PA 520 Week 2 Spirometry Interpretation Example

Course	PA 520 Comprehensive Clinical Module Pulmonology
Week	2
Paper type	Spirometry interpretation
Length	About 700 words, 5 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Chamberlain University
Program	Master of Physician Assistant Studies (MPAS)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for PA 520 Week 2

Spirometry Interpretation for a 66-Year-Old Dairy Farmer: Three Acceptable Efforts, an FVC at 64 Percent of a Race-Neutral Predicted Value, a Preserved Ratio and a Bronchodilator Change of 60 mL

Student Name

Chamberlain University

PA 520: Comprehensive Clinical Module Pulmonology

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title puts effort quality, the reference set and the bronchodilator change beside the main figures, which is the order the week wants them read.

Spirometry Interpretation for a 66-Year-Old Dairy Farmer: Three Acceptable Efforts, an FVC at 64 Percent of a Race-Neutral Predicted Value, a Preserved Ratio and a Bronchodilator Change of 60 mL

Effort Quality Before Figures

Test date: two weeks after the clinic visit. Equipment: calibrated flow sensor spirometer, volume calibration checked that morning with a 3-liter syringe. L.B. was seated, wore a nose clip and had not used any inhaler; no bronchodilator is prescribed. Five forced efforts were made before the bronchodilator. Three were acceptable: each began without hesitation, showed no cough in the first second and reached a plateau, with expiratory times of 8 to 10 seconds. The two largest forced vital capacity values differed by 90 mL and the two largest FEV1 values by 70 mL, both within the 150 mL repeatability limit of the 2019 standard (Graham et al., 2019). The session meets the standard's top grade for both values.

What this page is doingRecording acceptability and repeatability before any figure tells the reader the numbers that follow can be trusted as true maximal efforts.

Units on Every Value

Table 1

Spirometry Before and After 400 mcg of Albuterol

Measure	Pre-bronchodilator	Percent predicted	z-score	Post-bronchodilator	Change
FEV1	2.14 L	68%	minus 2.2	2.20 L	plus 0.06 L (3%)
FVC	2.71 L	64%	minus 2.6	2.76 L	plus 0.05 L (2%)
FEV1/FVC	0.79	not applicable	plus 0.4	0.80	plus 0.01

Note. Note. Predicted values and z-scores from the Global Lung Function Initiative race-neutral equations for age 66, height 178 cm, male. Lower limit of normal for the ratio is 0.66; z-scores below minus 1.645 fall below the lower limit of normal.

Percent Predicted Needs Its Reference Set

The percentages above come from the race-neutral Global Lung Function Initiative equations, which the lung function societies now recommend in place of separate equations by race (Bowerman et al., 2023). Using another set could move each percentage by several points, so the reference set is written on the report beside the values. The z-scores tell the same story more precisely than the percentages: both FEV1 and FVC fall below the lower limit of normal, while the ratio sits slightly above average for L.B.'s age.

Pattern, Not Condition

The pattern is a reduced FVC with a preserved FEV1/FVC ratio. Under the current interpretive standard, this pattern is consistent with restriction but does not establish it, because a low FVC can also come from air trapping, poor effort or an obese chest wall, and spirometry cannot measure total lung capacity (Stanojevic et al., 2022). The FEV1 is low because the FVC is low, not because airflow is obstructed; the ratio confirms that air leaves the lungs at a normal rate relative to the volume available.

What this page is doingNaming the pattern rather than a disease keeps the report within what spirometry can show and leaves the diagnosis to the tests that can make it.

Reporting a Bronchodilator Change

After 400 mcg of albuterol and a 15-minute wait, FEV1 rose by 60 mL, or 3 percent, and FVC by 50 mL, or 2 percent. The interpretive standard now defines a significant bronchodilator response as a change of more than 10 percent of the predicted value for FEV1 or FVC (Stanojevic et al., 2022). L.B.'s change, expressed that way, is about 2 percent of predicted for FEV1 and under 2 percent for FVC. The response is not significant, which argues against asthma as the main explanation, although it does not exclude it.

What Is Missing From This Report

The report has no lung volumes and no diffusing capacity, and those two measurements are what separate a true restrictive defect, with a low total lung capacity, from other causes of a low FVC. The flow-volume loop shape is described in the separate interpretation memo. The report also does not include the history that matters most, L.B.'s daily work with stored hay in an enclosed barn, which is recorded in the clinical note rather than on the test sheet.

Summary Line for the Chart

Acceptable and repeatable spirometry. FEV1 and FVC below the lower limit of normal with a preserved ratio, consistent with a possible restrictive pattern. No significant bronchodilator response. Lung volumes and diffusing capacity recommended.

What this page is doingA one-line summary that repeats the pattern and names the next tests is what a busy reader will actually carry forward from the report.

