NR-548 Week 3 usually installs the systematic sweep: the psychiatric review of systems, where the interviewer leaves the presenting story and asks across every symptom domain, mood, anxiety, psychosis, obsessions, trauma, eating, substances, sleep and cognition, so that nothing outside the chief concern goes unexamined. The catalog names the mental health review of systems directly, and the arc places it here, after the episode narrative and before the observational exam. Your section may print this as NR 548 or NR548; it is the same course.
Chamberlain publishes no syllabi outside Canvas. The placement here is our teaching judgment from the course's catalog arc; your section's rubric decides what your week actually asks.
What NR-548 Week 3 asks for
A history tells the story the client came to tell; the review of systems asks about the stories they did not. This is the intake's insurance policy, the structured inquiry that finds the co-occurring anxiety behind a mood complaint or the quiet substance pattern nobody volunteered, and a course built on the psychiatric interview teaches it as its own discipline because unsystematic screening finds only what it expects.
The deliverable usually asks for a documented psychiatric review of systems from a case or practice interview, sometimes standing alone, sometimes extending the prior week's history, graded on domain coverage, question craft and the attribution of every answer. A discussion variant might ask how the psychiatric review of systems differs from its physical counterpart, or how to screen domains a client finds intrusive. Compose posts offline and submit once; the board keeps every version. Your week's rubric fixes the required domains and format, and it outranks this manual.
The scale is the specialty's throughout: 84 to pass, no C beneath it, two theory credits concentrating the grade into few deliverables. Coverage rows are mechanical to win, which makes this week's points unusually collectable for students who work from a domain list.
The NR-548 Week 3 method, step by step
Five moves that make a systematic sweep read as inquiry rather than inventory.
-
Fix the domain list before the interview
Write your sweep's map: mood and its elevations, anxiety and panic, obsessions and compulsions, trauma responses, psychotic experiences, eating and body image, substance use, sleep, and cognition. The rubric may name domains explicitly; where it does, its list is your list.
-
Enter each domain with a normalized gateway
One well-built opening question per domain, phrased so unusual experiences are askable: many people under stress notice things others do not. Record the gateway you used, because question craft is part of what this week grades.
-
Expand positives, close negatives
A positive gateway answer opens follow-ups for frequency, duration and impact; a negative one gets recorded and left. The asymmetry is the skill: expansion everywhere is an interrogation, expansion nowhere is a checkbox exercise.
-
Attribute every entry as asked-and-answered
Each domain line records what was asked about and what the client reported or denied. A domain with no entry is an unasked question, and in this section silence is indistinguishable from omission unless you write it down.
-
Cross-check the sweep against the history
Findings that surfaced in the review but not the history, or contradictions between the two, get a bridging sentence. The review's whole value is what it adds to the story; show the additions explicitly.
A structure for the review of systems write-up
Planning guides from our desk for a review in the 650 to 850 word range, not Chamberlain requirements. Expand wherever your case's positives cluster.
| Domain block | What belongs in it | Suggested length |
|---|---|---|
| Mood spectrum | Low mood, interest, energy and the elevation questions, with any positives characterized. | 90-120 words |
| Anxiety, obsessions and trauma | Worry, panic, intrusive thoughts, rituals and trauma responses, each asked and attributed. | 110-140 words |
| Psychotic experiences | Perceptual disturbances and unusual beliefs, screened with normalized gateways, answers recorded verbatim where notable. | 80-110 words |
| Eating and body image | Intake patterns, restriction, compensatory behavior and weight concern, asked at screening depth. | 60-90 words |
| Substances | Alcohol, prescribed misuse, recreational agents, caffeine and nicotine, quantified where positive. | 90-120 words |
| Sleep and cognition | Pattern, quality, daytime effect, concentration and memory complaints, as reported. | 80-110 words |
| Additions and contradictions | What the sweep added to the history and where the two accounts diverge. | 70-100 words |
Evidence and citation craft for a systematic review week
Screening question wording has a research base. The gateway phrasings that make psychotic or trauma experiences askable were developed and tested; citing where yours come from converts style into method.
Domain lists deserve a source. The set of domains a psychiatric review covers is set out in the specialty's assessment texts, and naming the standard you followed defends every inclusion and omission at once.
Under-reporting is documented; use it. Substance use and eating pathology are systematically under-disclosed at first asking, and the literature saying so justifies both your gentle phrasing and your recorded caveat that screening-level denial is not exclusion.
Report answers, never findings. The review of systems is entirely subjective data: the client denies, describes, endorses. The verb observed belongs to next territory, and a review that uses it has mixed its databases in the exact way this course spends a term untraining.
Five mistakes that cost points in a review of systems week
- The all-denies wall. Nine domains of identical denial with no positive characterized anywhere reads as a sweep never actually conducted, and graders treat it that way.
- Merging the review into the HPI. When the systematic sweep dissolves into the episode story, the row scoring structured inquiry finds no structure to score.
- Skipping the uncomfortable domains. Psychosis, trauma and eating questions get omitted precisely because they are awkward to ask, and their absence is the first thing an experienced reader checks.
- Expanding nothing. A positive answer left uncharacterized, endorsed panic with no frequency, duration or impact, is a door opened and not walked through.
- Recording conclusions instead of answers. Writing no evidence of psychosis converts an unasked question into a finding. The honest entry is what was asked and what was said, nothing more.
Before you submit the review of systems
- Every domain on your rubric's list has an asked-and-answered entry
- Each positive is characterized by frequency, duration and impact
- Gateway questions for sensitive domains are recorded as asked
- Substance quantities are numbers, not descriptions, where use is endorsed
- No entry uses observational or diagnostic language
- The additions paragraph says what the sweep changed about the picture
Systematic sweep due this week?
Send the case and rubric from Canvas. A full psychiatric review of systems with every domain attributed comes back in 24 to 48 hours, floor-checked against the 84 line, first premium sample free.