Beside a composite man's forearm rash, this MN566 Unit 7 plan lays out the screening and vaccines due at 51, each linked to a named, dated recommendation and a stated action. Searches like "mn 566 unit 7 assignment example", "mn566 unit 7 sample" and "mn566 unit 7 example" land here.
Screening and Prevention Plan for a 51-Year-Old Man Seen for Contact Dermatitis After Four Years Away
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MN566: NP I - Introduction to Primary Care for the Nurse Practitioner
Unit 7 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Composite patient written as a model document. Orders are bracketed composites; recommendations should be checked against the current editions before use.
The Presenting Problem
A composite 51-year-old man, a surveyor's assistant, has an itchy, red, raised rash on the inside of his right forearm for five days, in a band matching the cuff of new work gloves. No blistering beyond the band, no fever, no rash elsewhere. Assessment: allergic contact dermatitis, likely from the glove material. Plan: stop wearing the gloves, a [composite topical corticosteroid order] for up to two weeks, and return if it spreads or does not improve in that time. He agreed to bring the gloves to the next visit so the material can be identified.
Background for Prevention
Last seen four years ago. Former smoker, 25 pack-years, quit eight years ago. BMI 29. Blood pressure today 134/82. No diabetes or cardiovascular disease known. No prior colon cancer screening. Never tested for hepatitis C or HIV. Last tetanus vaccine unknown. No zoster vaccine.
Why the Acute and Preventive Parts Are Separate
The rash is documented and managed first, with its own assessment, plan and follow-up, so that nothing in the prevention section appears to have displaced it. He came for the rash, and if the visit had ended after that block, it would still be a complete visit. The prevention work is additional. It is justified here because he has not been seen in four years, and a visit for a minor problem may be the only contact the practice has with him this year. He was asked at the start whether he had time to talk about screening, and he agreed to stay an extra fifteen minutes.
The table is ordered by potential benefit rather than alphabetically, so that if time runs short, the items most likely to prevent serious illness or death are addressed first. Cancer screening and cardiovascular risk come first. Each row names the recommending body and year, because recommendations change; the editions used here were checked on the day of the visit, and the plan should be checked again before the next one.
The Table, Ordered by Potential Benefit
Colorectal cancer screening. USPSTF 2021, adults 45 to 75; grade A for ages 50 to 75 (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2021a). Applied: 51, never screened. Status: due. Action: he chose a stool-based test after discussing colonoscopy; kit given today.
Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT. USPSTF 2021, adults 50 to 80 with a history of at least 20 pack-years, still smoking or having stopped no more than 15 years ago; grade B (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2021c). Applied: 51, 25 pack-years, quit eight years ago; meets all three criteria. Status: due. Action: shared decision-making visit held today; referral placed.
Blood pressure. USPSTF 2021, adults 18 and older, with confirmation outside the office before diagnosis; grade A (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2021b). Applied: 134/82 today. Status: done today, elevated. Action: home readings for one week and a return visit.
Lipids and statin decision. USPSTF 2022, statin for adults 40 to 75 with one or more risk factors and a 10-year risk of 10 percent or more, grade B; 7.5 to less than 10 percent, grade C (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2022). Applied: needs a lipid panel to calculate risk. Status: due. Action: fasting lipids ordered.
Prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. USPSTF 2021, adults 35 to 70 with overweight or obesity; grade B (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2021d). Applied: 51, BMI 29. Status: due. Action: A1C ordered.
Hepatitis C. USPSTF 2020, adults 18 to 79, once; grade B (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2020). Applied: never tested. Status: due. Action: antibody test ordered.
HIV. USPSTF 2019, adolescents and adults 15 to 65; grade A (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2019). Applied: never tested. Status: declined. He said he has been with one partner for 20 years and saw no need; the recommendation and the one-time nature of the test were explained, and he may reconsider at the next visit.
