| Course | NSG 122 Nursing Fundamental Concepts |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Fundamentals skills file |
| Length | About 820 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NSG 122 Unit 8
Fundamentals Skills File: One Four-Day Admission From Data to Evaluation, With Every Goal Judged as Originally Written
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NSG 122: Nursing Fundamental Concepts
Instructor Name
March 4, 2026
Fundamentals Skills File: One Four-Day Admission From Data to Evaluation, With Every Goal Judged as Originally Written
Contents
Part 1: data collection (from Unit 1). Part 2: problem statements (Unit 2). Part 3: goals and outcomes (Unit 3). Part 4: skill rationale, intake and output (Unit 4). Part 5: ordering of needs (Unit 5). Part 6: safety and mobility plan (Unit 6). Part 7: care record (Unit 7). Part 8: evaluation. Sources. Each part keeps the shape it had when it was learned; the cross-references in square brackets are new, and a short passage at each seam says what carried forward and what was set aside.
Parts 1 and 2, and the Seam Between Them
Part 1, in brief: composite 84-year-old retired school custodian, admitted after three days of vomiting and diarrhea; weight 2.9 kg below his clinic weight; systolic pressure fell 22 mm Hg on standing; 180 mL of dark urine over eight hours; high sodium and urea nitrogen; walker at home; lives alone.
Seam: every finding in Part 1 was used in Part 2 except two. His poor appetite and his slower answers were recorded and set aside, because the data did not support a nutrition problem or confusion.
Part 2, statements as written: deficient fluid volume [P2-1]; diarrhea [P2-2]; risk for falls [P2-3]; risk for impaired skin integrity [P2-4].
Part 3, With Its Links Back to Part 2
Goals kept with their original measures and dates: G1 urine output of at least 240 mL per shift by the end of day 2 [answers P2-1]; G2 no more than a 10 mm Hg systolic drop from lying to standing, end of day 2 [P2-1]; G3 at least 1,500 mL drunk per day with no more than one prompt per shift, two consecutive days before discharge [P2-1]; G4 weighing at least 66.0 kg on the morning of discharge [P2-1]; G5 two or fewer stools a day by day 2, none watery for 24 hours before discharge [P2-2]; G6 presses the call light each time before getting up [P2-3]; G7 walks 30 m with the walker and standby help by day 3, supervision only by discharge [P2-3]; G8 perianal skin intact daily and redness resolved by discharge [P2-4].
Seam: the drinking goal was set below the general guideline figure for older men, and this was carried forward unchanged, so it is judged at the lower figure.
Parts 4 to 7, and What Each Documents
Part 4, the intake and output skill, produced the figures used to judge G1 and G3 [G1, G3]. Its cross-check against daily weight is what produced the figures for G4. Part 5 ordered the day-two needs and placed fluid first and falls second; the shower was deferred [P2-1, P2-3]. Part 6, the mobility plan, set the before, during, and after stages used for every transfer and produced the call-light log for G6 and the walking distances for G7. Part 7, the day-three care record, documents the seated wash, the perianal skin measurement used for G8, one brief episode of lightheadedness on standing relevant to G2, and an unexpected forearm bruise.
Seam: the bruise in Part 7 did not belong to any existing problem statement. It was reported and is listed below as an unresolved finding rather than turned into a new statement at the end of the admission.
Part 8: Evaluation Against the Goals as Written
G1: met. Output averaged 42 and 35 mL an hour over the day-two shifts, above the 240 mL per shift threshold.
G2: met on day 2, not sustained. The day-2 evening difference was 8 mm Hg, but he was lightheaded on standing during morning care on day 3. The goal was met again on two checks on day 3 afternoon and day 4. Judged as written, met by its date; the relapse is recorded.
G3: partly met. He drank 1,600 and 1,550 mL on the last two days, but the first of those days needed three prompts, not one.
G4: met. Discharge weight 66.4 kg.
G5: met. Stools formed from day 3.
G6: met from day 2. The one unassisted attempt to stand happened on the first night, before the goal was set.
G7: met. 30 m with standby help on day 3; with supervision only on day 4.
G8: partly met. Skin remained intact every day; the redness was unchanged in size on day 3 and smaller but still present at discharge. Guidance on moisture-related skin damage expects redness to settle only after the moisture source stops (Gray et al., 2012), and his stools only became formed on day 3.
Not resolved: the forearm bruise, of unknown cause, reported and awaiting review; and his drinking habit, which his discharge teaching addresses.
Sources
Problem statement format: Herdman et al. (2024). Nursing process, skills, and documentation format: Potter et al. (2023). Falls risk scoring: Morse et al. (1989). Skin care guidance: Gray et al. (2012). The patient and all data are constructed for this course.
References
Gray, M., Beeckman, D., Bliss, D. Z., Fader, M., Logan, S., Junkin, J., Selekof, J., Doughty, D., & Kurz, P. (2012). Incontinence-associated dermatitis: A comprehensive review and update. Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing, 39(1), 61-74. https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0b013e31823fe246
Herdman, T. H., Kamitsuru, S., & Takáo Lopes, C. (Eds.). (2024). NANDA International nursing diagnoses: Definitions and classification, 2024-2026 (13th ed.). Thieme.
