NU475's Unit 2 analysis draws Lynn and Adamson's organ failure and cancer trajectories for two composite patients, using Palliative Performance Scale scores, and argues the transitions each produces. Searches like "nu 475 unit 2 assignment example", "nu475 unit 2 sample" and "nu475 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished NU475 Unit 2 illness trajectory analysis looks like
A paper of roughly 1,100 words with one figure and six to eight references. The figure is the center: function on the vertical axis as Palliative Performance Scale percentages, time on the horizontal, with his [three] admissions in [14] months marked as dips that never quite return to the prior level, and her line flat near [80] percent until a slide to [30] percent over about [70] days. Lynn and Adamson's 2003 RAND paper supplies the three trajectory types, and the 2005 BMJ article by Murray and colleagues supplies the argument that each type needs palliative care organized differently. The third pattern, prolonged dwindling in frailty and dementia, is defined in one paragraph and set aside. A closing table lists the transitions each line generates and who is most likely to miss them.
How a NU475 Unit 2 example is structured
Two cases, one frame, then consequences. The opening section describes each patient in function terms only, what each could do at home at [four] points in time, so the curves come from observations rather than labels. Next, each case is placed on a trajectory with the evidence for the placement: his MELD-Na score rising from [14] to [19] and each admission leaving a lower baseline, her performance status holding until the liver metastases progressed. The central argument follows. His pattern makes prognosis unreliable, since any exacerbation might be the last and most are not, which is why palliative need is identified with the surprise question and the SPICT tool rather than by waiting for a survival estimate. Hers is predictable enough that the hospice benefit fits it comfortably. Transitions close the paper, one set per curve.
Function at four moments
Each patient is described by what they could do at home at diagnosis, at a first admission, now and at a projected next point, with Palliative Performance Scale values bracketed.
Steps down with partial returns
His [three] admissions, for tense ascites twice and confusion once, each end on a baseline lower than before, the organ failure pattern of serious episodes laid over long limitation.
Level, then a steep slide
Her line holds while she keeps a part-time job, then falls across roughly [70] days as the metastases grow, the short period of evident decline seen with many solid tumors.
Uncertainty as the finding
Because his next exacerbation may look exactly like the last three, the paper identifies palliative need with SPICT indicators and the surprise question instead of a prognosis in months.
What each line produces
A table sets his repeated hospital-to-home cycles, each a missed chance for planning, beside her few fast moves, where the danger is a hospice referral made in her final days.
Where marks go in NU475 Unit 2
Placement has to be earned. Rubrics on this analysis typically reward a paper that shows why a patient belongs on a given curve, using function and admissions over time, and discount one that names the trajectory and moves on. Confusing the organ failure and frailty patterns is a frequent error, as is drawing the cancer line without the period of good function that precedes the decline. Markers also look for the consequence argued rather than implied: the reason for mapping at all is that the two shapes produce different transitions and different timing for palliative and hospice care. Papers that treat his uncertain prognosis as a reason to postpone planning invert the point. A figure that is labeled, scaled and cited earns more than a paragraph describing one.
Get a NU475 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Two composite patients or one, whichever the prompt calls for. The desk needs the assignment text, the rubric and any required trajectory model; from those, a trajectory analysis with a labeled figure comes back inside 24-48h, and the first one costs nothing. Where a section prefers a different framework, name it and the paper follows that instead.
NU475 Unit 2 questions, answered
Which trajectory model do instructors expect?
Lynn and Adamson's three trajectories are the most commonly cited, often alongside the 2005 BMJ paper by Murray and colleagues, which applies them to palliative care planning. Some prompts name the Corbin and Strauss chronic illness trajectory framework instead, which works through phases rather than curves. Check your instructions; the sample can be rebuilt on either, and the figure changes accordingly.
Does the analysis need a figure?
Not every rubric requires one, but a figure makes the argument faster than any paragraph can. A simple line chart, with function on one axis and time on the other, lets a marker see the steps and the slide at a glance. Label the axes, cite the source of the shape, and keep plotted values illustrative when the patients are composites, as the sample does.
Can the analysis cover a patient with dementia instead?
Yes, and the frailty and dementia pattern is a strong choice because it is so often mistaken for ordinary aging. The comparison then sets a long, gradual dwindling against whichever second pattern your prompt asks for. Send the case you have in mind, composite or supplied by the course, and the sample will plot that trajectory and argue the transitions it produces.