| Course | NR 606 Diagnosis & Management in Psychiatric-Mental Health II Practicum |
|---|---|
| Week | 2 |
| Paper type | Partial response analysis |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN, Psychiatric-Mental Health Nurse Practitioner (PMHNP) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 606 Week 2
Partial Response Analysis: Whether D.L.'s Ten Weeks on Sertraline Qualify as an Adequate Trial, What Is Still in the Room and Five Explanations in Rank Order
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 606: Diagnosis & Management in Psychiatric-Mental Health II Practicum
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Partial Response Analysis: Whether D.L.'s Ten Weeks on Sertraline Qualify as an Adequate Trial, What Is Still in the Room and Five Explanations in Rank Order
Two Claims That Sound Alike
Claim one: sertraline has done some work for D.L. That is clearly true; PHQ-9 fell from 22 to 12, mood lifted and suicidal thinking resolved.
Claim two: sertraline has done everything it is going to do. That is a different claim, and it cannot be made until the trial is shown to have been adequate.
Did the Trial Qualify
Dose: sertraline 50 mg for two weeks, 100 mg for two weeks, then 150 mg for six weeks. 150 mg is within the usual effective range; the maximum is 200 mg.
Duration: six weeks at 150 mg. Most guidance treats four to eight weeks at an adequate dose as a reasonable trial before judging response.
Adherence: pharmacy records show fills every 30 days without gaps. But when asked "In the last two weeks, how many days did you not take it?" D.L. said "probably weekends, most of them," because the tablet sits beside the coffee maker at work and D.L. does not go to the office on weekends. That is about four missed days in fourteen, roughly 70% of doses taken.
So the trial has not yet qualified. A dose of 150 mg taken five days a week is not a dose of 150 mg.
Tolerability as an Explanation
Asked directly about side effects: mild nausea in the first two weeks, now gone; delayed orgasm since the dose reached 150 mg, which D.L. described as "annoying but not a deal breaker"; no agitation, no headache. D.L. denied skipping doses because of the sexual side effect; the weekend gaps are about routine. Tolerability does not explain the shortfall, but the sexual side effect needs watching, since it often becomes a reason to stop later.
The Residual, Named
Reading the PHQ-9 item by item, as the scale allows (Kroenke et al., 2001), the total of 12 is made up mostly of four items: sleep (3), tiredness (3), concentration (2) and interest (2). Mood is now 1, and suicidal thinking 0.
D.L. drops off without trouble yet surfaces repeatedly through the night, feels unrefreshed in the morning and is exhausted by mid-afternoon. According to the partner, D.L. snores heavily and sometimes stops breathing for a few seconds. Body mass index is 33. Blood pressure is 142/90.
Explanations in Rank Order
1. Inconsistent dosing. About 30% of doses missed on weekends. This could account for some of the shortfall and is the cheapest to fix.
2. Obstructive sleep apnea. Unrefreshing sleep, daytime fatigue, poor concentration, snoring, witnessed pauses, obesity and raised blood pressure. A STOP-Bang score of 6 places D.L. at high risk (Chung et al., 2016). Sleep apnea would explain exactly the symptoms that did not move, and no antidepressant would treat it.
3. Depression not yet fully treated. Possible, and the dose could rise to 200 mg. But this explanation predicts that all symptoms would lag together, not that mood would improve while sleep, energy and concentration stayed put.
4. Incomplete diagnosis. A bipolar spectrum disorder can present as partial response to an antidepressant. Mood Disorder Questionnaire negative; no history of elevated mood. Unlikely.
5. Alcohol or other substances. Two glasses of wine on Friday and Saturday; AUDIT-C 3. Unlikely to explain the residual.
What It Implies
Before any change to sertraline: fix the weekend dosing by moving the tablet home and taking it at breakfast every day, with a phone reminder; and refer for a sleep study. Once both are addressed, the trial can be judged fairly.
In the STAR*D program, many patients who did not remit on the first step did so later, but each step assumed the previous one had been an adequate trial (Rush et al., 2006). Getting the first step right matters for every step after it.
What a Fair Trial Would Look Like
For the next four weeks, a fair trial of sertraline 150 mg means a dose every day, including weekends, confirmed by D.L.'s own count and by a pill box checked at the next visit. If D.L. is still at a PHQ-9 above 10 after four weeks of daily dosing and with the sleep study result in hand, the trial will have qualified, and claim two can be tested properly.
Why Not Increase the Dose Now
Raising sertraline to 200 mg now would be reasonable if the trial had qualified. It has not, and increasing the dose while doses are being missed would mean the patient takes more on weekdays and none on weekends. It would also raise the sexual side effect before the more likely explanations have been tested. The cheapest, safest step comes first.
What Was Ruled Out Quickly
Hypothyroidism: thyroid-stimulating hormone normal at intake. Anemia: complete blood count normal. Medicines that cause fatigue: none other than sertraline.
What the Partner Added
Collateral from someone who sees D.L. at night was the only way to learn about the breathing pauses, since D.L. was unaware of them and had never been asked.
With D.L.'s permission, the partner joined the visit by phone for five minutes. The partner confirmed the snoring and the pauses, added that D.L. often falls asleep in front of the television by 20:00 and said that weekends are when D.L. "seems most down." That last point fits both explanations at once: weekends are when doses are missed, and when there is no work structure to push through fatigue.
What D.L. Was Told
That the medicine has helped the mood but not the sleep and energy, that missing weekend doses may be part of the reason and that the snoring and tiredness may point to sleep apnea, which is treatable and can make depression harder to shift. D.L. was surprised by the weekend count and agreed to the reminder. D.L. was reluctant about a sleep study, worried about wearing equipment at night, and agreed after hearing that it can be done at home.
