NU657 Unit 10 Case Study, Legionella Pneumonia Example

Reviewed by Elspeth Marlowe, MSN, RN AGACNP Critical Care Management Clinical Purdue University Global Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This NU657 Unit 10 sample is a comprehensive case study of a 64-year-old retired plumber with severe Legionella pneumonia, followed across nine ICU days. It was written for Purdue Global NU 657, AGACNP Critical Care Management Clinical, the final clinical course in the MSN acute care nurse practitioner program. A hotel stay, three days of diarrhea and a sodium of 128 were the clues, and a urinary antigen confirmed the organism on his first night. The study is organized by phase: the ICU decision argued from five counted minor criteria, diagnostics, antibiotic narrowing, intubation for moderate ARDS, kidney injury from sepsis and rhabdomyolysis, delirium managed with the ABCDEF bundle, and transfer to the floor.

CourseNU657 AGACNP Critical Care Management Clinical
UnitUnit 10
Paper typeComprehensive case study
LengthAbout 1,220 words, 7 pages double-spaced
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolPurdue University Global
ProgramMSN
UpdatedSeptember 2026

Free sample paper for NU657 Unit 10

1

A Hotel Stay, Three Days of Diarrhea and a Sodium of 128: A Comprehensive Case Study of Severe Legionella Pneumonia Across Nine ICU Days in a 64-Year-Old Man

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

NU657: AGACNP Critical Care Management Clinical

Unit 10 Comprehensive Case Study

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The patient is composite; values, doses and dates are bracketed.

What this part is doingPhases, not days, organize the study, and each follows the same pattern: what happened, the decision, the evidence and the result.
2

Timeline

1. [Day 1]: emergency department at [11:00]; ICU admission at [15:30]; urinary antigen positive at [22:10].

2. [Day 2]: intubated at [04:40] for worsening hypoxemia.

3. [Day 3]: creatinine peaks; creatine kinase peaks.

4. [Day 4]: first positive delirium screen during a sedation pause.

5. [Day 6]: extubated after a spontaneous breathing trial.

6. [Day 8]: delirium screen negative for [48] hours.

7. [Day 9]: transferred to a medical floor.

Presentation and the ICU Decision

Mr. [G.] is a [64]-year-old retired plumber with hypertension and type 2 diabetes who smokes [20] cigarettes a day. He returned [five] days before admission from a [four]-night stay at a conference hotel. He developed fever, dry cough and muscle aches, then [three] days of watery diarrhea, and his wife brought him in because he had become confused.

In the emergency department: temperature [39.8] C, respiratory rate [32], pressure [96/58] after [two] liters of fluid, saturation [88] percent on room air, PaO2 [72] mmHg on [40] percent oxygen by venturi mask, giving a ratio of [180]. Chest radiograph: consolidation in the right lower and middle lobes and the left lower lobe. Blood urea nitrogen [31] mg/dL, sodium [128] mEq/L, creatinine [1.8] mg/dL, platelets [142,000].

The decision was whether he needed the ICU. The ATS/IDSA guideline defines severe community-acquired pneumonia by two major criteria, septic shock needing vasopressors or respiratory failure needing mechanical ventilation, or by three or more minor criteria, and recommends direct admission to intensive care for these patients (Metlay et al., 2019). He had no major criterion at [15:00], but he had five minor ones: respiratory rate of 30 or more, a ratio of 250 or less, multilobar infiltrates, confusion, and a urea nitrogen of 20 or more. Counting the criteria turned an impression that he was sick into a documented reason for an ICU bed, before either major criterion arrived.

Decision: ICU admission. Result: he met a major criterion within [14] hours, when he was intubated, which supports the decision.

What this part is doingThe ICU decision is argued from counted criteria, so it rests on the guideline rather than on a feeling that he looked unwell.
3

Diagnostics

The guideline recommends blood and sputum cultures and urinary antigen testing for Legionella in severe pneumonia (Metlay et al., 2019). The hotel stay, diarrhea, confusion, high fever and low sodium together raised the suspicion of Legionella, a combination that reviews of the disease describe as suggestive though not specific (Cunha et al., 2016). The Legionella urinary antigen was positive at [22:10]. The test detects Legionella pneumophila serogroup [1], the most common cause, but can miss other serogroups and species, so a sputum culture on selective media was also sent, and later grew L. pneumophila serogroup [1].

Creatine kinase was [4,900] U/L on arrival and rose to [11,200] on [day 3]. Legionella is known to cause muscle breakdown, which became important for his kidneys.

Antimicrobial Therapy

Decision: ceftriaxone with azithromycin from the emergency department, the combination the guideline recommends for severe pneumonia without risk factors for resistant organisms (Metlay et al., 2019). Once the antigen was positive and a respiratory viral panel was negative, the question became whether to narrow.