Recombinant zoster vaccine. ACIP 2018, two doses for adults 50 and older (Dooling et al., 2018). Applied: 51, none received. Status: due. Action: first dose given today; second dose in two to six months.
Tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis. Td or Tdap every 10 years. Applied: last dose unknown. Status: due. Action: Tdap given today.
Prostate cancer. USPSTF 2018, individual decision for men 55 to 69, grade C (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2018). Applied: at 51 he is below that range, so screening is not offered routinely. He asked about it, and the conversation was recorded as a shared decision: he chose to revisit it at 55. Status: declined for now.
Follow-Up
Labs and referrals are ordered today, results are discussed at a return visit in one month, and the items that recur are marked so they are not rediscovered four years from now. Recurring items: blood pressure yearly, lung CT yearly while he remains eligible, stool test yearly if negative, A1C every three years if normal, lipids every five years if his risk stays low. Tdap is noted for 10 years from today. The HIV test and prostate conversation are flagged for the next visit.
References
Dooling, K. L., Guo, A., Patel, M., Lee, G. M., Moore, K., Belongia, E. A., & Harpaz, R. (2018). Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for use of herpes zoster vaccines. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 67(3), 103-108. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6703a5
US Preventive Services Task Force. (2018). Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 319(18), 1901-1913. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.3710
US Preventive Services Task Force. (2019). Screening for HIV infection: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 321(23), 2326-2336. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.6587
US Preventive Services Task Force. (2020). Screening for hepatitis C virus infection in adolescents and adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 323(10), 970-975. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.1123
US Preventive Services Task Force. (2021a). Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 325(19), 1965-1977. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.6238
US Preventive Services Task Force. (2021b). Screening for hypertension in adults: US Preventive Services Task Force reaffirmation recommendation statement. JAMA, 325(16), 1650-1656. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.4987
US Preventive Services Task Force. (2021c). Screening for lung cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 325(10), 962-970. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.1117
US Preventive Services Task Force. (2021d). Screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 326(8), 736-743. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.12531
US Preventive Services Task Force. (2022). Statin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 328(8), 746-753. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.13044
How this MN566 Unit 7 example is structured
The plan separates the acute from the preventive on purpose. The rash is documented and managed in a short opening block, with its own assessment and follow-up, so that nothing in the prevention section appears to have displaced it. The table is ordered by potential benefit rather than alphabetically, with cancer screening and cardiovascular risk first. Each row names the recommending body, the year, the population it covers and the grade, then applies those criteria to this patient in one line. The status column keeps the table from reading as a wish list: some items are ordered today, some are scheduled, and one is declined with the conversation recorded. A final paragraph orders the follow-up: labs and referrals now, a return visit to discuss results in one month, and a note on which items recur annually.
Get an MN566 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 7 patient scenario, the prevention table layout your MN566 instructor wants, and its rubric. Your plan comes back free the first time, within 24-48h, each recommendation dated and graded, its criteria applied to the composite patient, and the rash or other presenting problem documented in full beside the prevention work. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
MN566 Unit 7 questions, answered
Which sources should a screening plan cite?
The USPSTF for screening, with the year of each current recommendation, and the CDC's adult immunization schedule for vaccines. Specialty society guidelines can appear where they differ, but say so and explain which one you followed. Avoid citing a textbook table for eligibility ages, since those change and graders check the current statement.
Should every recommended screening be ordered at the same visit?
Not necessarily. The plan can order some items today, schedule others and record discussion of the rest. What matters is that each due item appears with a status. A visit for an acute problem may not allow a long counseling conversation, so deferring a shared decision to a dedicated visit is reasonable if the plan says when it will happen.
What if the patient's history is incomplete?
Record what is unknown and how it will be obtained. Missing vaccination records, an uncertain smoking history or unknown family history each change eligibility, so the plan should name the gap and the step to close it, such as requesting records or asking at the follow-up visit. A plan built on assumed history can recommend the wrong service.