| Course | NU743 Clinical Decision-Making and Collaboration |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Colleague communication piece |
| Length | About 720 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 8
One Reader, One Purpose, One Request: A Letter to a Physician Colleague Reporting That a Wrist Sprain Was a Scaphoid Fracture on MRI Three Weeks Later, With an Annotation Explaining Each Paragraph
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU743: Clinical Decision-Making and Collaboration
Unit 8 Colleague Communication Piece
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The patient, physician and practice are composite; dates and findings are bracketed.
The Letter
Sent through the practice's secure messaging system.
Dr. [Bennett],
I am writing about J.[M.], whom you saw on [March 3] after a fall on an outstretched hand, to let you know what we found at follow-up and to ask for fifteen minutes to talk before Thursday's clinic.
J.[M.] came to me on [March 24] with wrist pain that had not improved. He was tender in the anatomic snuffbox and had pain on axial compression of the thumb. His original radiographs, including a scaphoid view, were normal on my review. Because of the persistent findings, I ordered an MRI, which showed a nondisplaced fracture of the scaphoid waist. He is now in a thumb spica cast, and I have referred him to hand surgery.
I want to be clear that your assessment on the first day was reasonable. His radiographs were normal, and a meaningful share of scaphoid fractures do not show on initial films. A review of the evidence found that clinical signs such as snuffbox tenderness are sensitive but not specific, so many patients with these signs have no fracture, and that no single sign rules a fracture in or out (Carpenter et al., 2014). Without a scan, telling a sprain from an occult fracture on day one is often not possible.
What I would like to discuss is how our practice handles patients with snuffbox tenderness and normal films. A Cochrane review found that MRI and CT both perform well for suspected scaphoid fractures when initial radiographs are negative (Mallee et al., 2015). I wonder whether we should agree on a simple approach: a thumb spica splint and a repeat examination in [10 to 14] days, or early MRI for patients like J.[M.] whose work or sport makes a delay costly. Could we talk for fifteen minutes before clinic on Thursday?
Thank you,
[First name], Nurse Practitioner
Annotation
Reader. The letter has one reader, the physician who made the first assessment. I wrote it for her alone, not for the practice's quality committee, because a finding like this is best discussed between colleagues before it becomes a system question.
Purpose. The purpose is to tell her what was found and to open a conversation about a practice-wide approach. It is not to correct her. I kept that purpose in the first sentence, alongside the patient's initials and the request, so she knows within a line why I am writing and what I want.
Paragraph two gives the finding in clinical terms: the examination that changed my thinking, the review of the original films and the MRI result. I included the fact that I reviewed her films and found them normal, because it tells her that the radiographs did not show what she might have missed.
Paragraph three says that her first assessment was reasonable, and supports that with evidence. I placed it before the request because a colleague who feels blamed is less likely to hear a proposal. The evidence also makes the point impersonal: this is a known limitation of radiographs, not a lapse.
The third paragraph exists so that the fourth can be heard: a colleague who feels accused will defend the past instead of discussing the future.
Paragraph four makes one specific request, a fifteen-minute conversation at a named time, and frames the topic as a practice approach rather than her individual care. It offers two options rather than one, so the conversation can be shared rather than a verdict.
Tone and signature. I signed with my first name and role because we work together daily and a formal signature would signal a complaint. I avoided words such as missed and error, which would have changed the letter's purpose.
What I left out. I did not copy anyone else, did not mention the delay's effect on healing time, and did not propose a formal protocol. Those can come after the conversation, if she agrees that one is needed.
References
Carpenter, C. R., Pines, J. M., Schuur, J. D., Muir, M., Calfee, R. P., & Raja, A. S. (2014). Adult scaphoid fracture. Academic Emergency Medicine, 21(2), 101-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.12317
Mallee, W. H., Wang, J., Poolman, R. W., Kloen, P., Maas, M., de Vet, H. C. W., & Doornberg, J. N. (2015). Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging versus bone scintigraphy for clinically suspected scaphoid fractures in patients with negative plain radiographs. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2015(6), Article CD010023. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010023.pub2
Reading the NU 743 Unit 8 instructions
The Unit 8 assignment asks you to write a professional communication to one colleague about a clinical matter, often a finding that changes an earlier assessment, and to explain your choices. Most versions want a message with a clear purpose and request, written for a working clinician, followed by an annotation or rationale. A letter of about 450 words and an annotation of 500 to 700 words is common. Faculty reward messages that state purpose and request in the first sentence, give the finding in clinical terms, protect the colleague's standing with evidence rather than reassurance, and make one specific, answerable request. The annotation should explain choices of reader, order, tone and what was left out, since restraint is part of the skill.
