NUR 4073 Module 3 Screening Guidance Application Example

Course	NUR 4073 Health Promotion
Module	Module 3
Paper type	Screening guidance application paper
Length	1,190 words, about 4 pages plus title and reference pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	American College of Education
Program	RN to BSN
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for NUR 4073 Module 3

Start, Repeat or Stop: Applying Screening Guidance to a 66-Year-Old Woman at Her First Medicare Wellness Visit

Student Name

American College of Education

NUR4073: Health Promotion

Module 3 Assignment

Instructor Name

November 16, 2026

What this page is doingThe title names the three possible outcomes of a screening decision, start, repeat or stop, and sets them in a specific visit, which tells the grader the paper applies guidance rather than summarizing it. The APA 7 title page carries the course line and module assignment as the classroom lists it.

The Client's Relevant History

The client is a 66-year-old retired school librarian attending her first Medicare Annual Wellness Visit after moving to be near her daughter. She and her records are composites written for this assignment. Her records from her previous practice show a normal screening colonoscopy at age 56 with no polyps, a combined cervical cytology and human papillomavirus test that was negative at ages 58 and 63, and a screening mammogram three years ago that was normal. She has never had a bone density test. She smoked about half a pack a day for twenty-four years, roughly twelve pack-years, and quit at age 46. She has no personal history of cancer, no relatives with cancers of the breast, ovary or bowel, and no history of fracture. Her body mass index is 23.

Screening decisions for an older adult depend on details like these more than on age alone. A screening recommendation is a rule with conditions, and each condition has to be checked against the record before a test is ordered, repeated or retired. The following sections apply each relevant recommendation in turn.

What this page is doingEvery history detail that later decides a screening question, dates and results of prior tests, pack-years and quit date, family history, is gathered here first. Calculating pack-years explicitly prepares the lung screening decision. The highlighted sentence states the method the rest of the paper follows.

Tests to Start or Resume

Osteoporosis. The Task Force recommends screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures in women aged 65 or older (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [USPSTF], 2025). The client is 66 and has never been screened, so screening should start now, usually with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry of the hip and spine. The recommendation does not set a fixed interval for repeat testing; the interval will depend on the result, and a normal result in a woman with no other risk factors usually supports a longer gap before any repeat.

Breast cancer. The Task Force recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 40 to 74 (USPSTF, 2024). The client's last mammogram was three years ago, so she is overdue by about a year and should be screened now and then every two years until age 74. For women 75 and older the Task Force could not determine whether screening does more good than harm, so the decision at that point will be an individual one based on her health and preferences.

Colorectal cancer. The Task Force recommends screening adults aged 50 to 75 for colorectal cancer, with several acceptable strategies and intervals, including colonoscopy every ten years and a fecal immunochemical test every year (USPSTF, 2021a). Her normal colonoscopy was ten years ago at 56, so she is due now. Because a colonoscopy at 66 would carry her to age 76, one year past the age range for routine screening, this is likely to be her last screening colonoscopy if it is normal, and she may reasonably choose an annual stool test instead.

The colorectal choice deserves a short shared decision-making conversation rather than a default order. A colonoscopy needs bowel preparation, sedation and a driver, but a normal result would likely complete her screening. An annual stool test needs no preparation and can be done at home, but it must be repeated every year until 75, and a positive result still leads to colonoscopy. Presenting both options with those trade-offs, and recording her choice, respects the recommendation's own position that several strategies are acceptable and that adherence matters more than which test is chosen.

What this page is doingEach recommendation is applied in the same order, rule, record and decision, and each decision includes the interval and what happens at the upper age limit. The colorectal paragraph shows the kind of forward reasoning graders reward, noticing that the next colonoscopy would outlast the recommended age range.

A Test to Stop

Cervical cancer. The Task Force recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women older than 65 who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk (USPSTF, 2018). Adequate prior screening is generally defined as three consecutive negative cytology results or two consecutive negative combined cytology and human papillomavirus tests within the previous ten years, with the most recent test within the last five years. The client's negative co-tests at 58 and 63 meet that definition: two consecutive negative co-tests within ten years, the most recent three years ago. She has no history of a high-grade precancerous lesion and no other high-risk condition.

Screening should therefore stop. The decision needs to be explained to her, because many women have been told for decades that a yearly or three-yearly test is essential, and stopping can feel like neglect. Retiring a screening test is part of screening, and documenting why it was retired protects the client from being screened again by a clinician who does not see the reasoning. The record should state that cervical screening was discontinued at 66 on the basis of adequate prior negative screening.

What this page is doingThe stop decision is argued with the exact definition of adequate prior screening and checked against the client's dates, which is precisely the detail that separates a correct application from a general statement. Addressing how to explain and document the decision shows the nursing role in screening beyond ordering tests.

Tests That Do Not Apply

Lung cancer. Yearly low-dose computed tomography is recommended only when three conditions hold together: an age between 50 and 80, at least 20 pack-years of smoking, and either current smoking or a quit date within the last 15 years (USPSTF, 2021b). The client meets the age criterion but fails both of the others: her history is about twelve pack-years, and she quit twenty years ago. She is not eligible, and screening her would expose her to radiation and the risk of false-positive findings without the balance of benefit the recommendation is based on.

