| Course | NU140 Nursing Fundamentals |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Safety analysis |
| Length | About 860 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BSN (prelicensure) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU140 Unit 4
A Full Bladder and a Late Dose at 2 a.m.: A Safety Analysis Pairing Each Fall Hazard for a Composite 81-Year-Old Man With Parkinson Disease on a Medical Unit With a Charted Countermeasure, Restraint-Free
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU140: Nursing Fundamentals
Unit 4 Safety Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The patient is composite; scores and times are bracketed where illustrative, and the analysis follows typical hospital fall-prevention practice.
The Patient and the Event
[Mr. B.], a composite 81-year-old retired carpenter with Parkinson disease, was admitted three days ago with pneumonia. At home he walks with a cane and takes carbidopa-levodopa four times a day. On his second night he was found sitting on the floor beside his bed at 2 a.m., unhurt, saying he needed to urinate. The next night he set off his bed alarm while already standing at the bedside. His fall risk score on admission was [high], and his wife reports two falls at home in the past year.
Why a Safety Analysis Rather Than a Restraint
His daughter has asked whether he can be tied in at night. Physical restraints and full bed rails do not prevent falls reliably and can cause serious injury, including entrapment and injuries from climbing over rails, as well as agitation and loss of mobility (Oliver et al., 2010). The approach here is to find each specific reason he gets up and is unsafe, and to address it directly.
Hazards Paired With Countermeasures
1. Hazard: delayed Parkinson medication. On the unit his levodopa doses were given up to [90] minutes late, and his evening dose was due at 10 p.m. but given near midnight. Late doses leave him stiffer and slower at night. Countermeasure: doses scheduled at his home times and flagged as time-critical on the medication record; charted with the exact time given.
2. Hazard: nighttime urgency and frequency. He wakes two to three times a night to urinate, common in Parkinson disease, and the pneumonia fluids add volume. Countermeasure: a scheduled toileting round at 11 p.m., 1 a.m. and 3 a.m., with a urinal within reach, offered rather than waited for; fluids front-loaded earlier in the day if his provider agrees.
3. Hazard: freezing and shuffling gait, worse when turning. Countermeasure: physical therapy consult; walker at the bedside instead of his cane, chosen with the therapist because the wrong device can add to instability (Bateni & Maki, 2005); staff taught to cue him with a count or a line on the floor if he freezes.
4. Hazard: orthostatic drop. Standing blood pressure falls [22] points. Countermeasure: lying and standing blood pressure charted daily; he is taught to dangle his legs over the bedside and count to sixty before he stands.
5. Hazard: bed alarm sensitivity. The alarm was set to sound only when he left the bed, by which time he was standing. Countermeasure: alarm changed to the earliest setting, triggered when he sits up, and placement charted each shift.
6. Hazard: unfamiliar room and poor lighting. Countermeasure: night-light on; path to the bathroom cleared; bed in the lowest position with brakes locked; call light, glasses and urinal within reach, checked on hourly rounds.
7. Hazard: footwear. He walked in socks. Countermeasure: nonslip socks or his own closed shoes at the bedside.
The 2 a.m. walk had a reason, a full bladder and a late dose; the plan answers the reason instead of preventing the walk.
Hazards Considered and Set Aside
Two other measures were considered. A sitter at the bedside overnight would watch him closely but was not needed once the reasons for his walks were addressed, and it would have taken a staff member from other patients. A sedative to help him sleep through the night was rejected, because sedating medicines worsen balance and confusion in older adults and would raise his fall risk rather than lower it.
Room Placement and Rounding
Mr. B. is moved to a room nearer the nurses' station. Purposeful hourly rounds at night include asking whether he needs to use the bathroom, which addresses the most common reason he gets up. A low bed and a floor mat on the side he exits reduce injury if he does fall.
Involving Mr. B. and His Family
Mr. B. is taught to use the call light and agrees to try it, though his memory for it at night is uncertain. His wife says he always gets up at 2 a.m. at home; that information shaped the toileting schedule. His daughter is told why restraints are not used and what is being done instead, and she is invited to stay in the evening if she wishes.
Evaluation
Over the next three nights, Mr. B. had no falls. He used the urinal on two of the three scheduled rounds and called for help once. His levodopa was given within [30] minutes of the scheduled time on every dose. The plan continues, and the safety measures are written into his discharge summary for his wife, along with a referral for a home safety evaluation, since most of his hazards will follow him home (Potter et al., 2023).
