Eight active issues in the transfer note, four ranked on the form, airway first: the NU144CL Unit 3 patient workup for a composite man stepped down from intensive care. Searches like "nu 144cl unit 3 assignment example", "nu144cl unit 3 sample" and "nu144cl unit 3 example" land here.
What a finished NU144CL Unit 3 patient workup looks like
The form is filled on both sides, and most of the intensive care story is compressed into two lines: influenza leading to lung injury, [days] on a ventilator, a tracheostomy placed on [day]. Under airway, the tube's size and type are bracketed, secretions are described by color and amount with suctioning needed every [interval], and the bedside emergency equipment is listed as checked: a spare tube of the same size and one smaller, the obturator, suction and oxygen. Feeding runs at [rate] through the gastrostomy with the head of the bed raised. Four problems are ranked: airway clearance, aspiration risk, a stage 2 sacral pressure injury measuring [size], and weakness acquired in intensive care. Resolving delirium, sleep, mood and a speaking valve trial sit in a note with reasons for ranking lower.
How a NU144CL Unit 3 example is structured
The program's workup form sets the order, and the sample fills it as given, with one addition the form leaves room for: a transfer summary of no more than two sentences, since the intensive care record runs to hundreds of pages. Header details are composite and carry no initials, dates or room. History is limited to what affects care on the floor: the lung injury, diabetes managed in intensive care with insulin, and a prior stroke with no lasting deficit, which matters for swallowing. Labs appear as bracketed pairs, the transfer value beside today's. Medications list each drug's reason for this patient and a nursing check, the tube feeding included. Ranked problems carry data, a measurable goal and interventions. A final box records questions for the assigned nurse and the respiratory therapist, and the instructor's review field stays blank.
Two lines for the intensive care stay
Weeks of critical care shrink to the events that still shape his day: the cause, the length of ventilation and the date of the tracheostomy. The rest belongs in the chart, and the workup says so rather than copying it.
Emergency equipment as assessment
A spare tube, the obturator, working suction and oxygen at the bedside are recorded as checked at the start of care. The workup treats their presence as part of the airway assessment, since a dislodged tube leaves no time to search.
Aspiration with a tube in the stomach
Feeding through a gastrostomy does not remove aspiration risk. The workup ties the raised head of the bed, residual checks where ordered and the swallow evaluation still pending into one problem with one goal.
Weakness named as its own problem
Weakness acquired in intensive care limits turning, sitting and eventually walking. The workup ranks it fourth, links it to the pressure injury and records the therapy plan, so mobility is treated as care rather than an afterthought.
Lower-ranked issues kept visible
Resolving delirium, broken sleep, low mood and the speaking valve trial are real and less urgent today. A short note lists them with a reason each ranks lower, which shows the selection was a decision.
Where marks go in NU144CL Unit 3
Workups that transcribe the intensive care course day by day lose the most, since the form rewards selection and the transfer note is long enough to fill it twice. Missing the bedside emergency equipment is the safety gap graders catch first in a tracheostomy patient. Secretions described as moderate, with no color, amount or suctioning frequency, cost assessment marks. Treating the gastrostomy as the end of aspiration risk is a common content error. Weakness left off the list, or mentioned only under skin, loses the link between immobility and the pressure injury. Labs given as single values without the transfer comparison lose the trend marks. Any identifier, an unbracketed value that looks lifted from a record, or a filled instructor field draws the most serious response.
Get a NU144CL Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Send the blank workup form and rubric, plus a few de-identified lines on the problems your assigned patient carries. What returns is that form completed for an invented patient whose course is comparable; the workup on your real patient, built from the record and your own assessment, is your work, not the model's. Free as a first custom sample, 24-48h.
NU144CL Unit 3 questions, answered
How much of the intensive care history belongs in the workup?
Only what still affects care on the floor: why he went to intensive care, how long he was ventilated, when the tracheostomy was placed, and any complication still active. A day-by-day account fills the form without showing judgment. Where the prompt asks for a hospital course, two or three sentences usually meet it, and the rest stays in the chart.
Should suctioning be listed as an intervention or an assessment finding?
Both, in different places. How often suctioning has been needed, and what comes back, are assessment data that show whether airway clearance is improving. The suctioning itself, with pre-oxygenation where ordered, is an intervention under the airway problem. A workup that records one without the other leaves the grader unable to judge the trend.
Can the workup mention the speaking valve?
Yes, usually in the lower-ranked note or under communication. A speaking valve trial is typically led by a speech-language pathologist or respiratory therapist and requires the cuff to be fully deflated first, which is why it matters to safety. The workup records whether a trial is planned and what the nurse watches for during it.