency on alcohol, with only 10-questions in a variety setting with a variety of populations. This tool is helpful with international populations, inclusive of different cultures and languages. Lastly is The Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (MAST); despite being one of the oldest tools, it is still useful in the current world. This tool is reliable in the screening test for alcohol problems, with the capability to identify dependent drinkers in the adult population. The questions used asked in this tool are directly associated with clients' self-appraisal of social, vocational, and family problems. All these questions are directed to the problems of heavy alcohol drinkers.

For effective interventions, it is essential to ensure that the screening is done effectively. The screening on substance abuse should provide accurate information on the client’s information. Based on our scenario, the client admitted to being a daily drinker, despite the thought that the drinking was not enough to cause a family problem (Straussner, 2004). However, from the neighbors' perspective, drinking has become hazardous, and children's care at risk. With the aid of the assessment tools, information about the client will be sought and adequate to understand how to cut the drinking. Also, the tools will help identify the severity of the addiction and the best treatment measure that would help recover from alcohol addiction.

 

 

References

Kuteesa, M. O., Cook, S., Weiss, H. A., Kamali, A., Weinmann, W., Seeley, J., ... & Webb, E. L. (2019). Comparing Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) with Timeline Follow Back (TLFB), DSM-5, and Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) for the assessment of alcohol misuse among young people in Ugandan fishing communities. Addictive behaviors reports, 10, 100233.

Matano, R. A., Koopman, C., Wanat, S. F., Whitsell, S. D., Borggrefe, A., & Westrup, D. (2003). Assessment of binge drinking of alcohol in highly educated employees. Addictive Behaviors, 28(7), 1299-1310.

Straussner, S. L. A. (2004). Assessment and treatment of clients with alcohol and other drug abuse problems. Clinical work with substance-abusing clients, 3-36.