| Course | PA 505 Behavioral Medicine I |
|---|---|
| Week | 7 |
| Paper type | Risk formulation note |
| Length | About 830 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Physician Assistant Studies (MPAS) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PA 505 Week 7
Risk Formulation Note: Mornings of Not Wanting to Wake Up, Half a Bottle of Hydrocodone in the Cabinet and a Neighbor Who Comes by at Six, Fixed to One Afternoon
Student Name
Chamberlain University
PA 505: Behavioral Medicine I
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Risk Formulation Note: Mornings of Not Wanting to Wake Up, Half a Bottle of Hydrocodone in the Cabinet and a Neighbor Who Comes by at Six, Fixed to One Afternoon
Fixed to a Moment
Assessment made in clinic on a Tuesday at 3:40 p.m., about twenty minutes into the visit, by the PA student with the supervising PA present for the last ten minutes. Patient: W.T., 68, who spent a career grading county roads and lost a spouse in December, seen one week after discharge from a hospital stay for pneumonia with delirium, which had cleared before discharge. Everything below describes this afternoon and is not a statement about W.T. in general.
The Questions in Their Own Wording
The questions follow the order of the Columbia framework, from passive thoughts to active thoughts, method, intent and behavior (Posner et al., 2011), but in my own wording, recorded with the answers.
Q: "Some mornings, do you find yourself wishing you just would not wake up?" A: "Most mornings since the auction. Then I get up and feed the cows."
Q: "Have you had thoughts about ending your life yourself?" A, after a pause: "I thought about it once, in August. Not since. I couldn't do that to Jo." (Jo is the daughter.)
Q: "When you thought about it, did you think about how?" A: "No. It was just a thought."
Q: "Have you done anything to get ready, or started to do anything to hurt yourself?" A: "No."
Q: "Is there anything in the house you've thought of using?" A: "No. I know what you're asking. There's the rifle in the safe, and her pills." W.T. confirmed the spouse's hydrocodone, about half a bottle, is still in the bathroom cabinet.
This Week Against the Years
Long-standing factors: older age, widowhood, living alone on a rural lot, nightly alcohol and access to a firearm and to opioids. These describe the past ten months and many years before and did not change this week.
What has changed recently: the passive wish began after the auction in late May and is now most mornings; there was one active thought in August without method or plan; the hospital stay ended five days ago, and W.T. said coming home "was harder than I thought, the house was cold." Drinking, by W.T.'s account, is back to "two, maybe three" since discharge, less than before.
Supports, With How Far They Hold
The neighbor whose cattle W.T. feeds comes by most mornings at about six; that contact is daily but is about the cattle, and W.T. said "he wouldn't know what to do if I told him." The daughter, Jo, lives three hours away, calls every Sunday and stayed two nights after discharge; she is the person W.T. named as the reason not to act, and she is reachable by phone but not in person this week. The pastor visited in the hospital; W.T. described that as "kind, but I didn't say much." The coffee group at the co-op has not seen W.T. since spring. The support that holds most firmly this week is the daughter, and it holds at a distance.
A Judgment That Can Be Disputed
My judgment is that W.T. is not at imminent risk of acting on suicidal thoughts today, but that the risk is higher than it was before the auction, and that it rests on three particular things rather than a count of factors. First, the passive wish is daily and has lasted four months. Second, the means are in the house now, in the form of a half bottle of an opioid that W.T. named without prompting. Third, the reason W.T. gave for not acting is one person who lives three hours away. Against those, W.T. disclosed openly, described one active thought two months ago without a plan, has kept a daily obligation and is drinking less.
I do not label this low, moderate or high. Risk categories based on counting factors have performed poorly: across cohort studies, a high-risk label had a sensitivity of about 56% and specificity of 79% for later suicide (Large et al., 2016), which is too weak to carry a decision alone. A colleague who disagrees with this judgment can see exactly which three things it rests on and argue with any of them.
When It Expires
This formulation holds until the next contact, a phone call planned for Friday, or sooner if any of the three things changes: if the passive wish becomes an active one, if the hydrocodone is still in the house at the next contact, if drinking rises again or if the daughter becomes unreachable. The plan made with W.T. is recorded separately in the visit note.
