| Course | NR 226 Fundamentals: Patient Care |
|---|---|
| Week | 2 |
| Paper type | Assessment data write-up |
| Length | About 1,170 words, 3 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | BSN (pre-licensure) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 226 Week 2
Assessment Data Write-Up: Sorting Thirty Findings on an 81-Year-Old Man With Pneumonia Into Five Groups, and the Two That Would Not Fit
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 226: Fundamentals: Patient Care
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Assessment Data Write-Up: Sorting Thirty Findings on an 81-Year-Old Man With Pneumonia Into Five Groups, and the Two That Would Not Fit
Everything Listed Before Anything Moves
Mr. W. is 81, a retired high school chemistry teacher, on the third day of an admission for community-acquired pneumonia. He lives with his wife, Joan, 79, who walks with a walker, in a two-story house. Details are composite. I gathered the data below from his chart, my own assessment at 0800, and what he and his wife told me. Before grouping anything, I listed every finding with its source, so that the groups would be built from the data rather than the data chosen to fit the groups.
From the patient: "I'm so tired I can't get comfortable." "My backside is sore." "I'm not hungry; food tastes like metal." "I got up to the bathroom by myself last night; I didn't want to bother anyone." "I'm fine in my head, I just can't remember what day it is in here."
From his wife: he has lost weight since the summer, his belt is two notches tighter; he usually walks to the mailbox daily; he was "a bit muddled" last night.
Measured: temperature 37.9 C; respiratory rate 24; oxygen saturation 92% on 2 L; heart rate 98; blood pressure 118/70; weight 64 kg, recorded 69 kg at a clinic visit four months ago; intake yesterday 900 mL fluids and about a quarter of each meal; urine 700 mL in 24 hours, dark yellow; Braden score 13; Morse Fall Scale 55.
Seen: coarse crackles at the right base; weak cough, producing small amounts of thick yellow sputum; a 2 by 3 centimeter open, shallow, pink area over the sacrum; dry lips and tongue; slow to rise from bed, needing one person's help; gait unsteady without the walker he does not own; oriented to person and place, not to date.
Groups Held by One Explanation
Each group below holds findings that share one explanation, and most draw on more than one source: something he said, something measured and something seen.
Table 1
Findings Grouped by a Shared Explanation
| Group | Findings | What holds them together |
|---|---|---|
| Breathing and clearing secretions | Rate 24; saturation 92% on 2 L; right basal crackles; weak cough with thick sputum; "so tired" | Infection in the right lung with a cough too weak to clear it |
| Skin over the sacrum | Open 2 by 3 cm area; "backside is sore"; Braden 13; lying still; poor intake | Pressure on skin that is poorly nourished and rarely moved |
| Eating and drinking | Quarter of each meal; 900 mL fluids; dark urine 700 mL; dry mouth; "food tastes like metal"; 5 kg lost in four months | Too little food and fluid, from illness and changed taste, on top of weight already lost |
| Moving safely | Morse 55; unsteady gait; needs one assist; got up alone at night; "didn't want to bother anyone" | Weakness plus a habit of not calling for help |
| Thinking at night | Not oriented to date; "a bit muddled" last night per wife; low-grade fever | A possible early change in thinking, most noticeable at night |
Note. Braden Scale score 13 falls in the moderate-risk band (Bergstrom et al., 1987); the unit uses a Morse score of 45 or above as high fall risk (Morse et al., 1989).
Why the Groups Are Ranked This Way
The groups are listed in the order I would want the next nurse to read them. Breathing comes first because his oxygen needs and his weak cough could change fastest, and because they explain the fatigue that runs through the other groups: a man who is short of breath and tired will not eat, drink or move. The skin comes second because it is already injured and will get worse within hours if he is not moved. Eating and drinking comes third; it is feeding both of the first two problems and will take days to correct. Moving safely is fourth, but it carries a risk that can change everything in a moment, as his unassisted trip to the bathroom last night shows, so it is written with a note at the top of the handover. Thinking at night is last because the evidence for it is thinnest, not because it matters least.
Several findings sit in more than one group on purpose. His fatigue appears under breathing and underlies moving; his poor intake appears under eating and supports the skin group. Listing a finding under the explanation it most directly supports, and noting where else it matters, is how the groups show traffic between his problems rather than presenting them as separate.
Headings in Plain Words
The group headings are plain descriptions, not nursing diagnoses. "Breathing and clearing secretions" says what the group is about; the diagnostic label comes next week. Naming the group in plain words first keeps me honest about whether the findings really belong together. If a finding only fits under a group when the heading is a diagnosis, it probably does not fit.
Measured, Kept Apart From Concluded
The table's middle column holds only findings; the right column holds my conclusion about what links them. The two are kept apart because the conclusions could be wrong while the findings stand. For example, I linked his confusion at night to a possible early delirium from infection, but the only evidence is one night's report from his wife and his not knowing the date, which many hospitalized people do not. The finding is solid; the conclusion is a question for the next assessment.
The Leftover Section
Two findings did not fit any group, and I have left them there rather than forcing them in. First, his heart rate of 98 with a blood pressure of 118/70: it could belong with breathing, since fever and low oxygen raise the heart rate, or with eating and drinking, since he is dry. I could not tell which, so it stays by itself, to be read again when he has had more fluid. Second, his wife's use of a walker and the two-story house. These do not describe him today, but they will matter at discharge, and they belong in a group that does not exist yet.
