One shared decision making record, NU 674 Unit 6, entire: what the patient accepted, what they refused, and the plan assembled from the part they agreed to. Searches like "nu 674 unit 6 assignment example", "nu674 unit 6 sample" and "nu 674 unit 6 example" land here.
What a finished NU 674 Unit 6 shared decision making record looks like
The finished record is written in the language of a negotiation that actually happened. It states what was offered and in what words, then what the person accepted, what they declined and what they said about declining, quoted closely enough that a reader can tell a refusal from a hesitation. The reasons the person gives are recorded as reasons rather than as symptoms, which is the distinction the whole document rests on. What remains after the refusal is then assembled into a workable plan, with the writer saying what is lost by proceeding without the declined element. Capacity is addressed as a separate question and not conflated with disagreement. The record closes with what was left open and how the conversation would be resumed.
How a NU 674 Unit 6 example is structured
The record is ordered so that the refusal is not skipped on the way to a plan. What was proposed comes first, in the words used, because a person cannot be described as refusing something the reader has not seen offered. The response follows immediately and is separated into acceptance, refusal and uncertainty, since collapsing them produces a record that reports opposition where there was ambivalence. The person's stated reasons occupy their own section before any clinical interpretation of them, which protects the document from turning disagreement into a symptom. Capacity is handled next and kept distinct, as the two questions are commonly confused and the confusion is gradeable. The plan built from what was agreed comes after all of that, so it is visibly assembled from the conversation. The closing names what remains unsettled.
What was offered, in the words used
The proposal is written as it was actually put to the person, since a refusal cannot be judged against an offer the reader never saw.
Acceptance, refusal and uncertainty kept apart
The response is split three ways rather than scored as agreement or opposition, because ambivalence recorded as refusal misrepresents most of these conversations.
Reasons recorded as reasons
What the person says about declining is written down without being reinterpreted, which is the distinction this whole deliverable is built on.
Capacity treated as its own question
The record separates whether the person can weigh the decision from whether they agree with it, since conflating the two is a visible error.
A plan built from the agreed part
What survives the refusal is assembled into something workable, with the document naming plainly what is given up by proceeding without the rest.
What was left open
The closing records the question still unresolved and the point at which it would be raised again, rather than declaring the matter settled.
Where marks go in NU 674 Unit 6
Records of partial agreement fail by treating refusal as pathology. A document explaining that the patient lacked insight, with nothing about what they actually said, has removed the material the unit is about and the criteria find only a judgment. The second cost is the abandoned plan: a writer who cannot get everything abandons the parts the person accepted, which is neither clinically nor academically defensible. Capacity assertions made in passing, without the question being asked separately, invite the reader to correct you. Records that never quote the person read as summaries of a meeting the writer controlled. Papers ending in agreement on everything describe a conversation that rarely occurs. Any passage drifting into what a clinician should do to secure consent has moved from an example into instruction.
Get a NU 674 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 6 instructions and the rubric from your NU 674 classroom, with the decision your case turns on. We write a custom example that puts the proposal in the words used, separates acceptance from refusal from uncertainty, keeps capacity as its own question and builds a plan from what was agreed. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.
NU 674 Unit 6 questions, answered
What if the patient refuses the whole plan?
Then the record documents that and describes what remains: continued contact, a smaller agreement, an open door and a stated point of return. Many sections give credit for exactly this, because a total refusal handled without abandonment shows more than a case where everything is accepted. What loses ground is a document that ends when the answer is no.
How much of the conversation should be quoted?
Enough for a reader to hear the difference between a firm refusal and a hesitation, which usually means a few short exchanges rather than a transcript. Since the patient is composite, write the quoted lines to hold precisely the ambiguity the record turns on, and add a line saying the material is constructed and de-identified.
Does capacity belong in this record?
As a separate question, yes, and kept short unless the instructions ask for more. Note how the question was approached and what the answer rested on, without turning the record into a formal evaluation. The point in this unit is to show that disagreement and incapacity were not treated as the same finding, which is where the credit sits.