Assessment

Clinical formulation

Move from a summary of facts to a reasoned, revisable understanding of the presentation.

Summary and formulation do different work

A summary condenses the important facts. A formulation explains how those facts fit together, what remains uncertain and which explanations deserve consideration. It should be anchored in the evidence of the case rather than a generic account of a diagnosis.

Begin with the main clinical problem, its chronology and effect on functioning. Integrate relevant past episodes, physical health, treatment, substance exposure and social circumstances. State which findings support the working interpretation and which do not fit it.

Organize contributors without inventing causes

Predisposing, precipitating, perpetuating and protective factors can organize discussion across biological, psychological and social domains. They are prompts for reasoning, not proof of causation. Distinguish a reported association from an established relationship and avoid a confident causal story when the evidence is incomplete.

A differential should be discriminating. Explain why a plausible alternative is being considered and what additional information would distinguish it. An extensive list of unrelated diagnoses adds little to the formulation.

Make uncertainty useful

Identify missing records, unclear chronology or a finding that needs reassessment. Separate the clinician’s working interpretation from an established diagnosis. Prognosis should consider the individual course and circumstances, with its uncertainty stated, rather than being inferred solely from a disorder name.

A formulation is revised when new evidence arrives. In a teaching discussion, ask which fact would most change the interpretation. The website supplies an educational structure; it does not generate patient-specific diagnoses, treatment changes or safety conclusions.

For your next supervision discussion

Identify the strongest evidence for a working explanation and the strongest evidence against it. What missing information would most alter the formulation, and how would you communicate that uncertainty?

References · 3

Page numbers distinguish PDF position from the numbering visible within the supplied document.

  1. Psychiatric history takingNitin Sethi · Edition and year not established.Diagnostic formulation. PDF pages 59, 60, 61; printed pages: 55–57.Supports: Summary, interpretation, differential and prognosis.
  2. Psychiatric history takingNitin Sethi · Edition and year not established.History of present illness: factors in illness. PDF pages 9, 10; printed pages: 5–6.Supports: Organization of contributing factors.

Sources by section

  • Summary and formulation do different work: [1]
  • Organize contributors without inventing causes: [1][2]
  • Make uncertainty useful: [1]
  • For your next supervision discussion: [1]

Current-source context

NICE advises against using scales or low/medium/high categories to predict suicide or repeat self-harm, or to determine treatment and discharge. Its approach emphasizes needs and an individualized risk formulation.

NICE NG225: risk assessment and formulation ↗ · checked 2026-10-11

Reference information · Cited introduction
Last content update
2026-10-26
Clinical review
Not independently reviewed
Source jurisdiction
See individual sources
Coverage
Cited introduction
What changed in this edition

Keep MindEven close.

In Chrome or Edge, open your browser menu and look for Install or Add to home screen.

On iPhone or iPad, open this website in Safari, tap Share, then Add to Home Screen. Availability depends on your browser.

MindEven uses the same website pages and requires an internet connection.

Mira

MindEven’s AI reference assistant

Connecting…

What would you like to understand?

Explore an idea, compare concepts or find a source.