| Course | NU657 AGACNP Critical Care Management Clinical |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Procedure preparation paper |
| Length | About 1,150 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MSN |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU657 Unit 5
Before the Needle: A Procedure Preparation Paper for a Central Venous Catheter in a 70-Year-Old Man on Peripheral Norepinephrine With a Platelet Count of 52,000
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU657: AGACNP Critical Care Management Clinical
Unit 5 Procedure Preparation Paper
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The patient is composite; values, doses and times are bracketed. The paper covers preparation only and documents no insertion.
Indication
Mr. [B.] is a [70]-year-old man admitted [14] hours ago with septic shock from right lower lobe pneumonia. He has received norepinephrine through an [18]-gauge cannula in the right forearm for [nine] hours at [0.08 to 0.12] mcg/kg per minute, and his mean arterial pressure remains dependent on it. Three reasons support a central venous catheter now. First, his vasopressor need is continuing beyond the short period for which peripheral infusion is usually accepted, and the cannula site is the only reliable peripheral access he has. Second, two further attempts at peripheral access under ultrasound failed this morning, so a second vasopressor, if needed, would have no line. Third, a central line allows central venous oxygen saturation to be measured and gives a secure route for the antibiotics, electrolytes and sedation he may need if he is intubated.
The same logic will be used at the end of this paper: once he no longer needs the line, it comes out.
Bleeding Risk
His platelet count is [52,000], his INR [1.7] and his fibrinogen [240] mg/dL. He takes no antiplatelet drugs or anticoagulants at home, and his heparin prophylaxis has been held. The low platelets and mildly raised INR are most likely due to sepsis.
Two questions follow: is this count safe for the procedure, and would correcting it help? The Society of Interventional Radiology consensus guidelines classify central venous catheter placement as a low-bleeding-risk procedure, and for low-risk procedures they suggest correcting platelets only below 20,000 and the INR only above a range of 2.0 to 3.0 (Patel et al., 2019). His values fall inside those limits. Transfusing platelets to reach a number the guideline does not require would add a transfusion's risks without lowering his bleeding risk in any way the evidence shows.
Three measures lower the risk further. Ultrasound guidance is used for the whole insertion, which reduces the number of needle passes. A compressible site is preferred, so that any bleeding can be controlled by pressure. And the operator will be the most experienced person available, with the student preparing and assisting. Platelets and a unit of plasma will not be ordered in advance, but the blood bank has a current type and screen.
Site Selection
Three sites were considered. In the 3SITES trial of adults in intensive care, subclavian catheters had the lowest combined rate of bloodstream infection and symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, while jugular and femoral catheters had higher rates, but the subclavian site had the most pneumothoraces (Parienti et al., 2015).
For Mr. [B.], the right internal jugular vein is chosen. His oxygen requirement is [six] liters by nasal cannula and rising, and a pneumothorax in a patient who may soon need a ventilator would be costly. The subclavian vein is also harder to compress if bleeding occurs, which matters with a platelet count of [52,000]. The femoral site would be easiest and safest for bleeding, but it carries a higher infection and thrombosis risk and would limit his mobility later. Ultrasound this morning showed a patent, compressible right internal jugular vein of about [1.1] cm with the carotid artery medial, a favorable position for insertion.
Consent
Mr. [B.] is drowsy but oriented and able to understand and weigh the information, so consent will be sought from him directly, with his wife present at his request. The conversation will cover:
1. What the line is and why he needs it: a longer tube in a large neck vein so that his blood pressure medicine can run safely.
2. The main risks: bleeding or bruising, which is more likely with his low platelets; infection of the line over time; a clot in the vein; puncture of the artery; and, rarely, a collapsed lung.
3. The benefits: safer delivery of his medicine and fewer needle sticks.
4. The alternatives: continuing through the arm cannula for now, with the risk of the medicine leaking into the tissue, or a femoral line.
5. That he may say no and that his care will continue either way.
The operator will obtain and document consent; the student will prepare the explanation and be present.
