PA 601 Week 3 Triage Ordering Exercise Example

PA Prof Prac Seminar III Chamberlain University Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This PA 601 Week 3 sample paper orders eight items waiting at 1:00 p.m., from a phoned-in chest pressure to a school sports form, by two variables: what happens if each waits and what each consumes. Chamberlain PA 601 (PA-601), PA Prof Prac Seminar III, asks Master of Physician Assistant Studies (MPAS) students to rank competing work without sorting by worst imaginable diagnosis alone. The sample sends the chest pressure to 911 first, then argues the hard middle among a potassium of 5.9 on lisinopril and spironolactone, a febrile toddler with a new rash and an INR of 4.8, cites Callen's review on missed result follow-up, states the capacity assumed and puts the sports form last on purpose.

CoursePA 601 PA Prof Prac Seminar III
Week3
Paper typePrioritization exercise
LengthAbout 800 words, 5 pages
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolChamberlain University
ProgramMaster of Physician Assistant Studies (MPAS)
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for PA 601 Week 3

1

Triage Ordering Exercise for Eight Items Waiting at 1:00 p.m.: A Phoned-In Chest Pressure, a Potassium of 5.9, an INR of 4.8, a Febrile Toddler and Four Others Ordered by Cost of Waiting and Time to Handle

Student Name

Chamberlain University

PA 601: PA Prof Prac Seminar III

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title lists the competing items and names both ordering variables, which signals that the order will rest on more than severity.
2

Triage Ordering Exercise for Eight Items Waiting at 1:00 p.m.: A Phoned-In Chest Pressure, a Potassium of 5.9, an INR of 4.8, a Febrile Toddler and Four Others Ordered by Cost of Waiting and Time to Handle

The List and the Order

Table 1

Eight Items in the Order Handled

OrderItemReason: if this waits; what it consumes
1Phone call: 58-year-old with chest pressure since 10 a.m.Waiting risks a heart attack going untreated; consumes 3 minutes to direct to 911
2Potassium 5.9 in a patient on lisinopril and spironolactoneWaiting risks an arrhythmia; consumes 10 minutes to call, stop spironolactone and arrange a repeat with an ECG today
3Toddler, fever 39.4 °C with a new rash, parent on the phoneWaiting could miss a rash that does not blanch; 5 minutes to ask the glass test question and book or redirect
4INR 4.8 in a patient on warfarin, no bleeding reportedWaiting a few hours is safe if no bleeding; 8 minutes to call and adjust the dose
5Diabetic foot recheck arriving at 1:20, new redness reportedWaiting a day could let an infection spread; 25 minutes when seen
6Rash after starting amoxicillin, no swelling or breathing troubleWaiting a few hours is safe; 5 minutes to stop the drug and record the reaction
7Refill of levothyroxine, one week leftWaiting days is safe; 2 minutes
8Sports physical form for school, due FridayWaiting is safe; 10 minutes

Note. Note. Capacity assumed: one PA student and one supervising PA, 50 minutes before the afternoon's first booked visit runs late.

What this page is doingGiving every row both the cost of waiting and the time it consumes shows the order was built on two variables, not on worst-case diagnosis.
3

Two Variables, Not One

Ordering only by the worst possible diagnosis would put the toddler's rash first and the levothyroxine refill last, but it would also ignore that some urgent items are quick and some less urgent ones are slow. The order above weighs both. Chest pressure leads the list since it carries the gravest risk yet needs only three minutes: the caller is told to hang up and call 911, and we confirm the call was made.

The Middle Is Where the Marks Live

Positions 2, 3 and 4 were the hard ones. The potassium and the INR are both results that need action today, and both are less dramatic than they look on a screen. I put potassium first because a level of 5.9 on two drugs that raise potassium can cause a dangerous rhythm without warning, whereas an INR of 4.8 without bleeding mainly needs a held dose and a recheck. The toddler went between them because the question that matters, whether the rash fades under pressure, takes one minute to ask and its answer changes everything. Unaddressed abnormal results are a well-documented source of harm in ambulatory care, with follow-up failures reported across many settings (Callen et al., 2012), which is why both results sit in the first four.

What this page is doingArguing the close calls in the middle of the list, rather than the obvious first and last, is where the reasoning becomes visible.
4

State the Capacity You Assumed

This order assumes two clinicians and fifty minutes. With one clinician, the foot recheck would be offered first thing tomorrow, with a call to the patient about warning signs, and the sports form would move to Friday morning. With a nurse available to handle refills under a protocol, item 7 would leave this list entirely.

Somebody Is Last on Purpose

The sports form is last. It is due Friday, nothing about the child's health depends on it today, and moving it up would take ten minutes from items that cannot wait. Putting it last is a decision, recorded so that it does not quietly slip to Saturday.