On [day 3], with the sputum culture growing Legionella and no other organism, and blood cultures negative, ceftriaxone was stopped and azithromycin continued alone at [500] mg daily. A fluoroquinolone was considered, since both drug classes treat Legionella, but azithromycin had already been started and was working, and his corrected QT interval of [438] milliseconds allowed it. The planned total course was [ten] days because of the severity of his illness.

Result: fever resolved on [day 4], and oxygen requirements improved from [day 4] onward.

Respiratory Failure and Intubation

At [03:30] on [day 2], his oxygen requirement on high-flow nasal oxygen rose to [70] percent, his respiratory rate stayed above [35], and he was tiring. He was intubated at [04:40]. His PaO2 to FiO2 ratio after intubation was [128] with bilateral infiltrates, and his echocardiogram showed normal left ventricular function, so he met criteria for moderate ARDS. Tidal volume was set at [6] mL/kg of predicted body weight, [420] mL for his height of [175] cm, with plateau pressure kept below [30] and PEEP set from the lower PEEP table. The ratio never fell below [110], and prone positioning was not needed.

Acute Kidney Injury

Decision: identify the cause. His creatinine rose from [1.8] on arrival to a peak of [3.1] on [day 3]. His baseline was [1.1] mg/dL in his primary care records, so the peak was [2.8] times baseline, KDIGO stage 2 by creatinine (Khwaja, 2012). Urine output never fell below [0.5] mL/kg per hour for more than [six] hours.

Three causes competed. Sepsis with hypotension was present on [day 1]. Rhabdomyolysis was present, with a creatine kinase peaking at [11,200] and dark urine positive for blood without red cells. Contrast was not a factor, since no contrast study was done. The study attributes the injury mainly to sepsis with a contribution from muscle breakdown, and treatment addressed both: fluids to maintain urine output, avoidance of nephrotoxins, and daily creatine kinase. He did not need dialysis, and his creatinine returned to [1.3] by [day 8].

Delirium

Decision: prevent and treat delirium with the ICU Liberation bundle. On [day 4], during a daily sedation pause, his CAM-ICU was positive; he was agitated and could not follow a sequence of commands. The team applied the ABCDEF bundle: daily awakening and breathing trials, analgesia first, choice of sedation that avoids benzodiazepines, delirium screening, early mobility and family engagement. In a collaborative of more than fifteen thousand adults, higher compliance with the bundle was associated with lower mortality and fewer days of delirium and coma (Pun et al., 2019).

His propofol was reduced to the lowest dose that allowed safe ventilation, and dexmedetomidine was used for agitation from [day 5]. His wife visited daily, bringing his glasses and hearing aids. Physical therapy began sitting him on the edge of the bed on [day 5]. Result: the screen was positive for [four] days and negative from [day 7], and he remembered little of the ICU stay.

Liberation and Transfer

He passed a spontaneous breathing trial on [day 6] and was extubated to [four] liters by nasal cannula. He walked [30] meters with a walker on [day 8]. He was transferred to a medical floor on [day 9], on oxygen at [two] liters, to complete his antibiotics and begin rehabilitation.

Public Health and Lessons

Legionnaires' disease is reportable, and the case was reported to the county health department on [day 2]. The hotel was already under investigation after a second guest from the same conference was admitted elsewhere.

Three lessons follow from the case. First, counting the severity criteria made the ICU decision early and defensible. Second, a travel history and a low sodium in a patient with pneumonia should prompt a Legionella test early rather than late, because the choice of antibiotic depends on it. Third, kidney injury in a patient with Legionella deserves a creatine kinase, because rhabdomyolysis changes how closely the kidneys and fluids need to be watched.

What this part is doingThe lessons tie each phase to a specific practice point, so the case is useful beyond this one patient.
4

References

Cunha, B. A., Burillo, A., & Bouza, E. (2016). Legionnaires' disease. The Lancet, 387(10016), 376-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60078-2

Khwaja, A. (2012). KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury. Nephron Clinical Practice, 120(4), c179-c184. https://doi.org/10.1159/000339789

Metlay, J. P., Waterer, G. W., Long, A. C., Anzueto, A., Brozek, J., Crothers, K., Cooley, L. A., Dean, N. C., Fine, M. J., Flanders, S. A., Griffin, M. R., Metersky, M. L., Musher, D. M., Restrepo, M. I., & Whitney, C. G. (2019). Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia: An official clinical practice guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 200(7), e45-e67. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201908-1581ST

