| Course | NU743 Clinical Decision-Making and Collaboration |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Bias self-audit |
| Length | About 790 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU743 Unit 6
The Twelfth Visit Looked Like the Other Eleven: A Bias Self-Audit of the Night an Intoxicated Regular With an Unread Head Bruise Was Placed in a Hallway Bed to Sleep
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU743: Clinical Decision-Making and Collaboration
Unit 6 Bias Self-Audit
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The patient, staff and department are composite; times and values are bracketed. The author's reconstructed thoughts are marked where uncertain.
The Night as a Timeline
At [0120], Mr. [D.], [47], arrived by police, found asleep on a bench outside a bus station. I thought: "[Here he is again.]" I am certain of that thought.
At [0125], the triage nurse recorded a blood alcohol of [190] mg/dL by breath estimate, a Glasgow Coma Scale of [14] attributed to intoxication, and a small bruise on the back of his head. I did not read the triage note's second line. I learned this the next day.
At [0135], I saw him briefly. He was sleepy, answered to his name, swore at me and turned over. I placed him in a hallway bed with an order to recheck in two hours. My thought, as best I can reconstruct it: "[He'll sleep it off like always.]" I am less certain of the exact words.
At [0340], a nurse could not wake him fully. His Glasgow Coma Scale was [12]. A CT showed a [small] subdural hematoma. He was transferred to the regional trauma center, where it was managed without surgery, and he recovered.
Two Biases, Supported by the Timeline
Croskerry described many cognitive dispositions to respond that lead to diagnostic error, and argued that naming them is a first step toward avoiding them (Croskerry, 2003). Two fit my night.
The first is what Croskerry calls posterior probability error: judging the likelihood of a diagnosis from what has happened to the same patient before. Eleven prior visits had all ended with Mr. [D.] sleeping off alcohol and walking out in the morning. On the twelfth, I expected the same, and I read his sleepiness as intoxication because it had always been intoxication. My [0120] thought, "here he is again," is the evidence for this bias.
The second is premature closure: settling on an explanation and ending the search while evidence remains unchecked. I decided at [0135] that he was intoxicated and nothing more, and I stopped gathering information. The evidence is the unread line in the triage note. The bruise was recorded; I did not look.
I did not miss the bruise because I could not see it; I missed it because I had already decided there was nothing to find.
A Third Bias, Considered and Rejected
I considered triage cueing, the tendency to accept the diagnosis implied by where or how a patient is triaged. It does not fit well. The triage nurse did not cue me toward intoxication alone; she recorded the bruise, which should have cued me the other way. The error was mine, in not reading what she wrote, not hers in how she framed it.
Emotion
I have to add something that is not in Croskerry's list as a separate bias but runs under both. I was irritated. It was a busy night, he had sworn at me before and did again, and some part of me wanted him out of my immediate attention. Croskerry includes visceral bias, in which feelings toward a patient affect decisions, and I think it amplified the other two. My brief examination at [0135] was brief partly because I did not want to spend time with him.
Why It Mattered Clinically
Intoxication makes the assessment of head injury unreliable. Clinical decision rules for adults with minor head injury, such as the Canadian CT Head Rule, were developed in patients whose assessment could be trusted, and many studies of these rules excluded or treated intoxicated patients separately (Stiell et al., 2001). A systematic review of adults with minor head trauma identified signs that raise the likelihood of serious intracranial injury, and noted that intoxication complicates the examination on which the rules depend (Easter et al., 2015). A sleepy, intoxicated man with a head bruise therefore needed either imaging or close observation with frequent neurological checks, not a two-hour recheck.
What I Do Now
I have adopted three forcing strategies. First, I read the whole triage note for every patient before I see them, including the patients I think I know. Second, for any intoxicated patient, I look for signs of injury on a full examination, including the scalp, and I document a Glasgow Coma Scale that I record myself. Third, when I notice the thought "here he is again," I treat it as a warning and ask one question: what would I do for a stranger with these findings?
References
Croskerry, P. (2003). The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Academic Medicine, 78(8), 775-780. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200308000-00003
Easter, J. S., Haukoos, J. S., Meehan, W. P., Novack, V., & Edlow, J. A. (2015). Will neuroimaging reveal a severe intracranial injury in this adult with minor head trauma? The Rational Clinical Examination systematic review. JAMA, 314(24), 2672-2681. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.16316
Stiell, I. G., Wells, G. A., Vandemheen, K., Clement, C., Lesiuk, H., Laupacis, A., McKnight, R. D., Verbeek, R., Brison, R., Cass, D., Eisenhauer, M. A., Greenberg, G. H., & Worthington, J. (2001). The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury. The Lancet, 357(9266), 1391-1396. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04561-X
The Purdue Global NU743 Unit 6 instructions
For Unit 6 you audit one of your own clinical decisions for cognitive bias. Most versions ask for a timeline of what happened, what you were thinking at each point, the biases that best explain the reasoning with evidence from the timeline, any bias considered and rejected, attention to emotion, and changes in practice. Around 1,500 words in first person is common. Faculty reward audits that support each named bias with a specific entry, mark reconstructed thoughts as reconstructed, examine emotion honestly, and propose forcing strategies that could actually be used on a busy shift. System factors may be noted where they shaped the call, but most sections want the focus on the author's own cognition.
