NU652's Unit 3 worksheet ranks cellulitis against five rivals for a composite leg that ignored [72] hours of antibiotics, each with the finding for, the finding against and a deciding test. Searches like "nu 652 unit 3 assignment example", "nu652 unit 3 sample" and "nu652 unit 3 example" land here.
What a finished NU652 Unit 3 revised differential worksheet looks like
Two pages, most of it one table. A header line restates the working label, left leg cellulitis, and the reason it is under review: erythema unchanged at [72] hours, afebrile throughout, white count [7.8]. Below it, six columns run across the page: rank, diagnosis, supporting finding, weakening finding, separating test and result. Venous stasis dermatitis sits first, supported by hemosiderin staining and pitting edema in both legs, the right showing milder changes of the same kind. Deep vein thrombosis holds second until a duplex returns negative. Cellulitis falls to third, contact dermatitis from an over-the-counter [bacitracin] ointment to fourth, and gout to fifth, raised by a [hydrochlorothiazide] prescription and weakened by a normal first toe. A separate row, set off by a rule, holds necrotizing infection as the diagnosis that cannot be missed even at low probability.
How a NU652 Unit 3 example is structured
Two orderings share the worksheet, and keeping them apart is its main design choice. Rank reflects probability given the current findings; the must-not-miss row reflects consequence, so necrotizing infection appears regardless of where likelihood alone would place it. Every entry cites a finding a reader can check on the patient or in the chart, never a general impression. Weakening findings get the same space as supporting ones, which keeps the worksheet from reading as advocacy for the new leader. The separating test column is where the worksheet earns its name: each test is chosen because it moves one diagnosis up or down, and tests that would change nothing are left off. A footnote cites Weng and colleagues (2017), who found that close to a third of patients admitted for lower extremity cellulitis had another condition. The plan below the table runs only four lines.
The label restated with its problem
One line names the working diagnosis and one names what undermines it. Stating both at the top tells a reader why the differential is being reopened, and on what evidence, before any alternative appears.
Both legs examined
Changes in the unaffected leg carry much of the argument. Hemosiderin, edema and scaling on the right point toward a chronic bilateral process, since true cellulitis seldom involves both legs at once.
Against columns filled honestly
Stasis dermatitis, now ranked first, still has a weakening finding recorded: the left leg is warmer than the right. The worksheet keeps that fact in view instead of dropping it once a new leader is chosen.
One row ranked by consequence
Necrotizing soft tissue infection sits apart from the ranking, with pain proportionate to the exam, no crepitus and a creatine kinase of [64] listed as the findings that keep it unlikely.
A plan that shrank
Elevation, compression once arterial flow is confirmed, a topical corticosteroid, the ointment stopped and antibiotics ended at [72] hours make up the plan. Once the label changed, the list of orders grew shorter rather than longer.
Where marks go in NU652 Unit 3
Instructors mark this worksheet for ranking that follows findings. A list of eight diagnoses in no stated order, each with a textbook description instead of a patient finding, earns the least. Entries with supporting findings only, and no weakening finding, suggest the new leader was chosen before the evidence was weighed. Leaving out a must-not-miss condition such as necrotizing infection draws a pointed comment even when it ranks low on probability, and so does mixing consequence with likelihood in one ordering. Separating tests that would not change the ranking count against the worksheet, since they signal ordering by habit. Reading what the unaffected leg shows earns its own credit. A worksheet that keeps cellulitis first despite contrary evidence, without explaining why, reads as anchoring on the first diagnosis, the very pattern this assignment is built to expose.
Get a NU652 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Worksheets differ by section in their column headings and in how many alternatives they expect, so the template weighs as heavily as the patient. Pass along both, plus the rubric, and a first worksheet built to them comes back in 24-48h at no charge, ranked on findings, with a must-not-miss row set apart.
NU652 Unit 3 questions, answered
How many alternatives should a revised differential list?
Usually four to six, ranked, plus any must-not-miss condition that falls outside the top of the ranking. Longer lists tend to dilute the reasoning because each entry receives less support. The sample lists six entries, five ranked and one set apart, and explains why two other candidates, lymphedema and erythema migrans, were considered and left off, which shows the ranking was deliberate.
Is it wrong to keep the original diagnosis at the top?
Not if the findings support it. A revised differential can conclude that the working label still leads, as long as it shows the alternatives were weighed and says what evidence kept the original in place. The weakness instructors look for is a label kept by default rather than on evidence, and the sample's structure makes that difference visible.
Can the worksheet be a table instead of paragraphs?
Most sections accept or even expect a table, since it lets a reader compare supporting and weakening findings across rows. Some prompts also ask for a short narrative beneath it. The sample adopts the format your instructor's template shows, and where none is provided, it uses the six-column table described here with a brief plan underneath.