Pun, B. T., Balas, M. C., Barnes-Daly, M. A., Thompson, J. L., Aldrich, J. M., Barr, J., Byrum, D., Carson, S. S., Devlin, J. W., Engel, H. J., Esbrook, C. L., Hargett, K. D., Harmon, L., Hielsberg, C., Jackson, J. C., Kelly, T. L., Kumar, V., Millner, L., Morse, A., . . . Ely, E. W. (2019). Caring for critically ill patients with the ABCDEF bundle: Results of the ICU Liberation Collaborative in over 15,000 adults. Critical Care Medicine, 47(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000003482

What the NU657 Unit 10 assignment asks for

The capstone case study in NU657 asks you to follow one critically ill patient through the whole ICU stay and to show how each major decision was made and supported. Prompts usually expect a timeline, a section for each phase of care, evidence for each decision, and an evaluation of outcomes, often with a closing section on lessons for practice. Ten to twelve pages in APA 7 is common. Graders want the decisions argued rather than narrated, so a phase-by-phase structure usually works better than a daily account. Each phase should say what happened, what decision it forced, which evidence supported that decision and whether it worked. Keep the patient de-identified throughout.

How this NU657 Unit 10 example is built

A seven-line timeline opens the study. The presentation section counts the ATS/IDSA minor criteria one by one, finds five, and the highlighted sentence explains what counting achieved. Diagnostics cover the urinary antigen, its limits and the confirming culture, with the Cunha review on suggestive features. The antibiotic section explains the starting combination and the narrowing to azithromycin with the QT interval checked. Intubation and lung-protective settings follow. The kidney section stages the injury by KDIGO and weighs three causes. The delirium section applies the ABCDEF bundle from the Pun collaborative. Liberation and transfer close the clinical story, and a final section covers public health reporting and three lessons.

Reading the NU657 Unit 10 grading rubric

Case study grading usually spans the completeness of the clinical account, the quality of the reasoning at each decision, the use of current evidence, evaluation of outcomes and scholarly writing. Completeness earns full credit when every major phase of the stay is covered. The reasoning row is usually weighted most and rewards decisions argued from explicit criteria, such as counted severity criteria or KDIGO staging. Evidence points go to guidelines and trials that match each decision. Outcome evaluation asks whether each decision worked, with numbers. Writing points depend on consistent headings, a readable timeline and accurate APA references, and on keeping the account within the page range the course sets.

NU657 Unit 10 help: mistakes that cost points

The most common structural error is writing the stay day by day, which repeats information and never argues a decision. Another is calling a patient sick enough for the ICU without counting the criteria. Students often continue broad antibiotics after the organism is known, or narrow without checking drug interactions and the QT interval. Kidney injury is sometimes blamed on a single cause when several compete. Delirium sections that list the bundle without saying what was actually done for this patient earn little. And many case studies forget that Legionnaires' disease must be reported to public health, which the lessons section should state plainly along with the date it was done.

Get an NU657 Unit 10 example written to your instructions

Share the NU657 Unit 10 case parameters, a page limit if the section sets one and the rubric, noting whether the study must follow one patient you choose. It returns in 24-48h, the first without charge, tracing an invented admission phase by phase with each decision sourced and a reflection naming what would change. 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 NU657 papers and MSN samples

NU657 Unit 10 questions, answered

Should the case study follow the patient day by day?

Usually not in the main text. Organizing by phase, such as the ICU decision, infection, respiratory failure, kidney injury, delirium and transfer, lets each decision be argued once with its evidence. The sample adds a timeline figure so readers can still place events in the stay. If your rubric requires a daily format, the study is written that way.

May the study follow someone from my own ICU shifts?

Many programs require one, and the patient, your encounters and your hours stay yours to present once identifiers are stripped. The retired plumber in the sample is invented. Anything your preceptor documents about your care of a real patient, and any log you keep, sits outside what a sample can contain.

Where can I find a free NU657 Unit 10 sample paper?

The complete NU657 Unit 10 comprehensive case study is on this page, with the timeline, eight phases from the ICU decision to transfer, public health reporting, three lessons and four references. A case study built on your own ICU patient can be written to your prompt.

Why was the NU657 Unit 10 patient admitted to the ICU?

He met five minor ATS/IDSA criteria for severe pneumonia: a respiratory rate of 32, an oxygenation ratio of 180, multilobar infiltrates, confusion and a urea nitrogen of 31. The guideline recommends ICU admission at three or more.

What caused the kidney injury in NU657 Unit 10?

The study attributes it mainly to sepsis with hypotension, with a contribution from rhabdomyolysis, since creatine kinase peaked at 11,200. No contrast was given. Creatinine peaked at 2.8 times baseline, KDIGO stage 2, and recovered without dialysis.