| Course | NU 623 Adult Healthcare |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 1 |
| Paper type | Screening and prevention plan |
| Length | About 1,000 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MSN Family Nurse Practitioner |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU 623 Unit 1
Screening and Prevention Plan for a 52-Year-Old Woman With a Former Smoking History
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NU 623: Adult Healthcare
Instructor Name
January 22, 2026
Screening and Prevention Plan for a 52-Year-Old Woman With a Former Smoking History
What Drives This Patient's Schedule
Ms. C., a composite 52-year-old dental office manager, is establishing care for a wellness visit. The facts that change her plan are these. She smoked one pack a day from age 18 to 42, a 24 pack-year history, and quit ten years ago. Her mother had breast cancer diagnosed at 68; no other relatives had breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer. She has never had a colonoscopy. Her last cervical screening was at 44 and was normal, with HPV testing she believes was negative. She is postmenopausal since 50, has one male partner of 20 years, and does not use drugs. Her body mass index is 29, and her blood pressure today is 128/82. She drinks one glass of wine most evenings. She has no chronic conditions and takes no medications.
Guideline Bodies Used
Recommendations come primarily from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which grades each recommendation by the certainty and size of net benefit: A and B mean offer or provide the service, C means offer selectively based on the individual, and D means discourage. Where another body differs, it is named. Immunizations follow the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices schedule, which the USPSTF does not cover.
Schedule: Due Now
Lung cancer screening, annual low-dose computed tomography. She is 52, has at least 20 pack-years, and quit within the past 15 years, so she meets all three criteria in the current recommendation (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2021b). Grade B. Screening stops when she has not smoked for 15 years, which for her is at age 57, unless she develops a health problem that limits her life expectancy or ability to have surgery. Because this is the item patients least expect, it is discussed first, including false positives and the need for follow-up scans.
Colorectal cancer screening. She is overdue. Adults aged 50 to 75 should be screened (grade A), and acceptable strategies range from a colonoscopy each decade to a yearly stool immunochemical test or a multitarget stool DNA test at one- to three-year intervals (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2021a). She prefers a stool test to start; a fecal immunochemical test is ordered, with the understanding that a positive result requires colonoscopy.
Breast cancer screening, biennial mammography from 40 to 74. Grade B (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2024). Her mother's diagnosis at 68 is a real family history marker, but one first-degree relative diagnosed after menopause, with no ovarian cancer and no known inherited mutation in the family, does not by itself place her in a high-risk category or meet criteria for genetic risk assessment, so the average-risk schedule applies.
Cervical cancer screening. At 52, she can be screened with high-risk HPV testing alone every five years, cotesting every five years, or cytology alone every three years (grade A; US Preventive Services Task Force, 2018). Her last test was eight years ago, so she is due; primary HPV testing is chosen.
Hypertension screening (grade A): today's reading is normal and is repeated yearly. Prediabetes and type 2 diabetes screening for adults 35 to 70 with overweight (grade B): an A1C is drawn. Statin use for primary prevention depends on 10-year risk, which is calculated once her lipid panel returns. Hepatitis C screening once for adults 18 to 79 (grade B) and HIV screening for adults 15 to 65 (grade A): both ordered, since she has never been tested. Unhealthy alcohol use screening (grade B): her intake of about seven drinks a week is at the recommended limit for women, and a brief conversation is recorded. Depression screening (grade B): negative today.
Schedule: Due Later, or Not Applicable
Osteoporosis screening is recommended for women 65 and older (grade B) and for younger postmenopausal women at increased risk. Her former smoking and alcohol use raise her risk modestly; a fracture risk tool will be used at her next visit to decide whether earlier bone density testing is warranted. Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening applies only to men who have ever smoked, aged 65 to 75, and does not apply. Prostate screening does not apply.
Immunizations: recombinant zoster vaccine, two doses, recommended for adults 50 and older; Tdap if more than ten years since her last dose, which she cannot recall, so it is given; annual influenza vaccine; and a current COVID-19 vaccine. Pneumococcal vaccination is reviewed against the current adult schedule at this visit.
Where Guidelines Disagree
The American Cancer Society recommends annual mammography from 45 to 54, then every one or two years (Oeffinger et al., 2015), while the USPSTF recommends every two years from 40 to 74. For Ms. C., the difference is annual versus biennial screening at her age. I would follow the USPSTF biennial interval, because the modeling behind it found that biennial screening kept most of the benefit of annual screening with fewer false-positive results and biopsies. Because the choice involves her values about false alarms, it is presented to her as a choice rather than decided for her.
Shared Decisions, Barriers, and What She Declined
Lung cancer screening and the stool-based versus colonoscopy choice are shared decisions. She agreed to lung screening after discussing false positives. She declined colonoscopy for now, citing time off work and fear of the preparation, and chose the fecal immunochemical test; her decision is recorded with the discussion, not omitted. Her insurance covers USPSTF A and B services without cost sharing, which removes cost as a barrier for most items; she is told that a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool test should also be covered as part of screening, but that she should confirm with her plan. Transportation is not a barrier.
Due at the next visit: review of her lipid panel and 10-year risk with a statin discussion, her A1C result, the fecal immunochemical test result, and the fracture risk assessment. She was asked to decide before then whether she wants the second zoster dose at the pharmacy or in the clinic.