References
Large, M., Kaneson, M., Myles, N., Myles, H., Gunaratne, P., & Ryan, C. (2016). Meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies of suicide risk assessment among psychiatric patients: Heterogeneity in results and lack of improvement over time. PLOS ONE, 11(6), e0156322. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156322
Posner, K., Brown, G. K., Stanley, B., Brent, D. A., Yershova, K. V., Oquendo, M. A., Currier, G. W., Melvin, G. A., Greenhill, L., Shen, S., & Mann, J. J. (2011). The Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale: Initial validity and internal consistency findings from three multisite studies with adolescents and adults. American Journal of Psychiatry, 168(12), 1266-1277. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.10111704
The Chamberlain PA 505 Week 7 instructions
The seventh week asks for a risk formulation note following an assessment of suicidal thoughts. Fix the note to a moment, with the date, time and who assessed, because everything in it describes that point. Record the questions as actually asked, in your own wording, with the answers beside them, so a reader can tell what was answered and what was passed over. Follow a recognized structure for asking, from passive thoughts to method, intent and behavior, with a source. Separate long-standing factors from what has changed recently. Describe supports with how far each can be relied on this week. State a judgment that someone could dispute, resting on particular facts rather than a count of factors, and say when the formulation expires or should be redone. Keep the plan in its own document.
How the PA 505 Week 7 example is put together
The note fixes the assessment to a Tuesday at 3:40 p.m., about twenty minutes into the visit, with the supervising PA present for the last ten minutes, one week after the patient's discharge from hospital. Five questions follow in plain spoken wording with their answers: daily mornings of not wanting to wake up since the auction, one active thought in August without method, no preparation, and an unprompted mention of the rifle in the safe and the spouse's hydrocodone in the cabinet. A section separates long-standing factors from the change since May and the cold return home. Supports are described one by one: the neighbor at six who would not know what to do, the daughter three hours away, the pastor and the absent coffee group. The judgment rests on three named facts, explains why no category label is given and sets out when it expires.
Reading the PA 505 Week 7 grading rubric
An adjective on its own loses the most: low, moderate or high gives a reader a verdict with no access to how it was reached, which is exactly what a colleague needs when the picture changes. Close behind is the tally, risk factors counted into columns with the conclusion appearing as though arithmetic decided it. Further losses follow for questions summarized out of the note, so the answers cannot be judged; for supports listed with nothing about which will still be there tonight; for a judgment worded so no one could disagree; for no expiry; and for a note that runs on into arrangements. Strong notes are fixed to a time, record the questions as asked, separate this week from the years, weigh supports, rest the judgment on named facts with a cited reason for avoiding bare categories and state when the formulation should be revisited.
PA 505 Week 7 help: mistakes that cost points
Risk formulation is one of the hardest notes to write well, because the safe-looking version, a category and a list, is exactly what the rubric marks down. Share your scenario and we can help you set the note to a time, write the questions in plain wording with answers beside them and separate long-standing factors from what changed this week. We can also help you describe each support honestly, including how far it can be relied on, and state a judgment that rests on particular facts. When a scenario answers every question with a flat no, we can help you write what that does and does not establish. The judgment is yours to make and sign. If your section uses a set structure, such as the full Columbia scale or a local template, the custom sample follows it while keeping the reasoning visible.
Get a PA-505 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Send the assignment, the rubric and whichever template or case material your section issued, and say whether a level of concern has to be stated outright. A custom PA-505 Week 7 note is written into that format and returned inside 24-48h, the first one free of charge. The person in it is built for the assignment.
More PA 505 papers and MPAS samples
- PA 505 Week 1: Where Depression Is First Met
- PA 505 Week 2: MSE Narrative
- PA 505 Week 3: PHQ-9 Score Interpretation
- PA 505 Week 4: Criteria Application Exercise
- PA 505 Week 5: Delirium Versus Depression
- PA 505 Week 6: Substance Use History Brief
- PA 505 Week 8: Capacity Determination Note
- PA 504 Week 7: Note Revision Exercise
- PA 503 Week 7: Verbal Case Summary
- PA 502 Week 7: Decision Aid Draft
- PA 501 Week 7: Professional Conduct Case
PA 505 Week 7 questions, answered
The scenario gives a flat no to every question. Is there a note in that?
There is, and it is the version most students write short. Record which questions were put and in what wording, since a no covers only what was actually asked. Then write the judgment the encounter supports, name what in the presentation still concerns you or does not, and say what would bring you back to the question. The reasoning is the assignment.
What makes a judgment arguable rather than safe?
It has to be specific enough that a reader could look at the same material and land somewhere else. Concern resting on two named things that changed this week is arguable. Concern reported as present, with no account of what produced it, is unfalsifiable and gives a grader nothing to mark. Rubrics in this week are usually built around exactly that difference.
Should the note say what happens next?
Only as far as documentation goes: who this is being handed to, and when the judgment should be revisited. What gets planned, offered or arranged belongs to the second behavioral course, and a note drifting into it loses points here however sensible the content is. Where your section has set a disposition element, say so when you request the example and that part gets drafted on its own terms.
Where can I find a free PA 505 Week 7 sample paper?
This page holds the full PA 505 Week 7 risk formulation note, with each question as asked and a judgment resting on three named facts.
Why does the PA 505 Week 7 sample avoid a low, moderate or high label?
Because categories built by counting factors predict poorly, so the note states its judgment with the specific facts it rests on, which a colleague can check or dispute.