| Course | NU674 PMHNP Diagnosis and Management Across the Lifespan Clinical I |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Suicide risk assessment |
| Length | About 820 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MSN |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU674 Unit 4
The Tobacco Tin on the Bookshelf: A SAFE-T Suicide Risk Assessment for a 71-Year-Old Retired Cartographer Keeping Leftover Oxycodone
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU674: PMHNP Diagnosis and Management Across the Lifespan Clinical I
Unit 4 Suicide Risk Assessment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The patient is composite; details, counts and times are bracketed.
Context
Outpatient follow-up, [Thursday], [14:00 to 14:50]. Mr. [W.], [71], a retired cartographer, was seen four weeks ago for depression after the death of his wife of [44] years, [eight] months ago, and started on sertraline. At today's visit he mentioned, when asked about pain, that he still has "a good supply" of oxycodone from his surgeries. The assessment follows the SAFE-T approach, which organizes suicide risk assessment into five steps: identifying risk factors, identifying protective factors, conducting a suicide inquiry, determining risk level and intervention, and documenting (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2009).
Step 1: Risk Factors
1. Older man, widowed within the past year, living alone.
2. Major depressive episode, PHQ-9 today [17], little change from [19] four weeks ago.
3. Access to a lethal means: about [40] oxycodone [5] mg tablets from surgeries in [2021] and [2023], kept in a tin in the living room.
4. Chronic back pain.
5. Social withdrawal: stopped attending his map society meetings.
6. Recent loss of role: his wife managed their social life, and he says he has "no reason to go out now."
Older adults die by suicide at high rates relative to their attempts, in part because they use more lethal means and plan more carefully, and physical illness, social disconnection and access to means are among the factors reviews highlight (Conwell et al., 2011).
Step 2: Protective Factors
1. Close relationship with his daughter, who lives [15] minutes away and visits weekly.
2. A grandson he is teaching to read maps, whom he calls "the one bright spot."
3. Engaged in treatment; attended both visits and takes sertraline as prescribed.
4. Says he would not want his daughter "to find me like that."
Step 3: Suicide Inquiry With the Columbia Scale
The Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale was used for its structured questions on ideation and behavior; it has shown good validity and internal consistency in multisite studies (Posner et al., 2011).
1. Wish to be dead, past month: yes. "Most nights I think I wouldn't mind not waking up."
2. Nonspecific active suicidal thoughts: yes, "a few times," most recently [last week].
3. Active ideation with any method, without intent: yes. When asked what method he had thought about, he looked at the bookshelf and said, "The pills, obviously. That's why I didn't throw them out, if I'm honest."
4. Active ideation with some intent: denied.
5. Active ideation with a specific plan and intent: denied.
6. Suicidal behavior, lifetime: none; no preparatory acts, although he acknowledged counting the tablets [two] weeks ago.
He kept the tin for pain, he said at first, and then, asked about method, he said he kept it for this; the assessment turns on that second answer.
Step 4: Risk Level and Intervention
Risk formulation: moderate risk. He has active suicidal ideation with a method, access to that method, and has counted the tablets, which is close to preparatory behavior; he denies intent and has strong protective ties to his daughter and grandson and is engaged in care. His risk is raised by his age, sex, recent bereavement, living alone and pain.
Intervention:
1. Means restriction. Putting time and distance between a person and a lethal method has strong support as a prevention strategy, since many suicidal crises are brief and substitution of another method is incomplete (Barber & Miller, 2014). With his agreement, his daughter will come to his home this evening to collect the tin and take it to a pharmacy drug take-back, and she will text the clinic when done. He also has no firearms at home, confirmed with him and his daughter.
2. Safety plan. He and I wrote a Stanley and Brown safety plan together, in his handwriting: his own warning signs, what he can do alone, his daughter and a neighbor as contacts, the clinic and the 988 line, and the tin already on its way out (Stanley & Brown, 2012). His daughter received a copy with his permission.
3. Treatment. Sertraline increased to [100] mg. Grief-focused therapy referral. Follow-up in [one] week instead of four, with a phone check in [two] days.
4. Pain. Referral back to his primary care clinician for a pain plan that does not depend on stored opioids.
Step 5: Documentation
This note records the risk factors, protective factors, the inquiry and his words, the risk formulation, the means restriction step with confirmation to follow, the safety plan and the follow-up. The preceptor reviewed and agreed with the formulation and plan at [15:10]. At [19:40] his daughter texted that the tin had been taken to the pharmacy.
References
Barber, C. W., & Miller, M. J. (2014). Reducing a suicidal person's access to lethal means of suicide: A research agenda. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 47(3, Suppl. 2), S264-S272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.05.028
Conwell, Y., Van Orden, K., & Caine, E. D. (2011). Suicide in older adults. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 34(2), 451-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2011.02.002
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
Stanley, B., & Brown, G. K. (2012). Safety planning intervention: A brief intervention to mitigate suicide risk. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 19(2), 256-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2011.01.001
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2009). SAFE-T: Suicide assessment five-step evaluation and triage [Pocket card]. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
What the NU674 Unit 4 assignment asks for
For Unit 4 you document a structured suicide risk assessment for a patient who has disclosed suicidal thoughts or has concerning risk factors. Prompts usually ask you to use a recognized framework, identify risk and protective factors, conduct a structured inquiry, reach a risk formulation, and set an intervention plan that addresses the specific risks found. Two to three pages in note form is common. Graders reward assessments that record the patient's own words, especially about method and access, and that link the risk level to the evidence rather than to a feeling. Means restriction, a written safety plan and a follow-up interval matched to the risk should appear in the plan.
