NU 671 Unit 7 collateral information summary example

Clinical Decision-Making in Psychiatric Mental Health Herzing University Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This NU 671 Unit 7 collateral information summary example gathers four sources on Mr. K., keeps them separate and shows where their accounts diverge. Herzing NU 671 asks PMHNP students to use collateral information with consent and care, and this sample records the sources and the consent first. His wife, interviewed in person, dates the change to about 18 months ago. His daughter, by telephone, describes his withdrawal from her children. Primary care records show hypertension treated with metoprolol and the last thyroid test. Pharmacy fill history shows gaps in sertraline refills. A section on divergence compares onset, alcohol use and medication adherence across sources. The collateral changes three conclusions, including that the antidepressant trial should not yet be called a failure, since it was shorter at full dose than reported. About 700 words.

CourseNU 671 Clinical Decision-Making in Psychiatric Mental Health
UnitUnit 7
Paper typeCollateral information summary
LengthAbout 840 words, 6 pages
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolHerzing University
ProgramMSN Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse Practitioner
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for NU 671 Unit 7

1

Collateral Information Summary for Mr. K.: Four Sources, Kept Separate, and Where Their Accounts Diverge

Student Name

Department of Nursing, Herzing University

NU 671: Clinical Decision-Making in Psychiatric Mental Health

Instructor Name

March 5, 2026

What this page is doingThe title promises that the sources stay separate and that disagreements are shown. Blending accounts into one smooth history hides exactly the discrepancies that most often change a diagnosis.
2

Collateral Information Summary for Mr. K.: Four Sources, Kept Separate, and Where Their Accounts Diverge

Sources and Consent

Mr. K., whose evaluation is under way for apathy, fatigue, cognitive complaints, and low mood, gave written consent to contact his wife and adult daughter and to obtain records from his primary care clinic and pharmacy. Collateral information is a standard part of psychiatric evaluation, particularly when cognition or substance use may affect a person's own account (American Psychiatric Association, 2016). Each source is summarized in its own section, with every statement attributed and dated. Nothing is merged across sources.

Source 1: His Wife, Interviewed in Person on February 24

She has been married to him for 31 years and sees him daily. She dates the change to "about a year and a half ago, the summer before last," when he stopped going fishing with his brother-in-law. She describes him as "not sad exactly, more like the light went out." He falls asleep in his chair every evening by 8. His snoring has been loud for "at least five years" and she has watched him stop breathing, "sometimes for what feels like half a minute." She reports that he drinks "three or four beers every night, more on the weekend." She has noticed that he forgets conversations and repeats questions. When asked specifically, she said he has not become rude, impulsive, or careless with money, has not lost interest in personal hygiene beyond shaving less, and has not shown new unusual food preferences. She completed the 16-item short form of the informant questionnaire known as the IQCODE (Jorm, 1994); her ratings averaged 3.4, where 3 represents no change over ten years and higher scores represent decline.

Source 2: His Daughter, by Telephone on February 26

She moved back into her parents' home with her two children 18 months ago. She describes her father as "tired all the time" and "not himself." She reports that he forgot her son's baseball game twice and told her the same story about work twice in one evening in January. She has not noticed changes in his drinking, but said, "I don't really watch." She described the household as crowded and noisy, and said her father has been getting up at 5 a.m. to have quiet time before the children wake.

Source 3: Primary Care Records, Received February 20

Hypertension diagnosed eight years ago, treated with metoprolol throughout. Last thyroid test before this evaluation was in 2019, within the reference range. Weight 208 pounds in 2023, 226 pounds in 2025. Sertraline was started at 50 mg on September 20, 2025, increased to 100 mg on November 1, and to 150 mg on December 13. No documented discussion of sleep, snoring, or alcohol.

Source 4: Pharmacy Fill History, Received February 22

Metoprolol filled every 30 days without gaps. Sertraline filled at each dose, with gaps between the expected and actual refill dates of 4 days in October, 7 days in December, and 8 days in January, about 19 days without medication over the 124 days from starting sertraline to the intake visit, or about 85% of days covered. Pharmacy refill records are a validated, if indirect, measure of medication adherence (Steiner & Prochazka, 1997).

Where the Accounts Diverge

Onset: Mr. K. said the change began "about a year ago"; his wife dates it to about 18 months ago. The difference matters because the earlier date is before his daughter moved in and before his promotion, weakening those events as the trigger.

Alcohol: Mr. K. reported about two beers most nights and six on Saturdays, about 16 a week; his wife reports three or four every night and more on weekends, which would be roughly 25 or more a week. His daughter does not know. The wife sees him daily and has no apparent reason to exaggerate, but she may also be estimating. The discrepancy is recorded rather than resolved, and the higher estimate strengthens alcohol as a contributor.

Treatment adequacy: the referral described four months of sertraline without response. The records show only about six weeks at the 150 mg dose by the time of the intake visit, preceded by lower doses, and about 15% of days without medication. The trial was shorter and less complete than the referral suggested.

Personality and behavior: his wife's specific denial of disinhibition, loss of social awareness, and new food preferences is useful negative information, since those changes would raise concern for frontotemporal degeneration.