How the NU 743 Unit 8 example is put together
The letter opens with its purpose, the patient's initials and the request in one sentence. The second paragraph gives the follow-up examination, the review of the original films and the MRI result. The third states that the first assessment was reasonable and cites a review showing that clinical signs are sensitive but not specific. The fourth proposes a practice approach supported by a Cochrane review of CT and MRI and asks for fifteen minutes on Thursday. The annotation then explains the single reader, the purpose, why the third paragraph precedes the request, with the highlighted sentence on being heard, the specific request, the informal signature, and what was deliberately left out.
Where the points sit in the NU743 Unit 8 rubric
Colleague communications are frequently assessed on clarity of purpose, audience awareness, professionalism, use of evidence and the rationale. Clarity earns credit when purpose and request appear at the start. Audience awareness rewards length and tone suited to a busy clinician and to the relationship. Professionalism is judged on whether the message informs without blaming. Evidence is credited when it supports both the clinical point and the colleague's reasonable judgment. The rationale scores well when it explains each structural choice and names omissions. Messages that can be read in about two minutes and acted on without a follow-up question tend to earn the highest marks for communication, while longer letters often lose points for purpose.
NU743 Unit 8 help from the desk
A frequent weakness is writing a case summary rather than a message, with the request buried at the end. Another is language such as missed or error, which turns a report into an accusation. Some letters copy supervisors or committees, changing the purpose from conversation to complaint. Others make vague requests, such as let me know your thoughts, that are easy to ignore. Many annotations describe the letter instead of explaining the choices behind it. And some letters are too long for their reader. Decide on one reader and one request, put both in the first sentence, give the finding plainly, support the colleague's judgment with evidence, and explain in the annotation what you chose not to say.
Get an NU743 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Tell us who your prompt says the colleague is, a physician, a pharmacist, a nurse on another unit, and what the message has to achieve, then include the rubric. At no charge for a first custom sample, and within 24-48h, the letter comes back speaking to that one reader, plus an annotation if your section asks for a rationale. 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 6: Bias Self-Audit, Intoxicated Regular
- NU743 Unit 7: Conflict Analysis, Vancomycin Dosing
- NU743 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
- NU743 Unit 10: Integrated Case Report
- NU733 Unit 8: Stakeholder Power Map
- NU713 Unit 8: Secondary Data Appraisal, CDC WONDER
- NU703 Unit 8: Professional Organization Analysis, ONS
NU743 Unit 8 questions, answered
Does the colleague have to be a real person?
In the sample, no; the recipient and the case are composites with invented names. Many prompts ask you to write to a real colleague about a real situation, and some expect the message to be sent. Either way, remove anything that would identify a patient, and decide with your instructor whether the actual colleague should see the version you submit.
Is an annotation or rationale always required?
Not always. Some sections want only the communication itself, others a short rationale, and a few ask for a reflection on the recipient's reply. The sample includes an annotation because it shows the reasoning behind tone and structure that graders otherwise have to infer. If your prompt asks for the letter alone, the sample matches that.
Why is the message so short?
Because its reader is a working clinician between patients. A letter to one colleague succeeds when it can be read in two minutes and acted on without a follow-up question. Length that would suit a paper for the class usually signals that the writer has drifted toward that audience, which is the fault this unit most often corrects.
Where can I find a free NU743 Unit 8 sample paper?
This page presents the full NU743 Unit 8 colleague letter and its annotation, covering the purpose, the finding, why the first assessment was reasonable, a specific request, tone and what was left out, plus two references. A message to a colleague of your own can be drafted.
Why say the first assessment was reasonable in NU743 Unit 8?
Because many scaphoid fractures do not show on initial radiographs, and snuffbox tenderness is sensitive but not specific. Saying so with evidence keeps the letter about a practice approach, so the colleague can discuss the future rather than defend the past.