| Course | NU 345 Health Assessment and Promotion Across the Life Span |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Health risk appraisal |
| Length | About 660 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | RN to BSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU 345 Unit 6
Health Risk Appraisal for a 56-Year-Old Postmenopausal Office Manager: What She Can Change, Reduce, and Cannot Change
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NU 345: Health Assessment and Promotion Across the Life Span
Instructor Name
February 24, 2026
Health Risk Appraisal for a 56-Year-Old Postmenopausal Office Manager: What She Can Change, Reduce, and Cannot Change
The Person and the Sources Used
Ms. R., a composite 56-year-old office manager, went through menopause at 51 and came for a wellness visit asking what she "should be worried about." This appraisal draws risks from several directions rather than from a single questionnaire: personal and family history, behavior, occupation, environment, and social circumstances, with validated tools where they exist and a statement of what each tool does not capture. She is 5 feet 3 inches tall and weighs 118 pounds, body mass index 20.9. Blood pressure 124/78. She smokes half a pack of cigarettes a day, 20 pack-years in total. Her mother fractured her hip at 72. She has taken prednisone for several months at a time twice in the past five years for asthma flares. She works at a desk and walks little. She drinks wine most evenings and lives with her husband and a teenage son.
Tools Used and What They Leave Out
Fracture risk: the FRAX tool estimates the 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture and of hip fracture from age, sex, weight, height, previous fracture, parental hip fracture, current smoking, glucocorticoid use, rheumatoid arthritis, secondary osteoporosis, alcohol intake of three or more units daily, and bone density if available (Kanis et al., 2008). Without bone density, her estimated 10-year risk of a major osteoporotic fracture was roughly 15%, driven by her mother's hip fracture, smoking, steroid use, and low body weight. FRAX does not capture fall risk, the dose of steroid used, or the number of drinks below its three-unit threshold.
Alcohol: the AUDIT-C, a three-question screen for unhealthy drinking, gave a score of 5; a score of 3 or more in women suggests unhealthy use (Bush et al., 1998). She drinks two glasses of wine five evenings a week and occasionally four on weekends. The tool screens but does not diagnose, and it does not capture why she drinks, which she said is "to wind down."
Screening status: she has had mammography every two years and a colonoscopy at 50 that was normal. No bone density scan has ever been done. Guidance recommends osteoporosis screening for postmenopausal women younger than 65 whose fracture risk is increased, as determined by a formal risk tool (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2018), which applies to her.
Sorting the Risks
The table sorts every risk identified into what she can change, what she can reduce but not remove, and what is fixed.
| Risk | Category | Why | Linked outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smoking, 20 pack-years | Can change | Quitting removes ongoing harm | Fracture, lung cancer, heart disease, asthma flares |
| Alcohol above recommended limits | Can change | Intake is a daily behavior | Falls, bone loss, breast cancer, sleep |
| Physical inactivity | Can change | Walking and strength training are within reach | Bone density, falls, heart disease |
| Low body weight | Can reduce | Can be maintained or modestly increased with nutrition and strength training | Fracture risk |
| Glucocorticoid exposure | Can reduce | Better asthma control reduces need for oral steroids | Bone loss, diabetes |
| Asthma | Can reduce | Controller therapy and avoiding smoke | Steroid use, flares |
| Age and menopause | Fixed | Cannot change | Bone loss |
| Mother's hip fracture | Fixed | Family history | Fracture risk |
| Past 20 pack-years of smoking | Fixed | Past exposure | Lung cancer screening eligibility |
What the Sorting Shows
Most of her risk is concentrated in a few connected behaviors. Smoking contributes to fracture risk, asthma flares, and therefore steroid use, which further increases fracture risk; quitting would act on several risks at once. Alcohol adds to fall and fracture risk and to breast cancer risk. Inactivity and low weight contribute to low bone density. The fixed risks, her age, menopause, and her mother's fracture, cannot be changed, but they are important because they raise the stakes of the modifiable ones: a woman with her family history has more to gain from quitting smoking and exercising than a woman without it.
Her smoking history also makes her eligible for annual lung cancer screening, since she is between 50 and 80, has 20 pack-years, and currently smokes. This was not a question she arrived with, and it is one of the most important findings of the appraisal.
Priorities for Her Plan
In discussion, Ms. R. chose two priorities: quitting smoking, with medication support and a quitline referral, and walking 30 minutes five days a week with two strength sessions at home. She agreed to a bone density test and to discuss lung cancer screening at her next visit. She was not ready to change her drinking but agreed to track it for a month. The appraisal will be repeated in a year, when a bone density result can be added to FRAX and her smoking status may have changed.
