| Course | NR 569 Differential Diagnosis in Acute Care Practicum |
|---|---|
| Week | 4 |
| Paper type | Discriminating feature brief |
| Length | About 1,120 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN, Adult-Gerontology Acute Care NP (AGACNP) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 569 Week 4
Thiamine Deficiency or a Posterior Circulation Stroke in an Unsteady Patient After Gastric Bypass: One Bedside Feature That Pulls the Pair Apart
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 569: Differential Diagnosis in Acute Care Practicum
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Thiamine Deficiency or a Posterior Circulation Stroke in an Unsteady Patient After Gastric Bypass: One Bedside Feature That Pulls the Pair Apart
Why This Pair
The patient is 47 and was admitted nine weeks after a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, having vomited for three weeks, been confused for four days and fallen twice. By the morning of hospital day 2 the list had narrowed to three entries, and two of them collide. Wernicke encephalopathy and a stroke in the posterior circulation can both produce confusion, unsteady walking and vomiting, and both can produce abnormal eye movements. The vomiting itself does not choose between them: it could be the cause of a thiamine deficiency or the result of a brainstem or cerebellar lesion. The patient's own complaint, legs that will not obey, raises both.
The two conditions call for different first moves. One needs high-dose thiamine before more glucose. The other needs urgent imaging and a stroke pathway. Treating thiamine deficiency is cheap and safe, so the brief is not deciding whether to give thiamine; it is deciding how hard to look for a stroke while doing so.
A Feature That Can Be Obtained Here
The feature this brief relies on is the symmetry of the eye movement findings, examined at the bedside with a penlight and a finger target. Specifically, I look at three things: whether nystagmus appears when the eyes hold a position to the left and to the right; whether each eye fully abducts toward the ear on that side; and whether one eye sits higher than the other when each is covered in turn.
This examination needs no equipment beyond a light, takes about three minutes and can be done on a general medical floor at any hour. That matters. A brief that relied on a finding only an MRI or a neuro-ophthalmologist can produce would describe the physiology correctly and still be useless at 3 a.m.
Thiamine deficiency tends to produce bilateral, roughly symmetric eye findings: nystagmus on gaze to both sides, often with weakness of abduction in both eyes. A lesion in the posterior circulation more often produces findings that favor one side: a skew deviation, nystagmus that is worse in one direction, or limb incoordination on one side. A review of thiamine deficiency describes nystagmus and bilateral sixth nerve weakness as among its common eye signs (Sechi & Serra, 2007).
Presence and Absence, Separately
The two directions of this feature are not worth the same, and the brief treats them separately.
If symmetric findings are present: bilateral gaze-evoked nystagmus with weakness of abduction on both sides, in a patient with weeks of vomiting after bypass surgery, moves thiamine deficiency to the top of the list. It does not remove stroke, because a midline brainstem lesion can produce bilateral signs, but it shifts the burden. In the criteria proposed for this diagnosis, eye signs are one of four features, and two are enough (Caine et al., 1997). This patient would then meet all four.
If one-sided findings are present: a skew deviation, or limb incoordination on one side, moves stroke up and calls for urgent imaging. A three-part bedside eye examination including a test for skew was more sensitive for stroke than early diffusion MRI in patients with acute vestibular symptoms (Kattah et al., 2009). That study enrolled patients with continuous vertigo, so I use it as support for the value of a skew deviation, not as a validated rule for this patient.
If eye movements are normal: the absence does very little. Fewer than one in five necropsy-proven cases of thiamine deficiency showed all three classic signs during life, and many showed none of the eye signs. Normal eyes leave both conditions on the list and push the decision to imaging.
The Feature in Time
Time works in two directions here. First, eye findings in thiamine deficiency can change quickly once thiamine is given; nystagmus and eye weakness are often the earliest signs to improve (Sechi & Serra, 2007). A repeat examination 24 to 48 hours after high-dose thiamine therefore becomes a second, independent use of the same feature: improvement points toward deficiency, while signs that stay fixed or worsen point back toward a structural lesion.
Second, the feature is only useful if it is examined before it changes. Thiamine was in last night's infusion, though at a low dose. If treatment at the full dose starts before anyone examines the eyes, the first finding may already be softened. The brief therefore asks for the examination before the next thiamine dose, and for the timing of every examination to be written beside its result.
What Each Outcome Would Change in the Orders
The brief exists to change what happens next, so each outcome is linked to an order. Symmetric findings: continue thiamine at the treatment dose, hold dextrose-containing fluids until thiamine has been given, correct the magnesium, since the enzymes that depend on thiamine also need magnesium to work, and request MRI as confirmation rather than as an emergency. One-sided findings: page the stroke team, obtain vascular imaging of the posterior circulation and note when the household last saw the patient at baseline. Normal eye movements: continue thiamine, request MRI without delay and repeat the eye examination after the next two doses.
In every outcome thiamine continues, because stopping it carries more risk than giving it to someone who turns out not to need it. What changes from one outcome to the next is the urgency of imaging and which team is called, and the brief keeps that difference visible so the order written at 16:00 matches the finding written at 15:30.
What the Examination Showed This Afternoon
I examined the patient at 15:30 on hospital day 2. On holding gaze to the left and to the right, horizontal nystagmus appeared in both directions. Neither eye fully abducted; each stopped a few millimeters short. There was no skew on alternate cover. Finger to nose was clumsy on both sides equally. These are symmetric findings.