How the NU 674 Unit 4 example is put together
A context paragraph explains how the tin came up and introduces SAFE-T. Step one lists six risk factors, with the Conwell review on late-life suicide. Step two lists four protective factors. Step three records each Columbia item with his exact words, including the moment he looked at the bookshelf, and a highlighted sentence explains why that answer settles the question. Step four gives a risk formulation weighing each factor, and four interventions follow: means restriction with the Barber and Miller evidence, a Stanley and Brown safety plan, a higher sertraline dose with weekly follow-up, and a pain plan. Step five documents the preceptor's agreement and the daughter's evening text.
Reading the NU674 Unit 4 grading rubric
Risk assessments in this course are generally graded on use of a structured framework, completeness of factors, quality of the inquiry, the reasoning behind the risk level and the specificity of the plan. The framework row earns full points when each step appears in order. Completeness rewards risk and protective factors specific to the patient's age and situation. The inquiry is judged on whether ideation, method, intent, plan and preparatory behavior are each addressed with the patient's words. The reasoning row looks for a formulation that weighs the factors. Plan points go to means restriction with confirmation, a written safety plan, and follow-up timed to the level of risk. Clear, dated documentation completes the marks.
Common NU674 Unit 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most serious error is recording "denies SI" without asking about method and access, which in this case would have missed the tin entirely. Another is accepting the first explanation for stored medication without asking what it might be used for. Students often assign a risk level without explaining how the factors were weighed. Some plans mention means restriction but do not arrange it, leaving lethal means at home. Others give a crisis number but no written safety plan. And a follow-up interval unchanged from routine care after a moderate-risk assessment suggests the assessment did not change anything, which a reviewer will notice. Record the time the plan was agreed and who was told.
Get an NU674 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Risk instruments vary by site, from the SAFE-T and C-SSRS pairing used here to a facility's own form. Name the instruments your NU674 site uses, and include the Unit 4 rubric with a de-identified outline. A first sample, free and back within 24-48h, applies that framework to a composite patient and keeps every answer verbatim, exactly as given. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More NU674 papers and MSN samples
- NU674 Unit 1: Outpatient Clinic Learning Objectives
- NU674 Unit 2: Observational Mental Status Exam
- NU674 Unit 3: HPI With a Seasonal Pattern
- NU674 Unit 5: Reflective Narrative
- NU674 Unit 6: Discussion Board Post
- NU674 Unit 7: Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation
- NU674 Unit 8: Formulation Paragraph
- NU674 Unit 9: Focused Follow-up Note
- NU674 Unit 10: Revised Psychiatric Evaluation
- NU673 Unit 4: YMRS Rating Scale Rationale
- NU672 Unit 4: Countertransference, Foster Care Youth
- NU671 Unit 4: Diathesis-Stress, Caregiver Depression
- NU670 Unit 4: Evidence Table, Inflammation
NU674 Unit 4 questions, answered
What is SAFE-T, and how does it relate to the C-SSRS?
SAFE-T, the Suicide Assessment Five-step Evaluation and Triage, is a SAMHSA framework: identify risk factors, identify protective factors, conduct a suicide inquiry, determine risk level and intervention, and document. It is a structure rather than a scored scale. The C-SSRS, developed by Posner and colleagues, supplies standardized questions for the inquiry step, which is why the two are often paired.
Does saving medication always count as preparatory behavior?
No. On the C-SSRS, preparatory behavior means acts toward making an attempt, and collecting pills counts when that is its purpose. Many people keep leftover medication for ordinary reasons. The assessment has to ask why the tablets were kept and record the answer as it was given, which is exactly why the sample gives the tin its own paragraph.
Can the sample stand in for my site's risk documentation?
No. Any risk assessment of a real patient belongs to the clinician who conducted it and follows your site's policy and your preceptor's direction. The sample is a composite written to show what complete documentation contains: questions asked, answers quoted, a reasoned level and actions with owners. It is a model of the written record, not guidance for a live situation.
Where can I find a free NU674 Unit 4 sample paper?
The full NU674 Unit 4 SAFE-T suicide risk assessment is shown on this page, with risk and protective factors, the Columbia inquiry in his words, the formulation, means restriction, a safety plan and documentation, plus five references. An assessment for your own case can be drafted.
How was the oxycodone handled in NU674 Unit 4?
With his agreement, his daughter collected the tin that evening and took it to a pharmacy drug take-back, and she texted the clinic when it was done. Putting time and distance between a person and a lethal method is one of the best-supported prevention strategies.