References
Oeffinger, K. C., Fontham, E. T. H., Etzioni, R., Herzig, A., Michaelson, J. S., Shih, Y.-C. T., Walter, L. C., Church, T. R., Flowers, C. R., LaMonte, S. J., Wolf, A. M. D., DeSantis, C., Lortet-Tieulent, J., Andrews, K., Manassaram-Baptiste, D., Saslow, D., Smith, R. A., Brawley, O. W., & Wender, R. (2015). Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA, 314(15), 1599-1614. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.12783
US Preventive Services Task Force. (2018). Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 320(7), 674-686. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.10897
US Preventive Services Task Force. (2021a). Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 325(19), 1965-1977. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.6238
US Preventive Services Task Force. (2021b). Screening for lung cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 325(10), 962-970. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.1117
US Preventive Services Task Force. (2024). Screening for breast cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 331(22), 1918-1930. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.5534
The Herzing NU 623 Unit 1 instructions
The Unit 1 prompt asks you to develop a screening and prevention plan for an adult patient, usually from a case, using current evidence-based recommendations. Expect to identify the patient characteristics that change the schedule, such as smoking history, family history or sex, then list each screening or preventive service with its recommendation source and grade. Many sections ask you to separate what is due now from what is due later and to note services that do not apply. Immunizations may be included. Where guideline bodies disagree, you should explain the difference and your choice. Shared decision making and barriers such as cost or access are commonly part of the grade. Cite the Task Force and other bodies by name and year in APA 7. Work from an invented patient and keep within the page range your instructor gives.
Inside the NU 623 Unit 1 example
The plan starts by naming what drives this patient's schedule: age, pack-years, years since quitting, alcohol use and family history. A short section explains how Task Force grades work, so each later recommendation can be read correctly. The due now schedule gives lung cancer screening with the three eligibility criteria shown as met, along with colorectal, cervical and breast cancer screening and blood pressure and diabetes checks, each with its grade and interval. The due later section explains why bone density testing is not yet indicated and lists services that do not apply. The disagreement section compares mammography intervals across two bodies and states the choice made. The final section records which screenings were shared decisions, how cost was addressed and what she declined, written without judgment and with a plan to revisit.
Reading the NU 623 Unit 1 rubric
A Herzing rubric for this plan generally scores patient assessment, accuracy of recommendations, use of evidence grades, individualization, patient-centered elements and writing. Patient assessment points go to identifying the risk factors that actually change the schedule. Accuracy is often the heaviest criterion and depends on correct ages, intervals and eligibility criteria from current guidelines. Evidence grade points require each recommendation to carry its source and grade. Individualization is credited when the plan explains why a service is due, deferred or not applicable for this person. Patient-centered points come from shared decisions, barriers and declined services handled respectfully. Writing points cover a clear schedule format, current citations in APA style and a plan that another clinician could carry forward at the next visit.
NU 623 Unit 1 help before you submit
Prevention plans most often lose points by listing every screening for the patient's age without checking eligibility, for example ordering lung cancer screening without confirming pack-years and quit date. Outdated intervals are a common accuracy problem, especially for colorectal and cervical screening, which have changed in recent years. Students also forget to cite the grade or year for each recommendation. Guideline disagreements are often ignored, or one body is cited without acknowledging the other. Another frequent gap is a plan with no shared decisions, as if the patient had no say. Declined services should be recorded neutrally with a plan to revisit. Finally, keep the schedule readable; a dense paragraph of recommendations is harder to grade than a clear list.
Get a NU 623 Unit 1 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 1 instructions and the rubric from your NU 623 classroom, plus the patient case your plan is built around. We write a custom example with every recommendation cited to its body and grade, and the shared decisions marked, returned in 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.
More NU 623 papers and FNP samples
- NU 623 Unit 2: Risk stratification write-up
- NU 623 Unit 3: Chronic disease management plan
- NU 623 Unit 4: Episodic visit documentation
- NU 623 Unit 5: Self-management support plan
- NU 623 Unit 6: Referral and consultation letter
- NU 623 Unit 7: Quality measure gap analysis
- NU 623 Unit 8: Panel management plan
- NU 636 Unit 1: Drug class profile
- NU 627 Unit 1: Comprehensive geriatric assessment
- NU 631 Unit 1: Well-woman visit plan
- NU 632 Unit 1: Well-child visit with anticipatory guidance
NU 623 Unit 1 questions, answered
Which guideline bodies should I cite?
Whichever your instructions name, and where the choice is open, the preventive services task force for screening plus the relevant specialty society for anything it does not cover. Name the body every time and give the year, because recommendations change and a citation without a date does not tell a reader whether the interval you used is current.
What do I do when two bodies disagree?
Present both and take a position. Screening intervals for several adult conditions differ between organizations, and a paper citing only the one that matches its plan looks selective to anybody who knows the area. State the disagreement, say which you would follow for this patient and why their circumstances point that way, and note what would change your answer.
How do I handle a recommendation the patient cannot afford?
Address it in the plan rather than leaving it as an item they will not act on. Note the coverage position, whether a lower-cost pathway exists, and what you would do if none does. A plan that ignores affordability produces a schedule the patient silently abandons, and faculty grading adult primary care are looking for the version that survives contact with their circumstances.
Where can I find a free NU 623 Unit 1 sample paper?
The full NU 623 Unit 1 plan is posted here free, with the patient factors, graded schedule, guideline disagreement and shared decisions. If your case describes a different adult, request a custom plan built on it; there is no charge and it usually arrives within two days.
Which guidelines should I use for a NU 623 screening plan?
Most sections expect the US Preventive Services Task Force as the main source, with grades and dates. Add specialty bodies such as the American Cancer Society where they differ, explain the disagreement and state which recommendation you followed and why.