| Course | NURS 6912 Symptom Management for the Hospice and Palliative Care Clinician |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Pain assessment writeup |
| Length | About 1,030 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NURS 6912 Week 2
Two Pains in One Man: A Comprehensive Pain Assessment of Bone and Neuropathic Pain in Metastatic Prostate Cancer
Student Name
College of Nursing, Walden University
NURS 6912: Symptom Management for the Hospice and Palliative Care Clinician
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Two Pains in One Man: A Comprehensive Pain Assessment of Bone and Neuropathic Pain in Metastatic Prostate Cancer
Case Summary
Thirty years behind the wheel of a city bus ended in retirement for this composite 68-year-old, and two years later he has prostate cancer that has spread to his lumbar spine and pelvis. He is receiving hormone therapy and was referred to the palliative care clinic for pain that is limiting his walking and sleep. When asked to rate his pain, he answered, "Which one?" He describes a deep ache in his lower back and right hip that flares when he stands, and a separate burning pain that runs down the back of his left leg to the outer ankle, worse at night. This writeup assesses each pain on its own terms before any management is planned.
Cancer pain often involves more than one mechanism in the same person. An international survey of patients with cancer pain found that many had two or more distinct pain syndromes, and that bone pain and neuropathic pain were among the most common (Caraceni & Portenoy, 1999). Averaging them into one score would hide the differences that decide treatment.
Pain Profile 1: Bone Pain
The first profile follows a standard structure: location, quality, intensity, timing, what makes it worse, what relieves it and its effect on function.
Table 1
Bone Pain Profile
| Feature | Finding |
|---|---|
| Location | Lower lumbar spine and right hip, corresponding to known metastases |
| Quality | Deep, aching, "like a toothache in the bone" |
| Intensity | 3 of 10 at rest; 7 of 10 on standing and walking |
| Timing | Constant background ache with sharp spikes on movement |
| Aggravating | Standing up, walking more than a block, turning in bed |
| Relieving | Lying still; partial relief from his current as-needed analgesic |
| Function | Has stopped his daily walk; avoids stairs |
The pattern of a constant ache with sharp increases on movement is typical of incident pain from bone metastases. The spikes matter clinically because they are predictable, which means a plan can prepare for them rather than react after they begin.
Pain Profile 2: Neuropathic Leg Pain
The second pain differs in almost every feature.
Table 2
Leg Pain Profile
| Feature | Finding |
|---|---|
| Location | Back of the left thigh and calf to the outer ankle, in a band |
| Quality | Burning, with electric shocks several times a day |
| Intensity | 5 of 10 by day; 7 of 10 at night |
| Timing | Began about six weeks ago; worse lying down at night |
| Aggravating | Bedsheets touching the calf; sitting for long periods |
| Relieving | Little relief from his current analgesic |
| Function | Wakes two or three times a night |
Pain following a band down the leg, with burning, electric qualities and pain from light touch of bedsheets (allodynia), suggests a neuropathic component, most likely from nerve root involvement at the level of the spinal metastases. The DN4 questionnaire, which combines seven interview items about pain qualities and associated sensations with three brief examination items, was developed to distinguish neuropathic from other pain (Bouhassira et al., 2005). His answers were positive for burning, electric shocks, tingling and numbness, and examination found reduced sensation to touch and brushing along the outer calf, a score of 6 of 10. A score of 4 or more supports a neuropathic component.
Severity and Interference
The Brief Pain Inventory asks patients to rate pain severity and the degree to which pain interferes with seven areas of life, and its two-factor structure of severity and interference has been supported in validation work (Tan et al., 2004). He completed it for his worst pain overall. His worst pain in the past 24 hours was 7 of 10, and his average pain 5 of 10. Interference was highest for walking (8 of 10), sleep (8 of 10) and general activity (7 of 10), and lowest for relationships with others (2 of 10). The pattern fits the two profiles: the bone pain takes his walking, and the leg pain takes his sleep.