Where the Brief Stops
This brief does not settle the diagnosis. Symmetric findings make thiamine deficiency the leading entry, but a midline brainstem lesion has not been excluded, and the brief does not argue whether MRI is still needed; that is the next document. Nor does it argue the thiamine dose, which follows the European guideline (Galvin et al., 2010) and does not depend on the result of this feature.
References
Caine, D., Halliday, G. M., Kril, J. J., & Harper, C. G. (1997). Operational criteria for the classification of chronic alcoholics: Identification of Wernicke's encephalopathy. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 62(1), 51-60. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.62.1.51
Galvin, R., Brathen, G., Ivashynka, A., Hillbom, M., Tanasescu, R., & Leone, M. A. (2010). EFNS guidelines for diagnosis, therapy and prevention of Wernicke encephalopathy. European Journal of Neurology, 17(12), 1408-1418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.03153.x
Kattah, J. C., Talkad, A. V., Wang, D. Z., Hsieh, Y.-H., & Newman-Toker, D. E. (2009). HINTS to diagnose stroke in the acute vestibular syndrome: Three-step bedside oculomotor examination more sensitive than early MRI diffusion-weighted imaging. Stroke, 40(11), 3504-3510. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.551234
Sechi, G., & Serra, A. (2007). Wernicke's encephalopathy: New clinical settings and recent advances in diagnosis and management. Lancet Neurology, 6(5), 442-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(07)70104-7
Reading the NR 569 Week 4 instructions
The Week 4 brief asks you to take two conditions that are hard to tell apart and name one feature that pulls them apart. Expect one to two pages, often on a supplied form. The pair must be one your complaint actually raises, and the brief should say why they collide. The feature has to be something obtainable where you work, not a test only a specialist center offers. Most prompts also ask what a positive finding does to the pair and, separately, what an absent finding does, since the two rarely carry equal weight. Expect to say when the feature is most useful and where the brief stops, leaving the next decision to the following week.
How this NR 569 Week 4 example is built
The example names its pair through the patient's own complaint and explains why each needs a different first move. The chosen feature is the symmetry of the eye examination: gaze holding to each side, abduction in each eye and an alternate cover test, all done with a penlight and a finger in about three minutes. Presence and absence are handled as three outcomes with sources, including a caution that the bedside eye study enrolled a different population. A section on time explains why the eyes must be examined before full-dose thiamine and again after it. Orders follow for each outcome. The afternoon findings are written with the time, and the brief stops short of arguing for imaging.
NR 569 Week 4 rubric: what full points look like
Points in this brief go first to a feature that can actually be obtained on a general floor; a finding that needs a specialist or a scanner loses the row even when the physiology is right. The asymmetry row rewards treating a positive and a negative result as different, and the sample shows that normal eyes leave both conditions on the list. A pair raised by the complaint, rather than chosen for fame, earns the opening marks. Placing the feature in time, before and after thiamine, satisfies the timing row. A brief that ends without claiming a diagnosis meets the boundary criterion, and the time beside each finding makes the work usable by the next clinician.
Common NR 569 Week 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A frequent NR 569 Week 4 error is choosing a feature that separates the pair in a textbook but cannot be obtained at the bedside at night. Another is writing two descriptions, one condition then the other, and leaving the comparison to the reader. Treating a negative finding as the mirror of a positive one loses the asymmetry marks, as does naming a whole category of findings instead of one sign. Some briefs choose a famous pair the complaint never raises. If your patient raised a different pair, send the complaint and both conditions; a brief built around one obtainable feature, with presence and absence weighed separately, can be prepared for that pair.
Get a NR 569 Week 4 example written to your instructions
Give us the Week 4 instructions, the pair if your section names one, and the form or table the brief has to sit in. A custom example built to those returns inside 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. Where the pair is left open, the desk picks two that genuinely collide on the complaint in your assignment rather than two that sound similar.
More NR 569 papers and AGACNP samples
- NR 569 Week 1: Fever and Back Pain Discussion Post
- NR 569 Week 2: Undifferentiated Presentation Write-Up
- NR 569 Week 3: Differential Narrowing Memo
- NR 569 Week 5: Diagnostic Test Rationale
- NR 569 Week 6: Reasoning Journal Entry
- NR 569 Week 7: Revised Differential Note
- NR 569 Week 8: Diagnostic Accuracy Review
- NR 567 Week 4: Septic Shock Vasopressor Write-Up
NR 569 Week 4 questions, answered
Can the feature be a laboratory value?
Often, and the brief then has to say which value and at what cut point, since a number with no threshold under it does not separate anything. What fails is naming a panel rather than a result. If the assignment restricts you to bedside findings, note that on what you send, and the comparison runs on examination and history alone.
What if the two conditions can both be present?
Say that plainly and the brief improves. A feature favoring one does not remove the other where both can run together, so the honest version states what the finding shifts and what it leaves untouched. Sections marking this row read a claim of clean separation as overreach, and a brief naming the overlap usually scores above one that pretends it away.
Ours asks for a pair we confused on the unit. Can the brief use it?
The conditions are yours to name and the write-up stays about the conditions rather than about the person, so nothing identifying needs to travel with it. Describe the collision in a couple of sentences, the complaint and what made the two look alike, and the desk builds around a constructed arrival that produces the same pair.
Where can I find a free NR 569 Week 4 sample paper?
The complete brief comparing thiamine deficiency with a posterior stroke, built on bedside eye symmetry, appears on this page with its margin notes.
Why is eye symmetry the feature chosen in this NR 569 Week 4 brief?
It can be examined with a penlight on any floor at any hour, and symmetric findings favor a deficiency while one-sided findings or a skew favor a stroke.