Morse, J. M., Morse, R. M., & Tylko, S. J. (1989). Development of a scale to identify the fall-prone patient. Canadian Journal on Aging, 8(4), 366-377. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980800008576
Potter, P. A., Perry, A. G., Stockert, P. A., & Hall, A. M. (2023). Fundamentals of nursing (11th ed.). Elsevier.
NSG 122 Unit 8 instructions, in plain terms
Unit 8 brings the course's work for one patient into a single skills file. Expect to list contents, summarize earlier parts, show links between them and evaluate goals as originally written. Students often ask about reusing earlier units and about goals that changed mid-admission. Check whether your section expects every earlier unit included. Reuse is expected, but parts should be summarized and linked rather than pasted. Evaluate goals exactly as written, even if they now seem poorly chosen; note that in reflection. Show how skills such as intake and output produced the data used in evaluation. The file should read as one admission.
How the NSG 122 Unit 8 example is put together
The file opens with a contents list mapping each part to its earlier unit. The seam section shows how data became problems. Part 3 lists goals with links to their problems. Parts 4 to 7 explain what each skill or plan documented. Part 8 evaluates each goal with its original wording and the evidence. Where a goal was partly met, the file says so and explains why. The links between parts are explicit, so a reader can trace the fluid goal from assessment to evaluation. The file is concise, summarizing rather than repeating earlier units, which is what makes it an integration rather than a stack. A partly met goal is reported as partly met, with the reason, rather than rewritten.
NSG 122 Unit 8 rubric: what full points look like
Herzing's rubric for the skills file typically covers completeness, links between parts, consistency of the patient, evaluation against original goals and concision. The evaluation is checked against the goals as first written, so rewriting a target to look met costs heavily. Completeness points reward every part. Link criteria look for explicit connections, such as intake figures feeding the fluid goal. Consistency points go to the same patient and data throughout. Concision earns credit for summary over repetition. Honest partly met judgments are often credited. Clear part labels help. The format rests on the Potter text and the NANDA classification. A short reflection on which goals were poorly chosen, kept separate from the evaluation, often earns credit.
NSG 122 Unit 8 help: mistakes that cost points
A Unit 8 skills file often falls short when earlier units are pasted in without links between them. Another frequent problem is rewriting goals so they look met. Students often skip the evaluation of partly met goals. Patient details change between parts. The file runs long. Skills are listed without showing what data they produced. The contents list is missing. The seam between data and problems is not explained. Dates in Part 8 do not match the goals in Part 3. Finally, judge each goal as written, because graders reward an honest evaluation over a file where every goal is met by quietly changing the target.
Get a NSG 122 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 8 instructions and the rubric from your NSG 122 classroom, together with the earlier pieces the file has to gather. We write a custom example that keeps each part in its own format, writes the cross references at the seams, names what was set aside and evaluates the original goals. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.
More NSG 122 papers and BSN samples
- NSG 122 Unit 1: Nursing process walkthrough
- NSG 122 Unit 2: Patient problem statement set
- NSG 122 Unit 3: Measurable goal and outcome sheet
- NSG 122 Unit 4: Skill rationale write-up
- NSG 122 Unit 5: Patient needs ordering brief
- NSG 122 Unit 6: Safety and mobility plan
- NSG 122 Unit 7: Basic care procedure record
- NSG 423 Unit 8: Professional stance portfolio
- NSG 633 Unit 8: Frontline improvement pitch
- NSG 660 Unit 8: Scholarly reading portfolio
- NSG 120 Unit 8: Patient teaching rationale
NSG 122 Unit 8 questions, answered
Do I have to reuse my earlier assignments?
Many sections expect it, and the instructions will say. Where earlier work is reused, correct what was marked wrong the first time rather than pasting it forward, since an error carried into the file gets read twice. If your section wants a fresh case instead, keep the same internal links, because the connections are what the unit examines.
How long should the finished file be?
Follow whatever your instructions set. Where no length is given, let the case decide and resist padding, since a file grows naturally from the number of problems it carries. Length earns nothing on its own here, and a marker reading for coherence will notice that a repeated background section pushed the evaluation into two thin paragraphs.
What if the earlier pieces disagree with each other?
Say so in the file and reconcile them where you can. A goal that no longer matches its problem, or care that addressed something the statements never named, is worth a short note explaining what changed and why. Silent inconsistency reads as carelessness, while a reconciled one reads as a student who checked their own work.
Where can I find a free NSG 122 Unit 8 sample paper?
This page holds the whole NSG 122 Unit 8 skills file free, one admission from data to evaluation with every goal judged as written. Your own Units 1 to 7 can be assembled into a custom file.
Why evaluate nursing goals exactly as originally written?
Because changing a goal after the fact hides whether the plan worked. This sample judges each goal with its original measure and date and explains any that were only partly met.