| Course | NR 226 Fundamentals: Patient Care |
|---|---|
| Week | 5 |
| Paper type | Concept map with written note |
| Length | About 1,130 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 5
Concept Map: A Retired Chemistry Teacher at the Center, Three Problems Around Him and the Lines Where One Problem Feeds the Next
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 226: Fundamentals: Patient Care
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Concept Map: A Retired Chemistry Teacher at the Center, Three Problems Around Him and the Lines Where One Problem Feeds the Next
A Person at the Center
The center of the map is not "pneumonia." It is Mr. W., 81, a retired high school chemistry teacher who taught for 34 years, who lives with his wife Joan in the house they have owned since 1975, walks to the mailbox every morning when well, and has said twice this week that he wants to be home in time to see his grandson's graduation next month. He is in his third day of antibiotics, tired, and quietly determined not to be a nuisance to anyone. That last sentence belongs at the center, because it shows up in two of the three problems around him.
Around the center, in ranked order clockwise from the top, sit last week's three care-plan problems, starting with his airway at the top, the sacral skin at four o'clock and his fall risk at eight. The map adds what the plan could not show: how they push on each other.
Lines That Run Between Problems
Table 1 lists every line on the map, with the direction of the arrow, what travels along it, and the finding that shows it.
Table 1
Lines Between Problems on the Concept Map
| From | To | What travels along the line | Finding that shows it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Airway clearance | Skin | Tiredness from the work of breathing means he lies still and eats little | "So tired I can't get comfortable"; quarter of each meal |
| Airway clearance | Falls | Low oxygen and fatigue make him weaker and less steady | Saturation 92% on 2 L; needs one assist to rise |
| Skin | Airway clearance | Pain from the sacral wound makes him avoid sitting up, which weakens his cough | "My backside is sore"; prefers lying flat |
| Poor intake (within skin) | Falls | Five kilograms lost and little food mean weaker legs | Weight 64 kg from 69 kg; unsteady gait |
| Center: not wanting to be a nuisance | Falls | He gets up alone rather than calling | Walked to the bathroom alone last night |
| Center: not wanting to be a nuisance | Skin | He does not ask to be turned or say when the sore hurts | Reported pain only when asked directly |
Note. Arrows run from the problem that drives to the problem it worsens. Two lines start at the center.
Why the Lines Matter More Than the Boxes
Drawing the lines changed my reading of the case. In the care plan, the airway problem looked like a respiratory issue, the skin like a skin issue and the falls like a safety issue, each with its own interventions. On the map, the line from the airway problem to the skin is the thickest, because fatigue explains both his stillness and his poor intake, and those two explain most of his skin injury. That line was invisible in the plan's three separate rows.
The lines also show which problem to watch for early warning. If his breathing worsens, the map predicts that within a day he will eat less, move less and be more likely to fall, even if nothing about his skin or his legs has changed yet. A nurse who reads the map will notice a rising respiratory rate and think about pressure areas and the call light, not only about oxygen. That kind of connection is what the map is for.
Findings Attached Where They Argue
Each finding hangs off the problem or line it supports, not off the problem where it first appeared in the assessment. His weight loss, for example, was listed under eating and drinking in the assessment, but on the map it hangs off the line from poor intake to falls, because that is where it argues most: a man who has lost 7% of his weight in four months has weaker legs. The Braden score of 13 hangs off the skin problem, and it carries its own lines, because the scale's subscales include nutrition, activity and mobility alongside moisture, sensation and friction (Bergstrom et al., 1987). A score built partly from how he eats and moves is a reminder that the skin problem cannot be treated from the skin alone.
Interventions Sitting on the Links
The most useful interventions sit on the lines, not beside the problems, because they break the link between two problems at once.
On the line from airway clearance to skin: sitting him upright in the chair twice a day. It helps his lungs expand and his cough work, and it takes weight off his sacrum. One action, two problems.
On the line from skin back to airway clearance: giving his pain medicine 30 minutes before he sits up, so the wound does not stop him from sitting upright to cough.
On both lines from the center: the sentence, repeated by every nurse, "Please call us every time. It is not a bother." It works on falls and on skin, because a man who calls to go to the bathroom can also be turned and asked about his pain on the same visit.
On the line from poor intake to falls: small meals offered after rest, and the dietitian's suggestions for food that tastes better to him. More food, over days, means stronger legs, which is the slowest link on the map to break.
A Note That Argues, Briefly
The map's written note makes one argument. The three problems are not three separate projects. They share a single engine, his fatigue, and a single habit, his reluctance to ask for help. Treating the airway problem well reduces fatigue, which makes him eat and move more, which helps the skin and the falls. Addressing his reluctance, by making calling feel expected, protects him on two fronts. If the plan could do only two things well today, the map suggests they should be sitting him up to breathe and cough, and making sure he calls. Everything else on the map is helped by those two.
