Delusional disorder, somatic type, is where a composite archivist's MN667 evaluation note lands, but only after substances, thyroid, B12 and a dermatology workup have each been accounted for. Searches like "mn 667 unit 2 assignment example", "mn667 unit 2 sample" and "mn667 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished MN667 Unit 2 psychiatric evaluation note looks like
Two and a half pages under the headings a clinic chart uses: identifying data, chief complaint in her words, the present illness, psychiatric history, medical history, substances, family history, her social circumstances, mental status examination, risk, formulation, diagnosis and plan. The HPI dates onset to [March], after [a hotel stay], and lists what she has tried: [permethrin] twice, bleach baths and discarding a sofa. Substance history records no stimulant use, supported by a negative urine screen. Medical review lists TSH, B12, a metabolic panel and a dermatology note describing excoriations with no infestation on scraping. The mental status examination records a fixed, non-bizarre belief, intact cognition and no hallucinations beyond the crawling sensation. Risk notes the bleach burns. The diagnosis carries its DSM-5-TR name, delusional disorder, somatic type.
How a MN667 Unit 2 example is structured
Written for its next reader, the note places the facts that change management where a colleague skimming for five minutes would find them. Chief complaint is quoted, because her own word, mites, is what any clinician must work with. The formulation carries the reasoning: why a primary psychiatric diagnosis is now defensible, with the medical and substance mimics named and excluded, each beside its result; why somatic type and not schizophrenia, given no other psychotic features and function preserved outside the belief; and what keeps it going. Considered-and-rejected diagnoses get a line each, including skin picking disorder and formication from stimulants. The plan reads as orders with owners: [an antipsychotic trial], offered as treatment for the crawling and the distress with the psychiatric reasoning stated openly, a return visit at [two weeks], and a letter so dermatology and psychiatry give one message.
Her word in the chief complaint
Mites under my skin since March appears in quotation marks. Rewriting it as a delusional belief in the first line would bury what she reports, and under federal rules that since 2021 generally give patients prompt access to their notes, she may well read it.
Mimics named and excluded
Stimulant use, thyroid disease, B12 deficiency, kidney and liver disease and a true infestation each get a line with the result that excludes them. A covering clinician can confirm quickly that the psychiatric diagnosis rests on a finished workup, not on her specimens.
Bleach burns in the risk section
Risk here is not only about suicide. Her bleach baths have left burns on both forearms, and the note records them as harm arising from the belief, with a plan for wound review, rather than closing on a line reading denies SI.
Rivals weighed and dropped
Schizophrenia, skin picking disorder and depression with psychotic features each get one sentence explaining why they were set aside. That record protects the diagnosis later, when a colleague wonders whether anyone thought of the obvious alternative.
Orders that name who acts
The prescriber starts [the chosen agent], the front desk books [two weeks], and the author writes to dermatology. Nothing in the plan depends on a reader guessing who was meant to act, so each order reads as work assigned rather than hoped for.
Where marks go in MN667 Unit 2
Could the next clinician act on this note without its author in the room? That question carries the grade. Evaluation notes written as essays, walking the reader through what delusional disorder is, spend their words in the wrong place and are marked as coursework rather than documentation. The mimic workup is checked item by item, and a note that reaches a psychiatric diagnosis with the stimulant screen or thyroid result absent has skipped the step that licenses it. Risk confined to suicide and homicide questions misses the bleach burns the case supplied. Instructors look for considered-and-rejected diagnoses, because a note recording only its conclusion cannot defend itself later. Minor points slip for a diagnosis without its specifier, a plan with no follow-up date, and wording that would read as dismissive if she opened the note.
Get a MN667 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Evaluation notes vary most in their required headings, so paste the Unit 2 case from your MN667 section with any note template the course supplies, plus the rubric. Returned free as your first sample in 24-48h, the note records the visit in chart form, with the workup behind the diagnosis and an owner on every order.
MN667 Unit 2 questions, answered
Should an evaluation note include a formulation, or only a diagnosis?
Both, in most course templates. The diagnosis tells the next reader what the author concluded; the formulation tells them why, and what keeps the problem going. A short paragraph is enough. Name the evidence behind the diagnosis, the alternatives excluded and the factors a plan should target, so a colleague can disagree intelligently rather than start over.
How should a note describe a belief the patient holds firmly?
Quote it, describe its content and fixity, and record what the patient has done because of it. Avoid language that mocks or argues, since patients increasingly read their notes. The mental status examination can state that the belief is fixed and not shared by others without calling the person irrational, which keeps the record accurate and the relationship intact.
Does the note need lab results the case does not give?
Name the tests the diagnosis depends on and say which results the case supplies. Where one is missing, write it as pending, with who ordered it and which result would alter the working diagnosis. Inventing a value is the error to avoid; a clearly labeled gap shows the reasoning a colleague picking up the case depends on.