References

Bowerman, C., Bhakta, N. R., Brazzale, D., Cooper, B. R., Cooper, J., Gochicoa-Rangel, L., Haynes, J., Kaminsky, D. A., Lan, L. T. T., Masekela, R., McCormack, M. C., Steenbruggen, I., & Stanojevic, S. (2023). A race-neutral approach to the interpretation of lung function measurements. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 207(6), 768-774. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202205-0963OC

Graham, B. L., Steenbruggen, I., Miller, M. R., Barjaktarevic, I. Z., Cooper, B. G., Hall, G. L., Hallstrand, T. S., Kaminsky, D. A., McCarthy, K., McCormack, M. C., Oropez, C. E., Rosenfeld, M., Stanojevic, S., Swanney, M. P., & Thompson, B. R. (2019). Standardization of spirometry 2019 update: An official American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society technical statement. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 200(8), e70-e88. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201908-1590ST

Stanojevic, S., Kaminsky, D. A., Miller, M. R., Thompson, B., Aliverti, A., Barjaktarevic, I., Cooper, B. G., Culver, B., Derom, E., Hall, G. L., Hallstrand, T. S., Leuppi, J. D., MacIntyre, N., McCormack, M., Rosenfeld, M., & Swenson, E. R. (2022). ERS/ATS technical standard on interpretive strategies for routine lung function tests. European Respiratory Journal, 60(1), Article 2101499. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01499-2021

Reading the PA 520 Week 2 instructions

Week two asks you to interpret a spirometry report. Start with effort quality: how many efforts were made, how many were acceptable, whether the two best agreed within the repeatability limit and whether exhalation reached a plateau. Then give the figures in a labeled block with units on every value: FEV1 and FVC in liters, their ratio and percent predicted, along with z-scores where available. Name the reference equations that produced the predicted values. If post-bronchodilator values are supplied, put them in a second column with the change in absolute and relative terms. Describe the pattern the numbers show rather than naming a disease, and explain what spirometry cannot tell you. State what further tests would complete the picture. Cite the current standards for performing and interpreting spirometry.

Inside the PA 520 Week 2 example

The paper opens with calibration, seated position, nose clip and five efforts, three acceptable with FVC and FEV1 differences of 90 and 70 mL, citing the 2019 standard. Table 1 lists FEV1 2.14 L, FVC 2.71 L and a ratio of 0.79 with percent predicted, z-scores, post-albuterol values and changes. A section explains the GLI race-neutral equations, cites Bowerman and colleagues and shows why the z-scores place both volumes below the lower limit while the ratio is normal. The pattern section calls it possible restriction under the 2022 interpretive standard and lists other reasons for a low FVC. The bronchodilator change is converted to a share of predicted and judged not significant. A section lists what the report lacks, including lung volumes and diffusing capacity, and the chart summary closes it.

Reading the PA 520 Week 2 grading rubric

The rubric for this interpretation starts with effort. Reading numbers from a session without first stating acceptability and repeatability loses the largest share, since unreliable efforts can mimic disease. Faculty next check units and the reference set: values without units or percentages without named equations are marked down. Credit grows when the pattern is named correctly, with obstruction defined by a ratio below the lower limit and a low FVC with a normal ratio described as possible restriction. Naming a disease from spirometry alone is a significant deduction. The bronchodilator response is graded on whether it uses the current definition. Smaller marks go to stating the tests that would complete the assessment and to a concise summary line. Standards should be cited in APA style.

Common PA 520 Week 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Most lost points on spirometry reports come from skipping effort quality or jumping from a number straight to a diagnosis. Send the report from your case, including any pre- and post-bronchodilator values, and the custom sample will begin with acceptability and repeatability, then lay out every value with its unit, percent predicted and z-score. It names the reference equations used and explains the pattern in the terms of the current interpretive standard. If your course still uses an older bronchodilator definition, the sample notes both. A section lists what spirometry cannot show for your patient and the tests that would. Check the predicted values against the reference set your laboratory reports before using any figure from the model.

Get a PA-520 Week 2 example written to your instructions

Send the assignment text and the values your classroom handed out, along with any reference set or template it named, and a worked example built on those exact figures comes back inside 24-48h, the first one free. Nothing is assumed about equipment or equations that your own section did not state.

More PA 520 papers and MPAS samples

PA 520 Week 2 questions, answered

Should the ratio be written as a decimal or as a percentage?

Either, so long as the form is declared once and then used consistently. A ratio written as 0.62 and discussed as 62 two paragraphs later reads as two different figures to anybody skimming for internal consistency, and that inconsistency is easier to spot than a reasoning error. Declare the form beside its first appearance and keep it.

Only one effort is supplied. Can an interpretation still be written?

Yes, and the missing efforts become part of the answer. The piece states that acceptability and repeatability cannot be established from a single trace, treats the figures given as provisional, and names what a second and third effort would settle. Marks tend to follow the writer who says this openly rather than the one who proceeds without mentioning it.

How much physiology should the interpretation carry?

Very little. The reading is graded on what was measured and what those figures support, so mechanism appears only where it explains a limit, such as why an effort that ends early understates capacity. Extended physiology usually crowds out the labeling and the conditions, and those are where the rubric rows on this assignment actually sit.

Where can I find a free PA 520 Week 2 sample paper?

The full PA 520 Week 2 spirometry interpretation is on this page, with effort quality first, a race-neutral reference set and a reduced FVC with a preserved ratio.

Why does the PA 520 Week 2 sample not call the result restrictive lung disease?

Spirometry cannot measure total lung capacity, so a low FVC with a normal ratio is reported as a possible restrictive pattern until lung volumes confirm it.