The Rash and the Refill

The amoxicillin rash is placed sixth, below the foot, because the patient reported no swelling of lips or tongue and no breathing trouble. The patient is told to stop the drug now; the call to record it as an allergy, and to choose a replacement if still needed, can follow. If any swelling or breathing trouble were reported, it would move to second place.

Not a Clinical Protocol

This is an ordering exercise for one afternoon with stated assumptions. It is not a protocol for triage. Each item would be handled under the clinic's existing policies, including the nurse line protocol for chest pain.

The value of writing it down is that the next afternoon's list can be ordered faster, and the reasons can be challenged by a colleague who would have put the potassium below the toddler.

What this page is doingEnding on what the exercise is and is not keeps a one-afternoon ordering from being mistaken for clinic policy.
5

References

Callen, J. L., Westbrook, J. I., Georgiou, A., & Li, J. (2012). Failure to follow-up test results for ambulatory patients: A systematic review. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27(10), 1334-1348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1949-5

The Chamberlain PA 601 Week 3 instructions

This exercise asks you to put a list of competing items in order and defend the order. Most versions want two columns: the order, with each item named briefly, and a one-sentence reason with two halves, what happens if this waits and what it consumes to handle. Underneath, argue the hardest positions at length; the obvious first and last items need little. The instructions stress that severity is not the only variable. A short task that prevents harm can come before a slow one, and a frightening label can sit lower if the risk of waiting is small. State the capacity you assumed, since the order changes with the number of clinicians and minutes. Put something last deliberately and say why. Make clear the exercise is not a clinical protocol.

Inside the PA 601 Week 3 example

The table lists eight items with order and reason: chest pressure by phone, potassium of 5.9 on two drugs that raise it, a toddler with fever and rash, an INR of 4.8 without bleeding, a diabetic foot with new redness, a rash after amoxicillin, a levothyroxine refill and a sports form. A section explains why the chest pressure leads, at three minutes to direct to 911. The middle section argues potassium over the INR and places the toddler between them because the glass test question takes a minute; it cites Callen et al. (2012) on results that go unfollowed. A capacity section shows how the order shifts with one clinician or a refill protocol. A section defends the sports form as last. A short section explains when the amoxicillin rash would jump to second, and a closing section separates the exercise from a triage protocol.

Where the points sit in the PA 601 Week 3 rubric

The biggest loss in this exercise is an order sorted only by worst possible diagnosis, which can be produced without reading the list. Next comes an order that ignores time, treating a two-minute refill and a twenty-five minute foot visit as if they cost the same. Faculty then look closely at the middle positions, where the reasoning is visible; most marks are earned or lost there. Every reason needs both halves, the cost of waiting and the time consumed. A stated capacity assumption is graded because it makes the order checkable. Placing an item last on purpose, with a reason, earns credit for judgment. Clarity that this is an exercise, not a protocol, protects a smaller share, and any cited source supporting a placement must be in APA form.

Common PA 601 Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them

The ordering most often fails when every item looks like an emergency and the reasons repeat "could be serious." Another problem is a list sorted correctly at the ends but with no argument for the close calls. Some also forget to say how many people and minutes the order assumes. If your section gives a different set of items, such as hospital pages or inbox messages, send the list and any capacity details; the exercise we write would order them by cost of waiting and time to handle, argue the middle positions in full, state the capacity behind the order, put one item last on purpose and keep the clinical protocol question separate. If your faculty allow ties, shared positions would be marked and defended.

Get a PA-601 Week 3 example written to your instructions

Send the list your classroom handed over, the assignment and any rubric, and a custom PA-601 ordering exercise comes back written against your own entries inside 24-48h, the first one free. Where your instructions name a capacity, the example is built to it rather than to a general clinic.

More PA 601 papers and MPAS samples

PA 601 Week 3 questions, answered

Can two entries share a position?

In most sections yes, if the reason says why the pair is genuinely interchangeable and what would separate them. A tie that is argued reads as a finer judgment than a false ordering. A tie used to avoid choosing reads the opposite way, and the difference is whether the writer named the piece of information that would break it.

Do I need to send anybody away?

Only where the exercise offers somewhere to send them. Redirecting an entry to an urgent care, a same-day slot tomorrow or a phone note is a legitimate position if the destination exists in the instructions you were given. Inventing a service to relieve the list is usually marked down, since it dissolves the constraint the week was built around.

How much clinical detail goes in the reason column?

One sentence is the working limit. The reason has to name the risk of waiting and the cost of running, and both fit in a clause each. Expanding an entry into a paragraph of differential reasoning belongs to the diagnostic courses; here it crowds out the eleven other entries that also need defending.

Where can I find a free PA 601 Week 3 sample paper?

A complete PA 601 Week 3 triage ordering exercise for eight competing items, with the cost of waiting and the time each takes, is on this page.

Why does the potassium come before the INR in the PA 601 Week 3 sample?

A potassium of 5.9 on lisinopril and spironolactone can cause a dangerous rhythm without warning, while an INR of 4.8 without bleeding mainly needs a held dose and a recheck.