NU654 Unit 2 Deterioration Case, Guillain-Barre Example

Reviewed by Elspeth Marlowe, MSN, RN AGACNP Acute Care Diagnosis and Management III Purdue University Global Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This NU654 Unit 2 sample is a deterioration recognition case in which a 52-year-old man with Guillain-Barre syndrome lost half his vital capacity over one day shift while his oxygen saturation stayed above 95 percent. It was prepared for Purdue Global NU 654, AGACNP Acute Care Diagnosis and Management III, in the MSN acute care nurse practitioner program. Five sets of bedside measurements are listed before any interpretation. The data are read in three passes, respiratory mechanics against the thresholds Lawn and colleagues described, bulbar and neck signs, and autonomic swings, with the Erasmus score setting his baseline risk. The verdict is that escalation belonged at 15:00, not at 18:40 when the call came.

CourseNU654 AGACNP Acute Care Diagnosis and Management III
UnitUnit 2
Paper typeDeterioration recognition case
LengthAbout 1,110 words, 7 pages double-spaced
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolPurdue University Global
ProgramMSN
UpdatedSeptember 2026

Free sample paper for NU654 Unit 2

1

A Saturation That Never Fell: A Deterioration Recognition Case of Neuromuscular Respiratory Failure in Guillain-Barre Syndrome

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

NU654: AGACNP Acute Care Diagnosis and Management III

Unit 2 Deterioration Recognition Case

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The patient is composite; measurements and times are bracketed. All respiratory measurements were taken at the bedside by respiratory therapy.

What this part is doingThe raw measurements come before any reading of them, so a grader can test the verdict against the data first.
2

The Patient

Mr. [C.] is a [52]-year-old man, [80] kg, admitted with ascending weakness [five] days after a diarrheal illness. Nerve conduction studies supported Guillain-Barre syndrome, and intravenous immunoglobulin began on [Day 1]. On [Day 3] he could not walk and had mild weakness of both arms. He was on a monitored neurology bed with vital capacity and negative inspiratory force ordered every [three] hours.

The Data

1. [07:00]. Vital capacity [2.8] L, [35] mL/kg. Negative inspiratory force [minus 45] cmH2O. Single-breath count [30]. Cough strong. Neck flexion [4] of 5. Heart rate [88], blood pressure [128/78], saturation [98] percent on room air.

2. [10:00]. Vital capacity [2.4] L, [30] mL/kg. Inspiratory force [minus 38]. Count [24]. Cough fair. Neck flexion [4]. Heart rate [92], pressure [134/80], saturation [97] percent.

3. [13:00]. Vital capacity [2.1] L, [26] mL/kg. Inspiratory force [minus 32]. Count [18]. Cough weak; saliva pooling at the corners of his mouth; new difficulty closing both eyes fully. Neck flexion [3]. Heart rate [104], pressure [152/94]. Saturation [97] percent.

4. [15:00]. Vital capacity [1.9] L, [24] mL/kg. Inspiratory force [minus 28]. Count [15]. Cough weak with pooled secretions; speaking in short phrases. Heart rate swinging between [62] and [118] over [ten] minutes; pressure [96/58] to [164/98]. Saturation [96] percent.

5. [18:40]. Vital capacity [1.4] L, [17.5] mL/kg. Inspiratory force [minus 20]. Count [10]. Using accessory muscles; paradoxical abdominal movement. Heart rate [112], pressure [148/90]. Saturation [95] percent. Rapid response called.

He was intubated electively in the ICU at [19:30], before any hypoxemia or cardiac arrest, and did well.

The Risk He Carried From Admission

His risk was high before the day began. The Erasmus GBS Respiratory Insufficiency Score uses three features available at admission: the number of days between the onset of weakness and admission, the strength of the limbs on the Medical Research Council sum score, and the presence of facial or bulbar weakness. Scores range from 0 to 7, and the chance of needing ventilation within a week rises from about 1 percent at the bottom of the scale to about 91 percent at the top (Walgaard et al., 2010). Mr. [C.] was admitted only [five] days after his weakness began, and his limb strength fell quickly over the first two days, which placed him in a middle band before any bulbar sign appeared. A score in that range does not decide when to escalate, but it tells the team to expect deterioration and to read every measurement against that expectation rather than hoping each one is the lowest.

