NursingDiscussion postMental health nursing

Suicide screening, prevention and the case of John

You choose two of the questions, so choose the two you can evidence. The homelessness-and-mental-illness question is the richest, and the honest answer is that causation runs both ways.

Aug 15, 2026

Editorial process

Last reviewed · August 15, 2026

Written by

Aaron Bishop

MA, Education

assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines

Reviewed by

Dr. Nathan Cole

PhD, Rhetoric & Composition

Argumentation and thesis development

On this page

Interpret the task
Assignment instructions
Deliverables
Proposed outline
Research plan
Reference shortlist
Final review

Choose two questions, and choose them well

The guidelines come first because the prompt puts them there: examine current practice guidance on suicide screening and prevention and say how it applies to John. That means naming an actual approach rather than gesturing at assessment — universal screening at every contact rather than screening only those who look unwell, a validated instrument, risk formulation rather than risk stratification into low, medium and high, safety planning as a collaborative document, lethal means counselling, and structured follow-up contact after a positive screen. The zero suicide framework is worth naming because it treats suicide prevention as a system property rather than a clinician's individual vigilance, which is exactly the point John's story makes: he passed through services repeatedly and nobody's individual attentiveness caught him. Apply each element to a point in his trajectory rather than describing the framework and then John: name the encounter at which a screen would have fired.

Then pick two questions and pick them for what you can support. The causal question is the strongest choice: does homelessness develop because of mental illness, or do people who become homeless sink into despair? The evidence supports both directions and the useful answer says so — severe mental illness raises the risk of losing housing through lost employment, strained relationships and disrupted treatment, while homelessness itself produces sleep deprivation, victimisation, substance use and chronic stress that generate or worsen psychiatric symptoms in people with no prior history. It is a feedback loop, and saying that with evidence beats picking a side. The barriers question pairs well with it: no address, no insurance, no phone for appointment reminders, no storage for medication, services that require sobriety before treating illness, and clinic hours that assume transport. Then answer the APRN role part concretely — screening at every encounter regardless of presenting complaint is the single most transferable action.

Likely learning objectives

Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.

01
Identify current suicide screening practice, including universal screening and safety planning.
02
Explain suicide prevention as a system property rather than individual vigilance.
03
Argue the bidirectional relationship between homelessness and mental illness with evidence.
04
Translate the analysis into specific advanced practice actions.

Assignment instructionsQuoted verbatim

Read the full question

Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.

