Why a household's three plans cannot be written separately, shown through one composite family and a single caregiver's strain, is what the closing NU568 family case study demonstrates. Searches like "nu 568 unit 10 assignment example", "nu568 unit 10 sample" and "nu568 unit 10 example" land here.
One Household, Three Visits, One Caregiver's Load: A Family Case Study Across Three Generations
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU568: FNP I - Primary Care Across the Lifespan
Unit 10 Family Case Study
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The family is a composite; values and scores in brackets are illustrative, and no real family is described.
The Household
Ms. [S.], 49, a dental office manager, lives with her son [Jordan], 16, and, since last spring, her father, Mr. [G.], 78, who has early Alzheimer disease. Her husband works nights as a nurse and sleeps days. Her brother lives two hours away. In a brief genogram, Ms. [S.] sits at the center: daughter, mother and wife, the one adult awake and home in the evenings.
Visit 1: Ms. [S.], 49
Presenting problem: blood pressure [148/92] at a routine visit, up from [128/80] a year ago. Findings: home readings averaging [146/90]; BMI [28]; headaches; sleep broken by her father waking at night two or three times; skipped lunches and walks since he moved in. A Zarit Burden Interview short form score of [18], suggesting substantial caregiver burden. Assessment: stage 2 hypertension, new (Whelton et al., 2018); caregiver strain; sleep deprivation. Plan:
1. Lifestyle measures, counted, and a first antihypertensive, [amlodipine], with a four-week recheck.
2. Caregiver burden recorded as a clinical problem, not background. Caregiving that causes strain has been associated with higher mortality in older spousal caregivers (Schulz & Beach, 1999), and strain here is already visible in her pressure and sleep.
3. Referral to a caregiver support program. A structured intervention for dementia caregivers improved caregiver quality of life and reduced depression in a multisite trial (Belle et al., 2006).
Visit 2: Mr. [G.], 78
Presenting problem: brought by his daughter for night waking and wandering in the house. Findings: early Alzheimer disease; he wakes, dresses and tries to leave for "work." He naps much of the day while alone. He has left the stove on once. He takes [donepezil] in the evening. Assessment: sleep-wake disturbance with daytime napping, possibly worsened by evening donepezil; home safety risk. Plan:
1. Move [donepezil] to the morning, since evening dosing can cause vivid dreams and insomnia.
2. Structure the day to reduce napping: an adult day program [three] days a week, with light, activity and company.
3. Home safety: stove knob covers or an automatic shutoff; door alarm; locked medicines.
4. Avoid sedating sleep medicines, which raise fall and confusion risk.
Visit 3: [Jordan], 16
Presenting problem: sports physical. Findings: PHQ-A score of [12], moderate depressive symptoms; item 9, thoughts of self-harm, answered "not at all"; grades slipping; sleeping poorly; less time with friends. In confidential time, he says he feels he has "lost my mom" to his grandfather's care and that he does not want to add to her worries. Assessment: moderate depressive symptoms in an adolescent, screened as recommended for ages 12 to 18 (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2022). Plan:
1. A follow-up visit within [two] weeks for a fuller interview and a safety plan, following GLAD-PC's guidance on assessment and initial management in primary care (Zuckerbrot et al., 2018).
2. Referral to counseling, which he accepted.
3. Confidentiality: explained at the start of confidential time. What he shares stays confidential unless there is a risk to his safety or someone else's. He agreed that his mother can be told he screened positive for low mood and will see a counselor. He did not want her told what he said about feeling he lost her, and that stays with him.
4. Sports clearance: granted; exercise and team membership are protective.
Synthesis: Where the Three Plans Meet
The shared factor across the three plans is one adult's caregiving load, and it touches each: her pressure and sleep, her father's supervision and her son's sense of being unseen.
1. Adult day services for Mr. [G.] support all three plans. They structure his day and improve his sleep, which gives Ms. [S.] unbroken nights and afternoons, time for her own walks and appointments, and evenings with her son.
2. The caregiver support referral for Ms. [S.] also teaches strategies for managing her father's night waking, which supports his plan.
3. A scheduling change: the practice books the family's follow-up visits on the same afternoon when possible, so Ms. [S.] misses one work block rather than three.
4. With her agreement, her brother joins a family meeting on dividing the care, including one weekend a month.
Confidentiality holds across the synthesis. Each person's plan is shared with the others only as each allows. [Jordan]'s mother knows he is seeing a counselor, as he agreed, but not what he said. Mr. [G.]'s diagnosis is known to his daughter as his caregiver, with his earlier consent.
What Three Separate Plans Would Have Missed
Written independently, each plan would have looked reasonable and failed quietly. Ms. [S.]'s plan would have added a pill and advice to walk, without noticing that her evenings belong to her father and her nights are broken. Her pressure might have come down slightly and her follow-up visit might have been missed, as caregivers' own appointments often are. Mr. [G.]'s plan might have reached for a sleeping pill to quiet the nights, with a fall or worse confusion as a likely cost, and without the adult day program that treats the cause. [Jordan]'s plan would have referred him to counseling without anyone knowing that part of what he is grieving is his mother's attention, which a counselor can help with but a family change can also ease.