What this page is doingDivergences are set side by side with their sources, and the summary says which way each one moves the reasoning. Resolving them silently in favor of the most convenient account would discard the information the collateral was collected to provide.
3

What the Collateral Changes

Three conclusions change. The antidepressant trial should not yet be called a failure; it was shorter at full dose and less consistent than reported. Alcohol use may be substantially higher than he reported, which strengthens its role and makes the brief intervention a priority. And the negative findings on behavior and personality lower the concern for frontotemporal degeneration, while the long history of loud snoring with observed pauses supports the sleep apnea diagnosis as long-standing. These points were discussed with Mr. K., who said that his wife was probably right about the beer.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2016). The American Psychiatric Association practice guidelines for the psychiatric evaluation of adults (3rd ed.). American Psychiatric Association. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890426760

Jorm, A. F. (1994). A short form of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE): Development and cross-validation. Psychological Medicine, 24(1), 145-153. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329170002691X

Steiner, J. F., & Prochazka, A. V. (1997). The assessment of refill compliance using pharmacy records: Methods, validity, and applications. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50(1), 105-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00268-5

Reading the NU 671 Unit 7 instructions

Unit 7 asks you to gather and summarize collateral information about a patient from sources other than the patient. Expect to document consent, record each source separately with date and method, identify where accounts agree and diverge and explain what the collateral changes. Many versions ask when collateral can be gathered without consent, such as in emergencies. Check which sources your section expects; family, prior records and pharmacy data are common. Keep sources separate so the reader can judge each one. Divergence is often the most informative part, as differences in dates or amounts can change the clinical picture. Pharmacy fill data is objective evidence of adherence that patients and families may not report accurately.

Inside the NU 671 Unit 7 example

The summary opens with sources and consent, stating what the patient agreed to. Each source has its own section with date, method and content, so accounts are not blended. The wife's account gives onset and daily behavior. The daughter adds a view from the household. Primary care records supply medical history and prior tests. Pharmacy data shows refill gaps. The divergence section compares the sources on three points and explains why each difference matters, such as an earlier onset that changes the timeline relative to the sleep problems. The final section names three conclusions the collateral changes. The structure lets a reader trace every claim to its source.

Reading the NU 671 Unit 7 rubric

Herzing's rubric for a collateral summary typically covers consent and ethics, the range of sources, separation of sources, analysis of agreement and divergence, clinical impact and writing. Consent is checked first, since collateral gathered without permission outside an emergency is a serious problem. Source range points reward family, records and objective data such as pharmacy fills. Separation criteria look for each source recorded on its own with date and method. Divergence analysis is where top papers stand out, explaining why differences matter. Clinical impact earns credit when the collateral changes conclusions. The APA practice guideline and Steiner and Prochazka's refill adherence review belong in the APA 7 list.

NU 671 Unit 7 help: mistakes that cost points

The commonest flaw in a Unit 7 collateral summary is blending sources into one narrative, so the reader cannot tell who said what. Another frequent problem is missing consent documentation. Students often use only family interviews and skip records and pharmacy data. Divergence is smoothed over. The summary does not say what changed. Confidentiality is ignored when relatives share sensitive information. Finally, treat divergence as information, because graders reward summaries that use differences between accounts to refine the timeline and adherence picture rather than picking one version as correct. Records requests sometimes go out without the patient's signed release, which graders treat as a serious lapse. A table that sets each source beside onset, alcohol use and adherence helps the reader see the divergence at a glance.

Get a NU 671 Unit 7 example written to your instructions

Send the Unit 7 instructions and the rubric from your NU 671 classroom, with the sources the summary should draw on. We write a custom example documenting consent ahead of any account, holding one source to a section, attributing and dating each statement, preserving the divergences, and weighing reliability afterward. First custom sample free, returned inside 24 to 48 hours.

More NU 671 papers and PMHNP samples

NU 671 Unit 7 questions, answered

When can collateral be gathered at all?

That depends on consent, the setting and the law where you practice, and it is not a question an example can answer for you. Document what the person permitted, note where a recognized exception applied and on what basis, and verify the rules with your program, your site and your board. An assignment built on a composite avoids the problem entirely.

Which sources are worth pursuing?

Those with access to the period in question. A relative sharing a household observes what a distant sibling cannot, prior records establish a timeline nobody recalls accurately, and a pharmacy history answers questions self-report answers poorly. Rank by access rather than by closeness of relationship, and say what each source was actually in a position to see.

What if the accounts flatly contradict each other?

Keep both and examine the contradiction. Different observers watch different periods, hold different stakes, and use different language for one behavior, and any of those produces genuine disagreement between honest accounts. A summary explaining why two people describe a situation differently demonstrates more than one silently adopting whichever version fits the emerging picture.

Where can I find a free NU 671 Unit 7 sample paper?

The full NU 671 Unit 7 collateral summary is on this page free of charge, four sources kept separate with the divergence analysis. A summary for another patient or set of sources can be written on request.

Can a PMHNP contact a patient's family without consent?

Generally only with the patient's consent, except in emergencies where safety is at risk. This sample documents written consent before contacting Mr. K.'s wife and daughter and requesting his primary care and pharmacy records.