References
Bush, K., Kivlahan, D. R., McDonell, M. B., Fihn, S. D., & Bradley, K. A. (1998). The AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C): An effective brief screening test for problem drinking. Archives of Internal Medicine, 158(16), 1789-1795. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.158.16.1789
Kanis, J. A., Johnell, O., Oden, A., Johansson, H., & McCloskey, E. (2008). FRAX and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporosis International, 19(4), 385-397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-007-0543-5
US Preventive Services Task Force. (2018). Screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 319(24), 2521-2531. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.7498
The Herzing NU 345 Unit 6 instructions
Unit 6 asks you to complete a health risk appraisal for one person and plan priorities with them. Expect to describe the person and your sources, use validated tools, explain their limits, sort risks by whether they can be changed, analyze patterns and set priorities with the person. Many versions ask why risks should be sorted and whether to weight them. Check which tools your section expects. Sorting by modifiability helps focus effort on what the person can act on. Tools such as FRAX, AUDIT-C or the ASCVD calculator give numbers but leave things out, so say what. Priorities should be the person's choice, informed by the appraisal, since a plan she did not choose is unlikely to work.
How this NU 345 Unit 6 example is built
The appraisal opens with the person and the sources of information. The tools section names each instrument, what it estimates and what it misses. The table sorts every identified risk into three columns, which makes the picture clear at a glance. The pattern section explains that smoking and inactivity contribute to several risks at once, so changing them pays off widely. The priorities section records what Ms. R. chose and why, with the support offered for each choice. The appraisal stays brief and practical. Each tool and recommendation is cited, including Task Force guidance on screening, so the appraisal rests on evidence rather than general health advice.
Reading the NU 345 Unit 6 rubric
Herzing's rubric for a health risk appraisal typically covers data sources, use of validated tools, understanding of tool limits, organization of risks, analysis, person-centered priorities and writing. Analysis and priorities draw the closest reading: graders look for patterns among risks and priorities the person helped choose. Tool points reward validated instruments used correctly. Limits criteria look for what each tool leaves out. Organization earns credit for a clear sorting. Person-centered priorities should reflect her choices. A readable table helps. Kanis's FRAX paper and Bush's AUDIT-C validation belong in the APA 7 references. Graders also check that screening recommendations follow current Task Force guidance for her age, such as bone density and colorectal screening.
NU 345 Unit 6 help: mistakes that cost points
Risk appraisals in Unit 6 often fall short by listing every risk without sorting or prioritizing. Another frequent problem is tools used without stating what they miss. Students often set priorities for the person rather than with her. Fixed risks are given as much space as changeable ones. Connections among risks are missed. Support for chosen priorities, such as quitline referral, is not described. Screening recommendations are generic. Finally, record what the person chose and why, because graders reward an appraisal that ends with a plan the person owns rather than a list of everything she should do. Another gap is a tool score reported without what it means for her, such as a 10-year fracture probability in plain words. A follow-up date to review progress on her chosen priorities makes the plan checkable.
Get a NU 345 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 6 instructions and the rubric from your NU 345 classroom, plus the person your appraisal covers. We write a custom example that gathers from several directions, sorts modifiable from fixed and prioritizes with the person, returned in 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.
More NU 345 papers and RN-to-BSN samples
- NU 345 Unit 1: Lifespan assessment variations
- NU 345 Unit 2: Functional health pattern assessment
- NU 345 Unit 3: Genogram and family health history
- NU 345 Unit 4: Health assessment and promotion plan
- NU 345 Unit 5: Developmental stage applied to assessment
- NU 345 Unit 7: Teaching plan for one person
- NU 345 Unit 8: One health issue across the lifespan
- NU 305 Unit 6: Professional portfolio
- NU 476 Unit 6: Outcome measurement
- NSG 321 Unit 6: Just culture event review
- NSG 323 Unit 6: Disaster preparedness role analysis
NU 345 Unit 6 questions, answered
Why sort risks by whether they can change?
Because a plan can only address the changeable ones. Age, sex and family history belong in the appraisal because they set the baseline, but presenting them alongside behavior in a single list gives somebody a document that includes things they can do nothing about. Separate them, and the plan becomes something a person can act on.
Should I weight the risks?
At least roughly. A list treats every item as equivalent, and they are not: one behavior may carry more available benefit than the other four combined. You do not need precise figures, but saying which change would matter most helps a person choose, and choosing one or two is far more effective than attempting everything.
What if the person disagrees about their risk?
Record the difference rather than correcting it immediately. Somebody who considers a risk unimportant will not act on a plan addressing it, and somebody more worried than the evidence warrants needs that addressed too. The gap between their view and the appraisal is the thing to work with, and it belongs in the document.
Where can I find a free NU 345 Unit 6 sample paper?
You can read the whole NU 345 Unit 6 health risk appraisal here for free, the tools, the three-column sorting and her chosen priorities. An appraisal for a different person can be written on request.
Why sort health risks by whether they can be changed?
It focuses effort where the person can act. This sample sorts a 56-year-old woman's risks into changeable, reducible and fixed, finds that smoking and inactivity drive several of them and helps her choose those two as priorities.