Insertion Bundle
The central line insertion bundle will be followed element by element, with the nurse holding the checklist and authority to stop the procedure:
1. Hand hygiene immediately before the procedure by everyone touching the sterile field.
2. Full barrier precautions: cap, mask, sterile gown and gloves for the operator and assistant, and a full-body sterile drape over the patient.
3. Chlorhexidine skin preparation, allowed to dry fully before the puncture.
4. Site selection documented with its reason, as above.
5. Daily review of the line's necessity.
Checklists of this kind, combined with a culture of speaking up, reduced catheter-related bloodstream infections by up to two thirds across more than a hundred intensive care units in Michigan, and the reduction was sustained over [18] months (Pronovost et al., 2006). The same bundle also sets the standard against which this insertion will be judged.
Complications and the Checks That Catch Them
1. Arterial puncture. Sign: pulsatile, bright red return or a rising neck hematoma. Check: ultrasound confirmation of the needle and wire in the vein before dilation, and a transduced waveform or blood gas if in doubt. Time frame: during insertion.
2. Bleeding at the site. Sign: oozing through the dressing or a growing hematoma. Check: site inspection every [hour] for [six] hours; pressure first, then a hemostatic dressing. Time frame: first [24] hours.
3. Pneumothorax. Sign: new breathlessness, falling saturation or reduced breath sounds on the right. Check: lung ultrasound for sliding before and after the procedure, and a chest radiograph. Time frame: first [four] hours.
4. Malposition. Sign: abnormal waveform, arrhythmia during wire placement, or a tip outside the lower superior vena cava on imaging. Check: continuous ECG during wire insertion and a radiograph before use for vasopressors. Time frame: before first use.
5. Bloodstream infection. Sign: new fever or rising inflammatory markers without another source. Check: daily site review, dressing changes on schedule, and daily necessity review. Time frame: from day [three] onward.
6. Catheter-related thrombosis. Sign: arm or neck swelling. Check: examination daily and ultrasound if suspected. Time frame: days to weeks.
Necessity Review
The line will be reviewed each morning on rounds. It comes out when he no longer needs vasopressors and has adequate peripheral access, whichever day that falls. The procedure note will be written by the operator after the insertion and is not part of this preparation.
References
Parienti, J.-J., Mongardon, N., Mégarbane, B., Mira, J.-P., Kalfon, P., Gros, A., Marqué, S., Thuong, M., Pottier, V., Ramakers, M., Savary, B., Seguin, A., Valette, X., Terzi, N., Sauneuf, B., Cattoir, V., Mermel, L. A., & du Cheyron, D. (2015). Intravascular complications of central venous catheterization by insertion site. New England Journal of Medicine, 373(13), 1220-1229. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1500964
Patel, I. J., Rahim, S., Davidson, J. C., Hanks, S. E., Tam, A. L., Walker, T. G., Wilkins, L. R., Sarode, R., & Weinberg, I. (2019). Society of Interventional Radiology consensus guidelines for the periprocedural management of thrombotic and bleeding risk in patients undergoing percutaneous image-guided interventions: Part II: Recommendations. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 30(8), 1168-1184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2019.04.017
Pronovost, P., Needham, D., Berenholtz, S., Sinopoli, D., Chu, H., Cosgrove, S., Sexton, B., Hyzy, R., Welsh, R., Roth, G., Bander, J., Kepros, J., & Goeschel, C. (2006). An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. New England Journal of Medicine, 355(26), 2725-2732. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa061115
The Purdue Global NU657 Unit 5 instructions
For Unit 5 you prepare for a bedside procedure you are likely to see or assist with during the rotation, covering everything that happens before the insertion. Prompts usually ask for the indication, a review of contraindications and bleeding risk, site or approach selection with evidence, the consent discussion, infection prevention steps, and the complications to watch for afterward. Expect to write four to six APA pages. The paper should prepare, not document: whether a student performs, assists or observes is set by the program and preceptor, and any procedure note belongs to the operator. Graders look for decisions supported by current guidance rather than a list of equipment, so give each choice its reason.