The family view does not replace the individual plans. Each still carries its own diagnosis, guidance and follow-up, and each person keeps control of their own information. What it adds is a single intervention, easing one adult's load, that appears in all three plans, and a schedule that lets the family use the practice without the practice becoming another burden.
A Note on Roles
Ms. [S.] is the patient in one plan and the caregiver in two others. The practice has to see her in both roles and not let the second erase the first. Her father's visit ended with a question to her, "And how are you managing?", and her answer went into her own chart, with her consent, not his.
Follow-Up
Ms. [S.]: four weeks, pressure and caregiver burden score. Mr. [G.]: six weeks, sleep diary and adult day attendance. [Jordan]: two weeks, then monthly with PHQ-A. A review in three months asks one family-level question: has the caregiving load changed, and how has each plan moved with it?
References
Belle, S. H., Burgio, L., Burns, R., Coon, D., Czaja, S. J., Gallagher-Thompson, D., Gitlin, L. N., Klinger, J., Koepke, K. M., Lee, C. C., Martindale-Adams, J., Nichols, L., Schulz, R., Stahl, S., Stevens, A., Winter, L., & Zhang, S. (2006). Enhancing the quality of life of dementia caregivers from different ethnic or racial groups: A randomized, controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 145(10), 727-738. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-145-10-200611210-00005
Schulz, R., & Beach, S. R. (1999). Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: The Caregiver Health Effects Study. JAMA, 282(23), 2215-2219. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.23.2215
US Preventive Services Task Force. (2022). Screening for depression and suicide risk in children and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 328(15), 1534-1542. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.16946
Whelton, P. K., Carey, R. M., Aronow, W. S., Casey, D. E., Collins, K. J., Dennison Himmelfarb, C., DePalma, S. M., Gidding, S., Jamerson, K. A., Jones, D. W., MacLaughlin, E. J., Muntner, P., Ovbiagele, B., Smith, S. C., Spencer, C. C., Stafford, R. S., Taler, S. J., Thomas, R. J., Williams, K. A., ... Wright, J. T. (2018). 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Hypertension, 71(6), e13-e115. https://doi.org/10.1161/HYP.0000000000000065
Zuckerbrot, R. A., Cheung, A., Jensen, P. S., Stein, R. E. K., Laraque, D., Levitt, A., Birmaher, B., Campo, J., Clarke, G., Emslie, G., Kaufman, M., Kelleher, K. J., Kutcher, S., Malus, M., Sacks, D., Waslick, B., & Sarvet, B. (2018). Guidelines for Adolescent Depression in Primary Care (GLAD-PC): Part I. Practice preparation, identification, assessment, and initial management. Pediatrics, 141(3), e20174081. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-4081
How this NU568 Unit 10 example is structured
The case is built in two layers. The first is conventional: three management plans, each citing the guidance that fits the member's age, the adult hypertension guideline for the mother, GLAD-PC (2018) and the USPSTF's 2022 adolescent depression screening statement for the son, and dementia care resources for the grandfather. A second layer turns it into a family case. Its synthesis names the shared factor, one adult's caregiving load, and traces how that load touches each plan: missed appointments for the mother, supervision gaps for the grandfather, less attention for a teenager who is struggling. The recommendations that follow are household-level, such as adult day services, a caregiver support referral and a scheduling change that places visits together, and each is linked to the individual plan it supports. Confidentiality is handled explicitly, the son's above all.
Get an NU568 Unit 10 example written to your instructions
Final family cases in NU568 differ in household and conditions, so the whole closing case is needed, every member's details and the rubric included. The sample writes each member's plan to the right guideline and adds the synthesis that connects them. It is ready within 24-48h, free for a first request. 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.
NU568 Unit 10 questions, answered
How many family members should the case include?
As many as the prompt specifies, usually two to four. Each needs a plan of real substance, so more members means shorter plans. Three across generations often works well because it forces different guidelines into one document. If your case gives more members than you can treat in depth, a brief note on the others keeps the household picture complete.
Does a family case need a genogram?
Many rubrics ask for one. Optional or not, it lets a reader see relationships at once. For a case centered on household arrangements rather than inherited risk, a simple genogram with a household boundary and caregiving lines is normally enough. Save the detailed three-generation analysis for prompts where the risk itself passes through the family.
Can the case use visits from my clinical rotation?
Build the case as a composite instead. Real families are identifiable by their combination of ages and conditions, even without names. Encounters, hours, log entries and any evaluation a preceptor completes remain yours, and no sample stands in for them. Everyone in the sample household is invented, and every value sits in brackets.