Examine current practice guidelines related to suicide screening and prevention and how they could pertain to John. Choose two of the following questions to answer as part of your initial post. What events in John’s life created a “downward spiral” into homelessness and hopelessness? Which events were related to social needs, mental health needs, and medical needs, and which could health care have addressed? What were some of the barriers John faced in accessing medical care and mental health care? How does homelessness and mental illness intersect? Do you believe homelessness may develop because of a mental health issue, or do you believe those who become homeless eventually sink into psychological despair? The tipping point for many people who live at the margins of society may be things that could have been managed given the right support. How can your role as an APRN help identify, alleviate, or support those who are in need like John? In your own experience, have you encountered a homeless individual? What was that like? Do you recall what you were thinking? Please include at least three scholarly sources within your initial post. Rubric: Discussion Question Rubric Note: Scholarly resources are defined as evidence-based practice, peer-reviewed journals; textbook (do not rely solely on your textbook as a reference); and National Standard Guidelines. Review assignment instructions, as this will provide any additional requirements that are not specifically listed on the rubric. Discussion Question Rubric – 100 PointsCriteriaExemplary Exceeds ExpectationsAdvanced Meets ExpectationsIntermediate Needs ImprovementNovice InadequateTotal PointsQuality of Initial PostProvides clear examples supported by course content and references. Cites three or more references, using at least one new scholarly resource that was not provided in the course materials. All instruction requirements noted. 40 pointsComponents are accurate and thoroughly represented, with explanations and application of knowledge to include evidence-based practice, ethics, theory, and/or role. Synthesizes course content using course materials and scholarly resources to support importantpoints. Meets all requirements within the discussion instructions. Cites two references. 35 pointsComponents are accurate and mostly represented primarily with definitions and summarization. Ideas may be overstated, with minimal contribution to the subject matter. Minimal application to evidence-based practice, theory, or role development. Synthesis of course content is present but missing depth and/or development. Is missing one component/requirement of the discussion instructions. Cites one reference, or references do not clearly support content. Most instruction requirements are noted. 31 pointsAbsent application to evidence-based practice, theory, or role development. Synthesis of course content is superficial. Demonstrates incomplete understanding of content and/or inadequate preparation. Discussion: Suicide screening and prevention No references cited. Missing several instruction requirements. Submits post late. 27 points40Peer Response PostOffers both supportive and alternative viewpoints to the discussion, using two or more scholarly references per peer post. Post provides additional value to the conversation. All instruction requirements noted. 40 pointsEvidence of further synthesis of course content. Provides clarification and new information or insight related to the content of the peer’s post. Response is supported by course content and a minimum of one scholarly reference per each peer post. All instruction requirements noted. 35 pointsLacks clarification or new information. Scholarly reference supports the content in the peer post without adding new information or insight. Missing reference from one peer post. Partially followed instructions regarding number of reply posts. Most instruction requirements are noted. 31 pointsPost is primarily a summation of peer’s post without further synthesis of course content. Demonstrates incomplete understanding of content and/or inadequate preparation. Did not follow instructions regarding number of reply posts. Missing reference from peer posts. Missing several instruction requirements. Submits post late. 27 points40Frequency of DistributionInitial post and peer post(s) made on multiple separate days. All instruction requirements noted. 10 pointsInitial post and peer post(s) made on multiple separate days. 8 pointsMinimum of two post options (initial and/or peer) made on separate days. 7 pointsAll posts made on same day. Submission demonstrates inadequate preparation. No post submitted. 6 points10OrganizationWell-organized content with a clear and complex purpose statement and content argument. Writing is concise with a logical flow of ideas 5 pointsOrganized content with an informative purpose statement, supportive content, and summary statement. Argument content is developed with minimal issues in content flow. 4 pointsPoor organization and flow of ideas distract from content. Narrative is difficult to follow and frequently causes reader to reread work. Purpose statement is noted. 3 pointsIllogical flow of ideas. Prose rambles. Purpose statement is unclear or missing. Demonstrates incomplete understanding of content and/or inadequate preparation. No purpose statement. Submits assignment late. 2 points5APA, Grammar, and SpellingCorrect APA formatting with no errors. The writer correctly identifies reading audience, as demonstrated by appropriate language (avoids jargon and simplifies complex concepts appropriately). Writing is concise, in active voice, and avoids awkward transitions and overuse of conjunctions. There are no spelling, punctuation, or word-usage errors. 5 pointsCorrect and consistent APA formatting of references and cites all references used. No more than two unique APA errors. The writer demonstrates correct usage of formal English language in sentence construction. Variation in sentence structure and word usage promotes readability. There are minimal to no grammar, punctuation, or word-usage errors. 4 pointsThree to four unique APA formatting errors. The writer occasionally uses awkward sentence construction or overuses/inappropriately uses complex sentence structure. Problems with word usage (evidence of incorrect use of thesaurus) and punctuation persist, often causing some difficulties with grammar. Some words, transitional phrases, and conjunctions are overused. Multiple grammar, punctuation, or word usage errors. 3 pointsFive or more unique formatting errors or no attempt to format in APA. The writer demonstrates limited understanding of formal written language use; writing is colloquial (conforms to spoken language). The writer struggles with limited vocabulary and has difficulty conveying meaning such that only the broadest, most general messages are presented. Grammar and punctuation are consistently incorrect. Spelling errors are numerous. Discussion: Suicide screening and prevention

Turn the brief into deliverables

01
An account of current screening and prevention guidance applied to John.
02
Answers to exactly two of the listed questions.
03
Evidence supporting the position taken on causation, if that question is chosen.
04
A concrete APRN action, with APA citations.

Guidelines first, then the two chosen questions

Current screening and prevention practice

Name universal screening, a validated instrument, safety planning and follow-up.

Apply it to John

Say where in his trajectory each element would have applied.

First chosen question

Answer one listed question with evidence.

Second chosen question

Answer a second, ideally the causation or barriers question.

The APRN action

State one transferable practice change.

Sources on screening guidelines and homelessness

Recommended databases

Suicide Prevention Resource Center
PubMed Central
CINAHL
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline resources

Search sequence

1.
Look up current screening guidance, including whether universal screening is recommended in your setting.
2.
Find implementation evidence for a named framework rather than the framework's own description.
3.
Search the homelessness and mental illness literature for studies establishing direction of effect.
4.
Read on lethal means counselling, which is the intervention most often omitted from student answers.

Reference shortlist

These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.

Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.

01
Suicide Ideation Screening, Risk Assessment, and Lethal Means Counseling During Zero Suicide Implementation
Psychiatric Services · 2024
Implementation evidence for screening, risk assessment and lethal means counselling across real health systems.
02
Suicide Prevention Resource Center
Suicide Prevention Resource Center · 2025
The national resource centre's account of prevention practice, including safety planning and follow-up contact.
03
988 Lifeline
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline · 2025
The crisis service John would be referred to, and a citable description of what it provides.
04
Mental Illness and Youth-Onset Homelessness: A Retrospective Study
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2020
Evidence on the relationship between mental illness and the onset of homelessness, for the causation question.

Review before submission

Common mistakes

Answering all the listed questions shallowly instead of two properly.
Describing assessment generally without naming an instrument or a framework.
Choosing one direction of causation when the evidence supports a loop.
Listing barriers without connecting them to how services are actually organised.
Giving an APRN role answer that amounts to caring more.

Submission checklist

Have you addressed the guidelines before the chosen questions?
Did you answer exactly two questions?
Is the causal answer bidirectional and evidenced?
Are the barriers specific to how services operate?
Is the APRN action something you could do at every encounter?

Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.