First Pass: Respiratory Mechanics

Lawn and colleagues described markers of impending respiratory failure in severe Guillain-Barre syndrome: a vital capacity below 20 mL/kg, a maximal inspiratory pressure weaker than 30 cmH2O, a maximal expiratory pressure below 40 cmH2O, or a fall of more than 30 percent in any of these (Lawn et al., 2001). The first two thresholds form part of what is often taught as the 20/30/40 rule.

Read against those markers, Mr. [C.]'s mechanics crossed the first line at [15:00]. His vital capacity had fallen by 32 percent from the morning, from [2.8] to [1.9] liters, and his inspiratory force had become weaker than 30. By [18:40] his vital capacity was below 20 mL/kg.

Second Pass: Bulbar and Axial Signs

The same study found that bulbar dysfunction, bilateral facial weakness and rapid progression each made mechanical ventilation more likely. By [13:00], Mr. [C.] had pooled saliva and could not fully close his eyes; by [15:00] his cough could not clear secretions and his speech was broken into phrases. A weak cough matters for its own reason: a patient who cannot protect his airway can aspirate long before his lungs fail to oxygenate. Neck flexion strength, which tracks diaphragm strength in neuromuscular disease, fell from 4 to 3.

Third Pass: Autonomic Signs

At [15:00], his heart rate and blood pressure swung widely within minutes. Dysautonomia is common in severe Guillain-Barre syndrome and was the fourth feature Lawn and colleagues linked to progression to ventilation. It also raises the risk of intubation itself, because induction drugs can trigger severe hypotension or bradycardia in a patient whose autonomic control is unstable, which is one more reason to intubate early and electively rather than late and urgently.

What this part is doingThe data are read three times, each through a different system, so the verdict does not rest on one number.
3

Why the Saturation Misled

In neuromuscular respiratory failure, oxygen saturation is one of the last things to fall, because the lungs are healthy and the problem is the pump. Mr. [C.] kept his saturation by breathing faster and more shallowly, and a pulse oximeter cannot see the effort that costs. Carbon dioxide rises before oxygen falls, and when saturation finally drops, the patient is usually close to exhaustion or arrest. A ten-step guide to managing the syndrome advises regular monitoring of respiratory function with vital capacity and related bedside measures, precisely because clinical signs and oximetry can lag behind (Leonhard et al., 2019). The unit's monitor had shown a green number all afternoon.

Verdict: Escalation Belonged at [15:00]

At [15:00] four signals were present together: a vital capacity fall of more than 30 percent, an inspiratory force weaker than 30, bulbar weakness with an ineffective cough and dysautonomia. Any one of them warranted a call; together they were a clear indication for intensive care review and preparation for elective intubation. The call came at [18:40], three hours and forty minutes later, when the vital capacity had fallen below 20 mL/kg.

Earlier escalation was possible from [13:00], when the bulbar signs appeared and the capacity had fallen by 25 percent. Reasonable clinicians might have waited one more measurement at that point, which is why the verdict is set at [15:00] rather than earlier.

What Would Have Changed the Outcome, and What Should Change Now

In this case the outcome was good, because intubation at [19:30] was still elective. The risk was that the next measurement, at [21:40], would have come too late. Three changes follow for the unit:

1. Chart vital capacity in mL/kg and as a percentage of the day's first value, so crossing a threshold is visible without calculation.

2. Add bulbar signs, cough strength and heart rate variability to the three-hourly neuromuscular checks.

3. State in the order set that saturation is not a reason for reassurance in Guillain-Barre syndrome, and name the thresholds that require a call.

What this part is doingThe recommendations are aimed at making the numbers visible to the next nurse, since the data were collected but not read together.
4

References

Lawn, N. D., Fletcher, D. D., Henderson, R. D., Wolter, T. D., & Wijdicks, E. F. M. (2001). Anticipating mechanical ventilation in Guillain-Barre syndrome. Archives of Neurology, 58(6), 893-898. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.58.6.893

Leonhard, S. E., Mandarakas, M. R., Gondim, F. A. A., Bateman, K., Ferreira, M. L. B., Cornblath, D. R., van Doorn, P. A., Dourado, M. E., Hughes, R. A. C., Islam, B., Kusunoki, S., Pardo, C. A., Reisin, R., Sejvar, J. J., Shahrizaila, N., Soares, C., Umapathi, T., Wang, Y., Yiu, E. M., . . . Jacobs, B. C. (2019). Diagnosis and management of Guillain-Barre syndrome in ten steps. Nature Reviews Neurology, 15(11), 671-683. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-019-0250-9