What the Map Leaves Off
The map leaves off his wife's mobility and the two-story house, which will matter at discharge but do not push on today's problems. It also leaves off his possible confusion at night, which would sit at the center if it is confirmed, because it would affect whether he can call for help at all. The night nurse's screening will decide whether the next version of the map needs a fourth problem, and whether the line from the center to falls becomes stronger.
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
NR 226 Week 5 instructions, in plain terms
This week's deliverable is a map of one patient's care, usually the patient from your care plan, plus a written note. Sections typically want the patient at the center, the priority problems around them, supporting data, interventions and the relationships among problems shown with lines or arrows. Some sections accept a drawn map, others a table or digital diagram, and many ask for a brief APA narrative with a source. The map should show something a care plan cannot: how one problem worsens another. Arrows need a direction. Interventions are most useful when placed where they break a link. Check which file types your course accepts before submitting.
How the NR 226 Week 5 example is put together
The paper starts with the person at the center: 34 years of teaching, the house owned since 1975 and the daily walk to the mailbox. The three problems sit around him, airway at the top. Table 1 lists every line, its direction, what travels along it and the finding that shows it, such as fatigue from breathing leading to lying still and eating little. A section explains how the lines changed the writer's reading and which problem gives early warning. Findings are reattached where they argue. Interventions are placed on links, like sitting upright in the chair, which helps his lungs and his sacrum. The note argues that fatigue drives all three.
Where the points sit in the NR 226 Week 5 rubric
Concept map rubrics generally award points for a patient-centered structure, accurate supporting data, relationships between problems, interventions, the written explanation and format. Relationships carry the most weight, so every line in this map has a direction and a finding. Centering the person rather than the disease meets the patient-centered criterion directly. Data are graded on accuracy and placement, which is why the weight loss hangs off the line it supports. Interventions earn more when they sit on links, since one action addressing two problems shows integration. The written note scores when it makes an argument instead of reading the picture aloud. A file the course can open is a basic requirement.
NR 226 Week 5 help from the desk
The submission that loses most is a care plan with rounded corners: the same problems in the same order and no lines between them. Putting the disease at the center forces every problem to hang off it and hides the links. Lines without arrows never say which problem does the damage. Findings duplicated without comment, interventions attached to nothing, boxes holding single words and a note that only describes the map all cost points. If your problems seem unrelated, look for a shared cause such as fatigue or pain. Using the Week 4 patient is usually allowed. Tell us which patient and problems you are mapping, and a map with a note can be built for them.
Get a NR 226 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 5 instructions, any tool or file type your section names, and the plan you are redrawing. A custom map comes back in that format inside 24 to 48 hours, with the accompanying note where one is required. The first one is free. Tell us if a shape count or a fixed template applies.
More NR 226 papers and pre-licensure samples
- NR 226 Week 1: Nursing Action Discussion Post
- NR 226 Week 2: Assessment Data Clustering Write-Up
- NR 226 Week 3: Nursing Diagnosis Statements
- NR 226 Week 4: Three Problem Nursing Care Plan
- NR 226 Week 6: Priority-setting Case
- NR 226 Week 7: Discharge Teaching Plan
- NR 226 Week 8: Reflection
- NR 228 Week 5: Therapeutic Diet Write-up
- NR 224 Week 5: Fall Safety Scenario Response
- NR 283 Week 5: Laboratory Value Interpretation
- NR 222 Week 5: Shift Worker Sleep Teaching Plan
NR 226 Week 5 questions, answered
How is this different from the care plan I already submitted?
The information is the same and the claims are not. A grid can hold a problem whose cause has nothing to do with any other row, and nobody notices. A map has to show the influences, so a plan whose problems never touch each other becomes visibly thin the moment it is drawn. That visibility is what this week is marking.
What if my problems really are unrelated?
Say so in the note and show what you looked for. Two problems in one person are usually connected by something, often a shared cause or a shared limitation, and a writer who searched and found nothing has done more thinking than one who drew four separate branches without asking. Graders reward the search wherever they can see that it happened.
Can I use the same patient as Week 4?
Most sections expect exactly that, and the map is easier to defend when you do, since the findings have already been fought over once. Check whether yours supplies a fresh case instead. Where the patient carries forward, any correction you made after feedback should appear in the drawing, because a map contradicting the plan behind it raises a question you will have to answer.
Where can I find a free NR 226 Week 5 sample paper?
The complete Week 5 concept map for Mr. W., with the table of directed lines, interventions on the links and the written note, is printed further down this page.
Why is the patient, not pneumonia, at the center of the NR 226 Week 5 map?
Centering the disease forces every problem to hang off it and hides how problems affect each other; centering Mr. W. lets the lines show fatigue and reluctance to call driving all three.