How the NU 743 Unit 6 example is put together
The audit opens with a timeline from arrival to reassessment, each entry paired with the author's thought and a note on certainty. Posterior probability error is supported by the arrival thought and eleven prior visits; premature closure by the unread line in the triage note, with the highlighted sentence on why the bruise was missed. Triage cueing is considered and rejected because the triage nurse had recorded the bruise. A section admits irritation and names visceral bias. Another explains why intoxication makes head injury assessment unreliable, citing a clinical decision rule and a systematic review. The audit closes with three forcing strategies, including reading every triage note and asking what would be done for a stranger.
NU743 Unit 6 rubric: what earns full points
Bias self-audits are commonly assessed on the timeline, identification of biases, use of evidence from the case, attention to emotion and forcing strategies. The timeline earns credit when events and thoughts are paired and uncertainty is marked. Identification is judged on accurate use of a named catalog, with each bias supported by specific entries. Rejecting a plausible bias with a reason often scores well because it shows discrimination. Emotion is credited when named honestly without excessive self-criticism. Forcing strategies score highest when they are concrete, feasible and tied to the biases identified. Clinical context, such as why the missed finding mattered, strengthens the analysis and keeps it tied to patient safety.
NU743 Unit 6 help from the desk
A frequent weakness is naming many biases without evidence for any. Another is a timeline reconstructed from memory without marking which parts are uncertain. Some audits blame the system to avoid examining the author's own thinking. Others avoid emotion, which often drives the shortcut. Many propose vague strategies, such as be more careful, that cannot be checked. And audits sometimes omit the clinical stakes, which makes the exercise feel academic. Pair each moment with your thought, name the two biases the evidence best supports, reject one with a reason, admit what you felt, and choose strategies you could use on your next shift.
Get an NU743 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Name the bias catalog your section uses, Croskerry's or another, when you send the prompt and rubric, plus any required length. Built around a composite call rather than yours, the first custom sample costs nothing, comes back in 24-48h, and holds hindsight out of the timeline, which is where graders tend to look first. 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 NU743 papers and DNP samples
- NU743 Unit 1: Reasoning Narrative, Treat in Place
- NU743 Unit 2: Differential Workup, High ALP
- NU743 Unit 3: Discussion Post, PECARN and Observation
- NU743 Unit 4: Case Analysis, Postpartum Headache
- NU743 Unit 5: Decision Tree, Appendicitis
- NU743 Unit 7: Interprofessional Conflict Analysis
- NU743 Unit 8: Colleague Communication Piece
- NU743 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
- NU743 Unit 10: Integrated Case Report
- NU733 Unit 6: Policy Brief to the City Manager
- NU713 Unit 6: Disparities Analysis, Heart Failure
- NU703 Unit 6: Writing Seminar Reflection
NU743 Unit 6 questions, answered
What if I cannot remember what I was thinking at the time?
Most people cannot, fully, and the audit is allowed to say so. Mark reconstructed thoughts as reconstructed, lean on what was documented, because notes preserve the order of attention better than memory does, and resist filling gaps with reasoning you would like to have had. Faculty generally reward admitted uncertainty over a suspiciously complete recollection.
Should the audit discuss system factors at all?
Briefly, where they genuinely shaped the call, such as a crowded department or an unread triage field. In many sections the assignment centers on the author's own cognition, though, so system factors belong in a paragraph, not a section. An audit that ends up blaming staffing for a shortcut the author took misses what the unit is asking.
Which bias catalog does the sample use?
Croskerry's list of cognitive dispositions to respond, because it names posterior probability error and visceral bias precisely. Some sections prefer another taxonomy, or ask for heuristics from the judgment and decision-making literature instead. If your prompt names one, the sample follows it, and each bias is still shown operating in the record rather than simply named.
Where can I find a free NU743 Unit 6 sample paper?
The full NU743 Unit 6 bias self-audit is on this page, with a timeline, two named biases supported by entries, a bias considered and rejected, a section on emotion, the clinical stakes and three forcing strategies, plus three references. An audit of your own decision can be requested.
What is posterior probability error in NU743 Unit 6?
Judging the likelihood of a diagnosis from what happened to the same patient before. Eleven prior visits had ended in sleeping off alcohol, so the twelfth was read the same way, despite a recorded head bruise.