Red Flag Screen: Spinal Cord Compression
Because he has spinal metastases and a new radiating leg pain, the assessment includes a screen for metastatic spinal cord compression, which requires urgent treatment to preserve function. An audit of delays in diagnosis found that patients often had back pain and radicular symptoms for weeks before diagnosis and that waiting for a sensory level or loss of bladder control led to late treatment (Levack et al., 2002). The screen asked about and examined for the following: back pain worse lying flat or with coughing, new weakness in either leg, a band of numbness around the trunk, difficulty walking beyond what pain explains and changes in bladder or bowel control.
He reports that his back pain is not worse lying flat, and he denies leg weakness, bladder or bowel change or numbness around the trunk. Strength in both legs is full on examination. The screen is negative today. Because the leg pain is new and radicular, the palliative clinician discussed the findings with his oncologist, who arranged imaging of the spine, and the patient and his wife were taught which symptoms mean going to the emergency department the same day.
Psychosocial Context
He is worried that the new pain means the cancer is growing, and he admits that he has been taking less of his as-needed medication than prescribed because he does not want to "get hooked." His wife reports that he has become short-tempered at night. These findings are part of the pain assessment: fear about meaning affects how pain is experienced, and his reluctance to use the analgesic explains part of the partial relief. His concern about addiction is common and deserves a direct conversation, not reassurance alone, because it is shaping how he takes his medication.
Summary
This man has two pains with different mechanisms, patterns and effects. The bone pain is incident pain on movement that takes his walking. The leg pain is neuropathic, worst at night, and takes his sleep. A single rating would have hidden that distinction. Management will need to address each mechanism separately, prepare for predictable movement-related spikes, respond to the result of the spine imaging and address his fears about the medication. Both pains will be reassessed with the same measures at his next visit.
References
Bouhassira, D., Attal, N., Alchaar, H., Boureau, F., Brochet, B., Bruxelle, J., Cunin, G., Fermanian, J., Ginies, P., Grun-Overdyking, A., Jafari-Schluep, H., Lantéri-Minet, M., Laurent, B., Mick, G., Serrie, A., Valade, D., & Vicaut, E. (2005). Comparison of pain syndromes associated with nervous or somatic lesions and development of a new neuropathic pain diagnostic questionnaire (DN4). Pain, 114(1-2), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2004.12.010
Caraceni, A., & Portenoy, R. K. (1999). An international survey of cancer pain characteristics and syndromes. Pain, 82(3), 263-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00073-1
Levack, P., Graham, J., Collie, D., Grant, R., Kidd, J., Kunkler, I., Gibson, A., Hurman, D., McMillan, N., Rampling, R., Slider, L., Statham, P., & Summers, D. (2002). Don't wait for a sensory level: Listen to the symptoms. A prospective audit of the delays in diagnosis of malignant cord compression. Clinical Oncology, 14(6), 472-480. https://doi.org/10.1053/clon.2002.0098
Tan, G., Jensen, M. P., Thornby, J. I., & Shanti, B. F. (2004). Validation of the Brief Pain Inventory for chronic nonmalignant pain. Journal of Pain, 5(2), 133-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2003.12.005
What the NURS 6912 Week 2 instructions ask for
The pain assessment prompt in Week 2 typically asks you to complete a comprehensive assessment of a patient with cancer pain, using validated tools and describing the pain's characteristics, mechanism and effect on function. Writeups are commonly three to four pages and may use tables. Assess each distinct pain on its own, since mechanisms decide treatment. Cover location, quality, intensity, timing, what worsens and relieves it and its effect on function for each. Use a validated tool to support any claim of neuropathic pain. Report interference as well as severity. Screen for red flags that change urgency. Include the psychological and social context, such as fears about medication, because it shapes how pain is felt and treated.
How this NURS 6912 Week 2 example is built
A case summary introduces the patient and cites Caraceni and Portenoy on the frequency of mixed pain syndromes. Table 1 profiles the bone pain across seven features and explains incident pain. Table 2 profiles the leg pain, and a paragraph cites Bouhassira and colleagues on the DN4 and reports his score with its threshold. A severity and interference section cites Tan and colleagues on the Brief Pain Inventory and links walking to one pain and sleep to the other. A red flag section cites Levack and colleagues on delayed diagnosis of cord compression and records a negative screen, imaging and teaching. A psychosocial section and summary close the writeup.