References
Bateni, H., & Maki, B. E. (2005). Assistive devices for balance and mobility: Benefits, demands, and adverse consequences. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86(1), 134-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2004.04.023
Oliver, D., Healey, F., & Haines, T. P. (2010). Preventing falls and fall-related injuries in hospitals. Clinics in Geriatric Medicine, 26(4), 645-692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cger.2010.06.005
Potter, P. A., Perry, A. G., Stockert, P. A., & Hall, A. M. (2023). Fundamentals of nursing (11th ed.). Elsevier.
The Purdue Global NU140 Unit 4 instructions
Unit 4 typically asks for an analysis of patient safety risks, most often falls, with every identified hazard matched to a specific action. Prompts usually want the patient and situation described, risks identified from assessment data, a countermeasure for each, a discussion of restraint alternatives, and an evaluation. A paper of a few pages fits most prompts, and faculty want hazards specific to the patient rather than a generic fall-risk list, and for countermeasures that are concrete and can be charted. Explaining why restraints are avoided, with evidence, is expected in many sections. Involving the patient and family, and planning for discharge where hazards follow the patient home, round out a strong analysis.
How the NU 140 Unit 4 example is put together
The analysis opens with Mr. B.'s history, his two nighttime events and his fall risk score. A section explains why restraints are not the answer, citing a review of hospital fall prevention. Seven numbered hazards follow, each with a countermeasure and how it is charted, from time-critical medication scheduling to a toileting round, a walker chosen with physical therapy, standing blood pressures, an earlier bed alarm setting, lighting and footwear. The highlighted line explains that the plan answers the reason for his walks. Measures considered and rejected, a sitter and a sedative, follow. Room placement and rounding, family involvement and an evaluation with a home safety referral close the paper. A margin note marks why restraints are ruled out first.
Reading the NU140 Unit 4 grading rubric
Safety analyses in NU 140 are commonly graded on identification of hazards, match between hazards and actions, use of evidence, and evaluation. Hazard identification earns credit when risks come from this patient's data rather than a general list. The matching criterion is weighted heavily: each hazard needs its own concrete, chartable countermeasure. Evidence points go to sources on fall prevention and restraint harm, cited in APA 7. Evaluation rewards a time-limited check with results and a plan for discharge. A clear, one-to-one layout of hazard and action makes the analysis easy to grade, and respectful handling of the family's request is often noticed. Plans that trace a fall to its trigger, such as a full bladder, usually earn the strongest marks.
NU140 Unit 4 help: mistakes that cost points
Safety analyses often list general precautions, such as bed low and call light in reach, without linking them to this patient's actual hazards. Another common gap is ignoring the reason the patient gets up, so the plan tries to stop the behavior rather than meet the need. Some papers recommend restraints or full bed rails without discussing the evidence against them. Others never evaluate. Base each hazard on assessment data, pair it with one specific action you would chart, ask why the patient is getting up, explain restraint alternatives with a source, involve the family, and report what happened over the following nights. Keep the tone respectful toward a worried family.
Get an NU140 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
A patient your instructor assigned or one you describe will both work for Unit 4: share the scenario or the patient type, plus the rubric and the fall risk tool your course teaches. Restraint content follows whatever policy language your instructor supplies. Your first custom sample is free, and the hazard table comes back within 24-48h. 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.
More NU140 papers and BSN samples
- NU140 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- NU140 Unit 2: Skills Documentation
- NU140 Unit 3: Care Plan
- NU140 Unit 5: Case Study Analysis
- NU140 Unit 6: Teaching Plan
- NU140 Unit 7: Skills Documentation
- NU140 Unit 8: Case Study Analysis
- NU140 Unit 9: Reflection
- NU140 Unit 10: Final Care Plan
- NU108 Unit 4: Case Analysis
- NU104 Unit 4: Mechanism Write-Up
NU140 Unit 4 questions, answered
Where can I find a free NU140 Unit 4 sample paper?
The full NU140 Unit 4 safety analysis is on this page, with the patient, why restraints are avoided, seven hazards paired with countermeasures, rejected measures, rounding, family involvement and evaluation, with three references. Send your case and we can analyze its hazards.
Why not restrain a patient who gets up at night?
Restraints and full bed rails do not reliably prevent falls and can cause entrapment, injuries from climbing, agitation and loss of mobility. Finding and meeting the reason the patient gets up is safer.
Why does medication timing matter in Parkinson disease?
Late levodopa doses leave the patient stiffer and slower, increasing fall risk. The sample schedules doses at home times, marks them time-critical and charts the exact time given.
How does a toileting schedule prevent falls?
Most of his nighttime walks were to urinate. Offering the urinal on scheduled rounds before he feels urgent removes the main reason he gets up alone.
Was a sedative considered for sleep?
Yes, and it was rejected. Sedating medicines worsen balance and confusion in older adults and would raise his fall risk rather than lower it.