Paliperidone Palmitate Treatment Decisions for Schizophrenia
This paper examines three sequential psychopharmacological treatment decisions made for a client diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia based on PANSS assessment results. The first decision selects Invega Sustenna (paliperidone palmitate) as a long-acting injectable antipsychotic over olanzapine and aripiprazole, citing superior tolerability and compliance advantages. The second decision addresses injection-site pain by switching from the gluteal to the deltoid site. The third decision confronts antipsychotic-induced weight gain, recommending diet, exercise counseling, and potential adjunctive metformin rather than switching medications, given the client's significant PANSS score improvements over two months of treatment.
- Introduction and Diagnosis: Paranoid schizophrenia diagnosis and treatment goals
- Decision 1: Selecting Invega Sustenna as the Initial Antipsychotic: Rationale for choosing paliperidone palmitate injectable
- Decision 2: Changing the Injection Site: Switching injection site to reduce patient pain
- Decision 3: Managing Antipsychotic-Induced Weight Gain: Lifestyle and metformin approach to weight management
- References: APA citations for pharmacological studies used
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Each clinical decision is structured with a clear rationale drawn directly from peer-reviewed literature, demonstrating evidence-based practice rather than unsupported clinical judgment.
- The paper integrates patient-reported outcomes (PANSS scores, subjective complaints) alongside pharmacological evidence, showing the balance between clinical data and individualized care.
- Decision 3 effectively uses a meta-analysis to argue against switching medications, demonstrating that the student can evaluate comparative evidence and resist reflexive prescribing changes.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates sequential clinical reasoning: each decision builds on the outcome of the previous one, creating a coherent treatment narrative. This "decision-outcome-next decision" structure shows the student understands that psychopharmacological management is iterative, not static.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief diagnostic framing, then presents three numbered clinical decisions in chronological order. Each decision section states the choice made, provides the evidence-based rationale, and reports follow-up outcomes. The conclusion of Decision 3 anticipates contingencies (symptom worsening), showing forward clinical planning. A formal APA reference list closes the paper.
Introduction and Diagnosis
Based on her PANSS (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale) test results, the client in this case has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, paranoid type, in which positive symptoms such as delusions are prevalent. The purpose of this paper is to clarify three key psychopharmacological treatment decisions made on behalf of the client. The goals of all three decisions are symptom reduction and the promotion of the client's mental health and psychosocial functioning.
Decision 1: Selecting Invega Sustenna as the Initial Antipsychotic
The decision was to give the patient Invega Sustenna (paliperidone palmitate) 234 mg intramuscular ×1, followed by 156 mg intramuscular on day 4 and monthly thereafter, rather than either Zyprexa (olanzapine) or Abilify (aripiprazole). The reasoning is based primarily on the fact that Invega Sustenna is a long-acting injectable with fewer compliance complications than orally administered drugs. Although Abilify has been available as a long-acting injectable, Invega Sustenna is recommended in this case because it presents fewer side effects than either Zyprexa or Abilify, particularly those the client expressed concern about, such as weight gain (Khanna et al., 2016). Moreover, Invega Sustenna is a second-generation antipsychotic known to be "better tolerated and have fewer adverse neurological side effects" than first-generation drugs (Park et al., 2013, p. 651).
The client returned to the clinic for follow-up four weeks after the initial injection of Invega Sustenna. The PANSS was re-administered and the client's score decreased by 25%, indicating meaningful improvement. The client reported no troublesome side effects from the medication, though she complained of immediate pain at the injection site lasting several hours as well as some weight gain. Neither of these, however, constitutes a serious complication. Her husband agreed to transport her to further injections. It is believed that switching from orally administered antipsychotics will be beneficial for this client, and it is strongly recommended that she continue with Invega Sustenna given the promising initial PANSS results.
Decision 2: Changing the Injection Site
Because the client expressed concern about discomfort when sitting or walking after the injection, it was recommended that the administering nurse switch to the deltoid site instead. Since pain at the injection site is a concern with respect to maintaining patient compliance with the medication schedule, changing the site was deemed a straightforward and low-risk adjustment.
This decision proved effective. The client directly reported to the nursing staff that the pain was much less problematic at the arm site. However, the client had gained additional weight — a cumulative total of 4.5 pounds over two months. The client noted that "her husband might not like it," referring to the weight gain, though he was not consulted directly on the matter. Nevertheless, the client admitted that she felt well on the drug. Her PANSS score was down 50% from her initial test. The client requested that the clinical team investigate whether an alternative drug could offer similarly promising symptom control without the accompanying weight gain.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.