How this NU657 Unit 5 example is built
The indication section gives three reasons for a central line in the patient's own terms, then promises the reverse logic at the end: the line comes out when no longer needed. The bleeding section sets his values against the SIR thresholds for low-risk procedures, and the highlighted sentence explains why platelets are not transfused. Three risk-lowering steps follow. Site selection compares three veins using 3SITES and chooses the jugular because of his rising oxygen need and his platelet count. The consent section lists five points in plain language. The bundle appears as a checklist held by the nurse, with the Pronovost results beside it. Six complications close the paper, each with its sign, its check and its time frame.
Reading the NU657 Unit 5 grading rubric
The rubric for a procedure preparation paper usually weighs the indication, risk assessment, evidence for technique choices, consent and safety planning. The indication earns full points when it explains why this patient needs this procedure now. Risk assessment rewards thresholds taken from a named guideline and applied to the patient's values. Evidence points go to site and technique choices supported by trials. Consent is judged on whether the risks, benefits and alternatives are stated in words a patient would understand. Safety planning is scored on specific complications, each with a way to detect it and a time frame, rather than a general list of possible problems.
Common NU657 Unit 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most common error is transfusing platelets or plasma before a low-risk procedure simply because the numbers look low. Another is choosing a site by habit without weighing infection against mechanical risk. Many papers list the bundle elements without saying who holds the checklist or who can stop the procedure. Consent sections often describe risks in clinical terms the patient would not follow. Students sometimes write the paper as if they performed the procedure, which it should never imply. And a complications list without signs or time frames does not help the bedside nurse know what to look for in the first hours.
Get an NU657 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Tell us which procedure the NU657 Unit 5 prompt specifies, the patient details it supplies and the rubric. The preparation paper is back within 24-48h, costing nothing the first time, with indication, bleeding risk, consent, the insertion bundle and complications timed, and with no line suggesting a procedure was performed. 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 1: Clinical Objectives for a Medical ICU
- NU657 Unit 2: ICU Admission Note, Pulmonary-Renal
- NU657 Unit 3: Rounds Script, Near-Fatal Asthma
- NU657 Unit 4: Progress Note, Myasthenic Crisis
- NU657 Unit 6: Discussion Board Post
- NU657 Unit 7: Resuscitation Reflection
- NU657 Unit 8: Family Meeting Summary
- NU657 Unit 9: Case Conference Presentation
- NU657 Unit 10: Comprehensive Case Study
- NU656 Unit 5: High-Flow Oxygen Seminar Reflection
- NU655 Unit 5: Seminar Reflection, Massive Hemoptysis
- NU654 Unit 5: Seminar Reflection, Adrenal Crisis
- NU653 Unit 5: Seminar Reflection, Functional Weakness
NU657 Unit 5 questions, answered
Can the paper cover a procedure other than a central line?
Yes. Arterial lines, paracentesis, thoracentesis and lumbar puncture are common choices, each carrying its own indications, bleeding thresholds and complications. The sample shows a central venous catheter because the insertion bundle gives it a clear structure. A prompt naming a different procedure gets a paper built on that procedure's own evidence and safety checks.
Why cite a bundle instead of just describing sterile technique?
Because the bundle is a named, tested package, and reviewers can check each element. Pronovost and colleagues reported large drops in catheter-related bloodstream infection across Michigan ICUs after checklist-based implementation. Citing the elements and their source shows the author knows what the evidence supports, while a general description of sterile technique leaves the grader guessing which steps were meant.
Does the sample describe a procedure I performed?
No, and it never implies one. Whether a student performs, assists or observes is a matter for the program, the preceptor and the site, and any procedure log or record belongs to the student and the team. The sample covers only what happens before: the reasoning, the consent plan and the checks prepared in advance.
Where can I find a free NU657 Unit 5 sample paper?
This page holds the full NU657 Unit 5 procedure preparation paper for a central line, from the indication and bleeding risk to site choice, consent, the bundle and six complications, with three references. A paper for a different procedure can be written to your prompt.
Why are platelets not transfused in the NU657 Unit 5 paper?
The SIR consensus classifies central venous catheter placement as low bleeding risk and suggests correcting platelets only below 20,000 and the INR only above about 2.0 to 3.0. The patient's 52,000 and 1.7 fall inside those limits.