Abdominal aortic aneurysm. The aneurysm recommendation treats sexes and smoking histories differently: a single ultrasound is advised for male former or current smokers in their late sixties and early seventies, routine screening is advised against for women who never smoked, and for women of that age who did smoke the Task Force found the evidence inconclusive (USPSTF, 2019). The client falls into the last group. That is not a recommendation to screen or not to screen; it is a statement that the evidence cannot settle the question. Without a family history of aneurysm or other reason for concern, the reasonable course is to discuss it briefly and not order the test routinely.

What this page is doingThe lung decision checks all three eligibility criteria and shows that meeting one is not enough. The aneurysm paragraph handles an insufficient-evidence statement correctly, explaining that it is neither a yes nor a no, which is a subtle point many screening papers miss.

The Plan in Summary

Taken together, the client leaves the visit with a clear plan. Bone density testing starts now, with the interval to be set by the result. Mammography resumes now and repeats every two years until 74. Colorectal screening is due now, by colonoscopy or by an annual stool test at her choice, with screening likely ending at 75. Cervical screening stops, with the reason documented. Lung cancer screening does not apply because of her pack-years and the time since she quit, and aneurysm screening is not routinely indicated for a woman with her history. The nurse's role in this plan is to check every condition against the record, explain each decision, including the ones to stop, and record the dates so that the next clinician can follow the plan without starting over.

Conclusion

Applying screening guidance well means more than knowing which tests exist. For this 66-year-old woman, six recommendations produced three decisions to start or resume, one to stop and two to leave a test aside, and each depended on details in her history: prior results and their dates, pack-years and quit date. Screening guidance protects patients when its conditions are applied carefully and harms them through unnecessary testing when they are not. The interval and the stopping rule are as much a part of each recommendation as the test itself.

References

U.S. 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

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2019). Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 322(22), 2211-2218. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.18928

U.S. 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

U.S. 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

U.S. 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

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2025). Screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 333(6), 498-508. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.27154

Reading the NUR 4073 Module 3 instructions

In many sections, NUR 4073 Module 3 asks you to apply current screening recommendations to a specific client. Expect to identify which screenings the client is eligible for, when each should start, how often it repeats and when it should stop, citing the United States Preventive Services Task Force or another named guideline. Some prompts supply the client; others ask you to build a composite. Many ask you to explain one decision not to screen, which tests your reading of the eligibility rules. A paper of roughly four pages is common, sometimes with a summary table. Check the Canvas instructions for which recommendations must be covered and whether you must cite the recommendation statements themselves rather than a summary site.

Inside the NUR 4073 Module 3 example

The paper starts with every history detail that later decides a screening question, including test dates, results, pack-years and quit date, and family history. The section on tests to start or resume applies each recommendation in the same order and notes when the next colorectal test falls. A separate section argues the cervical stop decision with the exact definition of adequate prior screening checked against her dates, and explains how to document it. The section on tests that do not apply checks all three lung screening criteria and shows why one is not enough, then explains why an insufficient-evidence statement for aneurysm screening in women is neither a yes nor a no. A summary table and a short conclusion close the paper.

Reading the NUR 4073 Module 3 rubric

Screening papers in this course tend to be scored on accuracy of the guidance, application to the client, reasoning and documentation. Accuracy points require current recommendations with the right ages, intervals and grades. The application criterion, usually the heaviest, rewards each recommendation checked against the client's own record rather than restated. Reasoning marks go to correct handling of stop decisions and insufficient-evidence statements, which many papers misread. Documentation or communication points, where present, reward explaining how a decision is recorded and explained to the client. Sources should be the recommendation statements, cited by year with letter suffixes where needed. Writing and APA 7 make up the rest.

Common NUR 4073 Module 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them

The most frequent error is quoting an outdated recommendation, especially for breast and colorectal screening, which changed recently. Another is treating every recommendation as a yes, including grade I statements. Students also forget the stopping rules or apply them without checking prior results. Calculate pack-years and years since quitting; lung screening depends on both. Keep the summary table consistent with the text. Cite each Task Force statement separately and order same-year entries with letters. If your client is male, younger or has a family history that changes eligibility, the desk can prepare a screening paper for that profile.

Write yours, or have the desk draft it

This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official American College of Education document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.

More NUR 4073 and RN to BSN sample papers

NUR 4073 Module 3 questions, answered

How do I show when a screening test should stop?

State the recommendation's upper age limit or stopping condition, then check it against the client's record. Cervical screening, for example, stops after 65 when prior screening has been adequate, which has a specific definition based on the number and timing of negative tests. Show the dates, reach the decision and note how it should be documented.

What does an insufficient evidence statement mean for a client?

It means the Task Force could not determine whether the benefits outweigh the harms, so it neither recommends for nor against the test. In practice, the decision is individual and based on the client's risk factors and preferences. In a paper, explain what the statement means rather than treating it as a recommendation to screen.

Where can I find a free NUR 4073 Module 3 sample paper?

The whole Medicare wellness visit paper is on this page, from the client's history through six screening decisions and the summary, with references to each Task Force statement and margin notes. It costs nothing to read.

Does Medicare cover the screening tests in a wellness visit?

Medicare covers many USPSTF-recommended screenings, such as mammography and colorectal tests, but coverage rules and intervals are set by Medicare, not the Task Force. In a NUR 4073 paper, base the clinical decision on the recommendation and mention coverage only if the prompt asks.

What is a grade I recommendation?

A grade I statement means the Task Force found the evidence insufficient to weigh benefits against harms. It is not a recommendation for or against the test, so the decision becomes individual, based on risk and preference.

NUR 4073 Module 3 Screening Guidance Application Paper Example