NURS 6912 Week 2 rubric: what earns full marks
Pain assessment writeups are commonly graded on completeness, accuracy of mechanism, appropriate use of tools and clinical reasoning. Completeness means every standard dimension is covered for each pain, not just intensity. Mechanism credit is earned when the writer distinguishes nociceptive from neuropathic pain with evidence, such as a validated screening tool. Tool use is scored for correct administration and interpretation, including thresholds. Clinical reasoning shows in red flag screening and in noticing patterns, such as which pain drives which functional loss. Psychosocial assessment usually carries its own share. Graders value clear tables and concise prose. APA references to primary tool papers strengthen the paper. A summary that tells the next clinician which pain drives which loss is often where the analysis becomes visible to a grader.
NURS 6912 Week 2 help from the desk
Assessments lose credit when a patient with two pains is given one score, which hides the mechanism of each. Another common loss is calling a pain neuropathic because of one adjective without any tool or examination to support it. Some writeups skip red flags in a patient with spinal metastases, which graders treat as a safety gap. Others omit the patient's beliefs about medication. Profile each pain separately, support mechanism claims with a validated tool, report interference, screen for emergencies and record fears that affect adherence. The desk can draft a writeup for the patient your scenario presents. Keep each finding tied to what the patient reported or the examination showed.
Get a NURS 6912 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 2 case, the prompt and the rubric; if your scenario gives pain ratings or instrument results, include them. The writeup profiles each pain your case contains, names its mechanism and screens for red flags, delivered inside 24-48 hours, and a first sample is free of charge. Instruments your course names replace the DN4.
More NURS 6912 papers and MSN samples
- NURS 6912 Week 1: Discussion post
- NURS 6912 Week 3: Pain management plan
- NURS 6912 Week 4: Dyspnea management plan
- NURS 6912 Week 5: Gastrointestinal symptom plan
- NURS 6912 Week 6: Delirium case analysis
- NURS 6912 Week 7: Case analysis
- NURS 6912 Week 8: Discussion post
- NURS 6912 Week 9: Family teaching plan
- NURS 6912 Week 10: Symptom management plan
- NURS 6912 Week 11: Reflection
- NURS 6910 Week 2: Concept comparison paper
- DNRS 6501 Week 2: Concept map
- NURS 6730 Week 2: Agency structure analysis
- DNRS 6521 Week 2: Case write-up
NURS 6912 Week 2 questions, answered
Why assess the two pains separately?
Because they arise from different mechanisms and will need different approaches in the management plan. A single description averages the ache and the burning into something that matches neither. Separate profiles let your later plan target each mechanism, and they let a reassessment show which pain improved, which a combined score would hide.
What is the DN4?
A brief neuropathic pain screening questionnaire, named for its French origin, that combines patient-reported descriptors such as burning and electric shocks with a short examination for sensory changes. The example uses it to support, not prove, the neuropathic character of the leg pain. Other screens such as LANSS serve the same purpose, and the writeup can use whichever your course teaches.
Why include a spinal cord compression screen?
Because bone metastases in the spine can compress the cord, and new weakness, saddle numbness or bladder change would turn a pain assessment into an emergency. The example documents those findings as absent in a separate paragraph. Your rubric may not list the screen explicitly, but graders in palliative symptom courses tend to notice when a case with spinal disease omits it.
Where can I find a free NURS 6912 Week 2 sample paper?
The complete writeup, two pain profiles, interference scores, the cord compression screen and psychosocial context, is posted here in full without cost. A writeup for your scenario's patient can be requested.
What does the NURS 6912 Week 2 red flag screen check for?
Metastatic spinal cord compression: back pain worse lying flat, new leg weakness, a band of numbness around the trunk, trouble walking and changes in bladder or bowel control.