This page holds a finished NR 547 Week 2 criteria mapping write-up, printed with its table intact, so the evidence column can be read the way a grader reads it. Searches like "nr 547 week 2 assignment example", "nr547 week 2 sample" and "nr 547 week 2 example" land here.
What a finished NR 547 Week 2 criteria mapping write-up looks like
The finished map is unglamorous and that is the point. A criterion sits on the left, and beside it sits the line of this patient's history that satisfies it, attributed to whoever supplied it: the patient, a parent, a partner, a chart, or the writer's own observation. Rows for criteria that are not met stay in the table, marked as not met, with a word on how that was established. Duration and functional impairment get their own rows rather than being assumed. Underneath the table sits a short paragraph that states whether the threshold is reached, adds severity and any specifier, and lists what is still unknown. Graders read down the right column first, so that column carries the grade.
How a NR 547 Week 2 example is structured
A few lines of identifying material open the document: age band, presenting complaint, and the source of the history. The criterion set is named with its edition before any row is filled, since editions differ and a reader has to know which one is in play. Rows then run in the published order rather than the order that flatters the case, which keeps a missing element visible instead of buried. Each row carries the criterion in a phrase, the evidence, and the source of that evidence. Negative rows keep their place. Severity and specifiers follow the table, then a paragraph on what could not be assessed and what would settle it. References are formatted to the style your section names, most often APA, with the manual cited once and used throughout.
Identifying material, briefly
Age band, presenting complaint and who supplied the history, kept to a few lines so the table starts on the first page rather than the third.
The criterion set, named
The manual and edition stated before any row is filled, since a reader cannot judge a mapping without knowing which published standard it maps to.
One row, one criterion
Criteria in their published order, each with the case material that satisfies it and the person or record that supplied that material.
Rows that are not met
Unmet elements left in place and marked, with a word on how absence was established, since a checked negative is part of the evidence.
The paragraph under the table
A short statement of whether the threshold is reached, with severity, specifiers and the material that could not be assessed named honestly.
Where marks go in NR 547 Week 2
The costliest error is an evidence column that paraphrases the criterion instead of quoting the case, so the row says a criterion is met because the criterion is met. It looks complete and contains nothing. Second is deleting the rows that are not met, which hides the checking the assignment exists to demonstrate. After that: evidence with no attribution, so nobody can tell whether it came from the patient or an anxious relative; duration and impairment skipped; specifiers and severity left off the interpretive paragraph; an old edition used without saying so; and a table submitted with no paragraph beneath it, which leaves the reader to reach the conclusion unaided. Paraphrase in the evidence column is the expensive one.
Get a NR 547 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 2 instructions with the case or template your section provides, and a custom example is mapped against those criteria and returned inside 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free. Whether a criterion is genuinely met in a patient of your own stays a clinical judgment, and it stays yours.
NR 547 Week 2 questions, answered
Does it have to be a table?
Many sections supply a template and that decides it. Where the format is open, a table with an interpretive paragraph beneath usually reads better than prose, because the alignment between criterion and evidence is the thing being marked and a table makes misalignment obvious. Prose can hide a gap for a paragraph at a time; a table cannot.
What belongs in the evidence column?
Material, not restatement. The patient's own words, an observed sign, a collateral report, a documented result, each with its source attached. If the entry could have been written before anyone met this person, it is a paraphrase of the criterion and earns nothing. The test is simple: could two different patients have generated the same cell? Then the cell is empty.
What if the case does not supply enough to judge a criterion?
Mark it not assessed rather than not met, and name the question that would settle it. The two are different claims and conflating them is a real error: absent means checked and found missing, unassessed means nobody looked. Vignettes often leave gaps on purpose to see whether the writer notices, so naming the gap tends to earn more than filling it with assumption.