Walgaard, C., Lingsma, H. F., Ruts, L., Drenthen, J., van Koningsveld, R., Garssen, M. J. P., van Doorn, P. A., Steyerberg, E. W., & Jacobs, B. C. (2010). Prediction of respiratory insufficiency in Guillain-Barre syndrome. Annals of Neurology, 67(6), 781-787. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.21976

NU654 Unit 2 instructions, in plain terms

The Unit 2 assignment asks you to examine a patient who deteriorated on a ward and decide when escalation should have happened. You present the data in time order, interpret them against validated thresholds, identify the moment the evidence required action, compare it with when action came and recommend changes. Most prompts expect four pages. The analysis should explain why the signs that were watched did not show the problem, as oxygen saturation failed to here. Sources should support the thresholds you use. A verdict that names a specific time, with the evidence present at that time, is what most rubrics look for.

How this NU654 Unit 2 example is built

The example lists every measurement from 07:00 to 18:40 before interpreting any of it, so a grader can test the verdict against the data. A section on admission risk uses the Erasmus Respiratory Insufficiency Score. The three interpretive passes each use a different system, and the first cites the vital capacity, inspiratory pressure and 30 percent decline thresholds. A highlighted sentence explains why saturation falls last in neuromuscular failure. The verdict section names 15:00 and the four signals present then, and explains why 13:00 was also defensible. Three recommendations aim at making the numbers visible to the next nurse.

Where the points sit in the NU654 Unit 2 rubric

The Unit 2 rubric weighs data presentation, interpretation, the escalation verdict, the explanation of what was missed and the recommendations. Data presentation earns full credit when measurements are complete, timed and shown before interpretation. Interpretation is judged on the use of validated thresholds, such as a vital capacity below 20 mL/kg or a decline of more than 30 percent. The verdict counts when it names a time and the evidence for it. The explanation should show why routine monitoring missed the change. Recommendations score well when they would help the next nurse see the same pattern sooner. Graders also look for an honest account of when earlier escalation could reasonably have been argued.

NU654 Unit 2 help from the desk

The most common mistake is treating normal oxygen saturation as reassurance in neuromuscular weakness. Another is reporting vital capacity in liters without converting to mL/kg, which hides the threshold. Students often overlook bulbar signs and cough strength, which matter as much as the numbers. Dysautonomia is frequently left out. Some papers pick the time of the call as the moment of recognition. Others blame individuals rather than monitoring design. And a verdict without a specific time reads as hindsight rather than analysis. Chart vital capacity in mL/kg and as a share of the morning value, since both thresholds are easier to see that way. And say what the monitor showed at each time, because the gap between the monitor and the measurements is the point.

Get an NU654 Unit 2 example written to your instructions

Your prompt may supply a septic ward patient, a post-operative bleed or a neuromuscular decline like this one. Send the trend it gives, whatever flowsheet comes with it and the rubric. What comes back, free on a first request and inside 24-48h, marks the escalation hour on the data itself and defends it against the hours on either side. 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 NU654 papers and MSN samples

NU654 Unit 2 questions, answered

Why does the case set oxygen saturation aside?

It reports every reading and then explains why saturation cannot carry the decision. In neuromuscular weakness the lungs are often healthy, so oxygenation holds until ventilation has already failed. Bedside spirometry, cough and neck strength move first. A deterioration case that waited for saturation to fall would have escalated at exactly the moment the paper criticizes.

What is the 20/30/40 rule?

A bedside guide for Guillain-Barre syndrome, reported by Lawn and colleagues in 2001: a vital capacity under 20 mL/kg, a maximal inspiratory pressure less negative than minus 30 cm H2O, or a maximal expiratory pressure under 40 cm H2O signals a high risk of respiratory failure. The case uses it for thresholds and treats it as one input, not a verdict.

Can the sample use a different condition?

Yes. Deterioration cases in this unit frequently use sepsis, bleeding or respiratory decline on a medical ward, and each has its own early signals. Tell us the condition and the data your prompt provides, and the case rebuilds its table around the measurements that matter for that condition, still marking one hour and defending it against the alternatives.

Where can I find a free NU654 Unit 2 sample paper?

The full NU654 Unit 2 deterioration recognition case is on this page, with every measurement, the three interpretive passes and the escalation verdict. For a deterioration from a different condition, a free case can be drafted from your details.

Why does saturation stay normal in NU654 Unit 2?

In Guillain-Barre syndrome the lungs are healthy and the breathing muscles are failing, so the patient keeps oxygen levels up by breathing faster and more shallowly. Carbon dioxide rises first, and saturation falls late, often close to exhaustion.