Next Review
Four weeks: PHQ-9 item by item, adherence count and the sleep study result. If the sleep study is positive, the next note will be a comorbidity plan rather than a medication change. If it is negative and dosing has been daily, the dose question becomes the main one.
References
Chung, F., Abdullah, H. R., & Liao, P. (2016). STOP-Bang Questionnaire: A practical approach to screen for obstructive sleep apnea. Chest, 149(3), 631-638. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.15-0903
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606-613. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x
Rush, A. J., Trivedi, M. H., Wisniewski, S. R., Nierenberg, A. A., Stewart, J. W., Warden, D., Niederehe, G., Thase, M. E., Lavori, P. W., Lebowitz, B. D., McGrath, P. J., Rosenbaum, J. F., Sackeim, H. A., Kupfer, D. J., Luther, J., & Fava, M. (2006). Acute and longer-term outcomes in depressed outpatients requiring one or several treatment steps: A STAR*D report. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(11), 1905-1917. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.2006.163.11.1905
Reading the NR 606 Week 2 instructions
The Week 2 analysis separates two claims that sound alike: the medication did some work, and the medication has done everything it is going to do. Before proposing any change, establish whether the trial qualified: a dose reached and held, enough time and adherence confirmed. Consider tolerability as an explanation. Name the residual symptoms rather than the score. Rank the explanations. Then say what the ranking implies. Most rubrics mark down non-response declared when the trial never qualified, a scale total treated as the finding and the whole shortfall blamed on the drug when adherence or a second problem was never examined.
How the NR 606 Week 2 example is put together
The sample states both claims and accepts only the first. Dose and duration look adequate, but a direct question reveals weekend doses missed because the tablet sits at work, about 70% taken. Tolerability is reviewed and the sexual side effect noted. The PHQ-9 is broken into items to show sleep, tiredness, concentration and interest carry the residual. Five explanations are ranked: inconsistent dosing, obstructive sleep apnea with a STOP-Bang of 6, undertreated depression, incomplete diagnosis and alcohol. Sections describe a fair trial, why the dose is not raised, quick rule-outs, the partner's account, what the patient was told and the next review. Margin notes show where the trial check and the ranking earn credit.
Where the points sit in the NR 606 Week 2 rubric
The heaviest loss is declaring non-response when the trial never qualified; this analysis finds the missed weekend doses first. Treating the total as the finding costs the next share, so the score is broken into items. Blaming the whole shortfall on the drug loses a row, while adherence and sleep apnea are ranked above it. An unranked list of explanations loses marks, and these five are ordered with reasons. Explaining why the dose is not raised yet shows the cheapest, safest step comes first. Collateral from the partner earns credit. Asking the patient directly how many doses were missed, rather than relying on refills, found the real gap. Saying what a fair trial would look like gives the next four weeks a clear test.
NR 606 Week 2 help: mistakes that cost points
Weak NR 606 Week 2 analyses call a partial response a failure without checking whether doses were taken. Others report the score and never say which symptoms remain. Many attribute everything to the medicine. Explanations are often listed but not ranked. Few ask directly how many doses were missed in the past two weeks. Confirm dose, duration and adherence first, break the score into symptoms, rank the explanations and say what the top one implies. If your patient's course differs, share the dosing history and item scores, and an analysis in this order can be drafted. Ask how many doses were missed in the past two weeks.
Get a NR 606 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 2 instructions and the case your classroom gave you, with the rubric if you have one, and a custom example is written to that material and returned inside 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free, and it comes back as a finished paper you can read against your own draft.
More NR 606 papers and PMHNP samples
- NR 606 Week 1: Inherited Patient Post
- NR 606 Week 3: Comorbidity Case Write-up
- NR 606 Week 4: Plan Revision Note
- NR 606 Week 5: Case Analysis
- NR 606 Week 6: Augmentation Rationale
- NR 606 Week 7: Progress Note Series
- NR 606 Week 8: Complex Case Paper
- NR 605 Week 2: Initial Evaluation Note
- NR 548 Week 2: Interview Technique Write-Up
- NR 546 Week 2: Receptor Mechanism Write-Up
- NR 547 Week 2: Criteria Mapping Write-Up
NR 606 Week 2 questions, answered
What counts as a residual symptom worth writing about?
Something the patient still notices and something the next decision could plausibly move. Sleep that stayed broken, concentration that never returned, anhedonia sitting under a mood that lifted, anxiety that outlasted the depressive episode. Each of those points somewhere specific. A general statement that symptoms persist points nowhere, which is why papers built on one struggle to justify whatever they propose next.
Do I need an instrument score in the paper?
Many sections ask for one and it is worth including where the case supplies it, but the score supports the finding rather than being the finding. The strong papers report the number and then say what it does not capture. Instruments compress a week into a figure, and the symptom driving the next change is often the one the total was least sensitive to.
Can I conclude that nothing should change yet?
Yes, and it is frequently the better answer when the trial has not run its course. Holding is a decision and it is graded like one, so it needs a review point and a named condition that would force action sooner. What loses marks is holding by default, where the paper never considers a change and drifts to no conclusion at all.
Where can I find a free NR 606 Week 2 sample paper?
The full partial response analysis of ten weeks on sertraline, with five ranked explanations, is published on this page.
Why has the trial not qualified in the NR 606 Week 2 analysis?
About 30% of doses were missed on weekends, so the patient was not really taking 150 mg a day.