Presenting Problem Sample Clauses

The "Presenting Problem" clause defines the specific issue, complaint, or condition that a client brings to a professional, such as a therapist, counselor, or consultant, at the outset of their engagement. This clause typically outlines the main concerns or symptoms described by the client, which form the basis for assessment and intervention. For example, it may specify that the client is seeking help for anxiety, relationship difficulties, or workplace stress. By clearly identifying the initial problem, this clause ensures that both parties have a shared understanding of the focus of services, helping to guide the direction of treatment or consultation and manage expectations.
Presenting Problem. The beneficiary’s chief complaint, history of the presenting problem(s), including current level of functioning, relevant family history and current family information;
View SourceView Similar (17)
Presenting Problem. What concerns you most about this individual (or yourself if you are the patient) ? When did you first notice this problem? How has this problem affected his/her/your function? At home: At school/work:
View Source
Presenting Problem. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (re-named for case study) was a 6-year-old girl who was taken into care after presenting with extreme sexualised and aggressive behaviour which school had found difficult to manage, resulting in her being excluded. Her behaviour raised concerns that she was a victim of sexual abuse and about the ability of her carers to keep her safe. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and her family were consequently referred for a multidisciplinary child care assessment as part of child care proceedings, to better understand ▇▇▇▇▇▇’s behaviour and needs. The assessment began three months into ▇▇▇▇▇▇’s ▇▇▇▇▇▇ care placement and two months into her new school placement. The questions used to guide the assessment from the solicitors’ letter of instruction are detailed in appendix A. My role was to assess the child whilst other team members assessed the adults. The assessment followed the five-stage process of ‘The Maudsley Model of Parenting Assessments’, outlined in appendix B.
View Source

Related to Presenting Problem

  • Problem Statement School bus fleets are aging, and our communities have poor air quality. Replacing school buses with zero emission school buses will address both of these issues.

  • Reasonable Suspicion Testing All Employees Performing Safety-Sensitive Functions A. Reasonable suspicion testing for alcohol or controlled substances may be directed by the Employer for any employee performing safety-sensitive functions when there is reason to suspect that alcohol or controlled substance use may be adversely affecting the employee’s job performance or that the employee may present a danger to the physical safety of the employee or another. B. Specific objective grounds must be stated in writing that support the reasonable suspicion. Examples of specific objective grounds include but are not limited to: 1. Physical symptoms consistent with alcohol and/or controlled substance use; 2. Evidence or observation of alcohol or controlled substance use, possession, sale, or delivery; or 3. The occurrence of an accident(s) where a trained manager, supervisor or lead worker suspects alcohol or other controlled substance use may have been a factor.

  • Client Classification 7.1. We shall not have an obligation to treat our clients in different classes depending on their knowledge and expertise.

  • Classification Review Grand Valley State University and APSS shall jointly determine the review assessment survey instrument to be used at Grand Valley State University. The parties shall maintain a Joint Review Committee, composed of three members appointed by the Human Resources Office and three members appointed by the Alliance. Bargaining unit members questioning the assigned classification of their position may do so by using the following procedure: A. Meet with the Employment Manager in the Human Resources Office to discuss the review process, changes in their job responsibilities, duties and any other process questions they may have. B. PSS member will fill out the assessment survey and email to the Employment Manager along with any other documentation that supports the request. The survey instrument will be jointly administered/reviewed by the Assessment Team (consisting of the Employment Manager and an Alliance member of the Joint Review Committee). A meeting with the PSS is scheduled for a verbal review of the documentation and to answer any questions the Assessment Team may have. The supervisor or appointing officer is encouraged to attend. If the Assessment Team believes a job site visit is warranted as a result of the survey information, they will schedule a time for a joint visit. C. The completed survey instrument shall be coded. The survey results, as determined by the Assessment Team, shall be shared with the survey participant. D. After receiving the survey results, the survey participant, if they so choose shall have the opportunity to meet with the Joint Review Committee for additional input and appeal. Any additional information shall be reviewed by the Committee, and where the Committee feels it is necessary, the survey will be recoded, in a manner mutually agreeable. E. The Joint Review Committee shall then deliberate as to the merit of the upgrade requested by the participant. If the Committee is not able to reach a consensus, the University will decide on the classification. The Alliance may appeal that decision through the arbitration procedure of the collective bargaining agreement. Professional Support Staff members may engage in the review process no more than once per year. Supervisors questioning the assigned classification of a staff member’s position shall provide supporting rationale, complete an assessment survey instrument and discuss with Manager of Employment. The Manager of Employment shall notify an Alliance Representative that a Supervisor is reviewing a staff member’s classification. The review and outcome shall be completed within 45 working days unless the Alliance Representative and Manager of Employment mutually agreed to an extension. The Alliance will be provided with the scored instrument and any supporting rationale.

  • Screening Services Disclosure to Applicant Pursuant to MN Statute 504B.173, the tenant screening service that we use is the following: Rental History Reports ▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, #▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇) ▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇ Applicant Screening Criteria, upon which the decision to rent to the Applicant is based, will be applied to the information provided in this application and the information gathered from the screening report and/or background check we obtain. If we reject your rental application pursuant to Minnesota Statutes and local laws, we will notify you within 14 days of such rejection, identifying the criteria you failed to meet. We are not obligated to return your application fee or deposit except as provided in MN Statute 504B.173 and local laws.