Normal Findings That Still Count
Several normal findings shaped the groups as much as the abnormal ones. His blood pressure is normal, which makes serious dehydration less likely despite the dark urine. His oxygen saturation of 92% on 2 liters is acceptable for now, which is why breathing is a group to watch rather than an emergency. And he is oriented to person and place, which is why the thinking group is labeled as possible rather than established. A write-up that recorded only the abnormal findings would have overstated all three.
References
Bergstrom, N., Braden, B. J., Laguzza, A., & Holman, V. (1987). The Braden Scale for predicting pressure sore risk. Nursing Research, 36(4), 205-210. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198707000-00002
Morse, J. M., Morse, R. M., & Tylko, S. J. (1989). Development of a scale to identify the fall-prone patient. Canadian Journal on Aging, 8(4), 366-377. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980800008576
The Chamberlain NR 226 Week 2 instructions
For Week 2 you receive or gather assessment data on a patient and organize it, which is the first step of the nursing process this course teaches. Expect the instructions to ask you to separate subjective from objective data, group related findings and explain the groupings, usually without naming nursing diagnoses yet. A short APA paper or a table with a written explanation is typical, sometimes with a risk scale cited. The assignment rewards grouping by a shared explanation rather than by body system. Keep the patient's own words in quotation marks. Findings that do not fit any group should be listed, not dropped, and normal findings belong in the write-up when they shape the picture.
How this NR 226 Week 2 example is built
The write-up opens by listing everything before moving anything: the patient's statements, his wife's account of weight loss and nighttime muddle, measured values such as a respiratory rate of 24 and a weight of 64 kilograms, and what was seen, including a 2 by 3 centimeter sacral wound. Table 1 then sets five groups, each with its findings and the one explanation that holds them together. A note gives the Braden score of 13 and the Morse score threshold. The ranking section explains why breathing comes first. Later sections keep headings in plain words, separate the measured from the concluded, hold two leftover findings and explain why normal values still count.
NR 226 Week 2 rubric: what full points look like
Rubrics for this write-up typically award points for complete and accurate data, correct separation of subjective and objective findings, logical clustering, explanation of the clusters and APA. Clustering and its explanation carry the most marks, so each group in this sample states what links its findings. Accuracy means nothing appears that was not in the source, and the patient's words stay quoted. Ranking the groups shows judgment that many rubrics reward under critical thinking. Keeping conclusions in their own column prevents the jump to a diagnosis a week early. The leftover section and the normal findings show the care graders look for when data does not sort neatly.
NR 226 Week 2 help: mistakes that cost points
The biggest loss is retyping the data packet in its original order with no grouping. Another is slipping a named problem into the data, such as reporting numbers as dehydration, which jumps ahead of the assignment. Groups built by body system put unrelated findings together. A finding placed in two groups without comment, quotes paraphrased until the patient's words disappear and entries that were not in the source all cost marks. Dropping a leftover finding hides a real question. Deleting normal findings removes context. Three to six groups is a common range. Bring us the data packet your section supplied, and an NR 226 write-up can be clustered from it.
Get a NR 226 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 2 instructions and the data packet your section supplied, and a custom write-up comes back grouped inside 24 to 48 hours, free the first time. If the assignment expects a note under each group, tell us the wording your form uses and the example will be written into it.
More NR 226 papers and pre-licensure samples
- NR 226 Week 1: Nursing Action Discussion Post
- NR 226 Week 3: Nursing Diagnosis Exercise
- NR 226 Week 4: Care Plan
- NR 226 Week 5: Concept Map
- NR 226 Week 6: Priority-setting Case
- NR 226 Week 7: Discharge Teaching Plan
- NR 226 Week 8: Reflection
- NR 228 Week 2: Diet Analysis
- NR 224 Week 2: C. diff Contact Precautions Write-Up
- NR 283 Week 2: Inflammation Write-up
- NR 222 Week 2: Wellness Self-Assessment
NR 226 Week 2 questions, answered
How many groups should the write-up have?
As many as the data honestly supports, and fewer than most first attempts produce. Three well built groups plus a leftover section beat seven groups of one item each, because a group of one is a finding with a heading on it. Where your section sets a minimum, meet it by looking again for items that share an explanation rather than by cutting a good group in half.
Can I name the problem in this assignment?
Usually not, and the grade often depends on holding back. Most versions of this week want the grouping and the reasoning behind it, with any diagnosis arriving later once the evidence has been assembled. Where the instructions do invite a tentative label, write it as tentative and keep the data section itself clean, so the two halves are still telling separate stories to the reader.
What if a finding fits in two groups?
Put it in both and say so in one line. Shared findings are common, and a note explaining why the item belongs in each place reads as understanding rather than as indecision. What costs marks is the silent duplicate, where the same reading appears twice with no comment attached, since a grader has no way of telling reasoning from carelessness.
Where can I find a free NR 226 Week 2 sample paper?
The full Week 2 data write-up for Mr. W., with thirty findings, five groups in a table and the leftover section, is reproduced below with margin notes.
Which scales appear in the NR 226 Week 2 example?
The table note gives a Braden Scale score of 13, in the moderate pressure injury risk band, and cites the Morse Fall Scale, with the unit using 45 or above as high fall risk.