| Course | NR 300A Directed Independent Study |
|---|---|
| Week | 4 |
| Paper type | Progress memo to the faculty sponsor |
| Length | About 940 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo with APA 7 citations |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | RN-to-BSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 300A Week 4
Memorandum
To: Faculty Sponsor, NR 300A Directed Independent Study
From: Student Name, RN
Date: Month Day, Year (end of Week 4)
Re: Progress memo: sensory aid evidence summary and admission checklist; on plan except one three-day slip; two decisions needed
Position
The study is on plan. The literature summary was submitted three days late, on the Monday of Week 4 instead of the Friday of Week 3, and that time has been recovered. Version 1 of the checklist is attached. I need two decisions from you by the end of Week 4 so the usability trial can start on time in Week 5.
The Study in Two Paragraphs, for Context
The study reviews research on three aids that older inpatients depend on, spectacles, hearing devices and dentures, and produces a one-page admission checklist for our 30-bed medical unit, tried on 10 admissions. It measures whether the checklist can be completed, not whether it changes outcomes for patients.
The literature summary concluded that hearing loss consistently harms communication in hospital and that simple amplification helps (Shukla et al., 2019), and that unaided hearing can pull a patient's cognitive screening score below their real ability (MacDonald et al., 2012). Evidence on glasses and dentures is limited mostly to cost and loss. The one checklist study found that staff rarely completed a separate bedside form (Arifaj et al., 2025), which shaped version 1.
Against the Workplan
Week 1, outline: done; approved by you with no changes.
Week 2, annotated bibliography: done; eight sources, the minimum the outline set. The amendment I emailed at the end of Week 2, adding a no-cost fallback for missing hearing aids and limiting the claims about dentures, was approved by you by email two days later.
Week 3, literature summary: done, three days late. Cause: the full text of one source took two days to arrive through interlibrary loan. Recovery: I drafted the checklist in parallel, so Week 4 is not affected.
Week 4, progress memo and checklist version 1: this memo; checklist attached.
Week 5, draft of the central section of the evidence summary: not started; on schedule.
Week 6, methods note and 10-admission usability trial: not started. The trial is planned for the second half of Week 5 and all of Week 6, pending the decisions below.
Week 7, revision plan: not started.
Week 8, final summary, checklist and reflection: not started.
What Changed Since the Outline
One thing has changed in a way you should know about. The unit's electronic admission property form already has fields for glasses, hearing aids and dentures, with a yes or no answer for each. I had planned to write a checklist that replaced nothing. After reading Arifaj et al. (2025), who found that a separate bedside checklist on a UK ward was completed only 18% of the time, I have designed version 1 to sit alongside the existing form rather than as a separate document. It adds only what the form does not ask: whether each aid is in use, where it is kept, whether it works, and whether the next nurse will know.
Checklist Version 1, Summary
Glasses: Does the patient use them? For reading, distance or both? With the patient now? Case labeled with name, kept on the bedside table?
Hearing aids: Does the patient use them? Right, left or both? In and turned on now? Working (patient confirms they can hear you)? Batteries or charger with the patient? Case labeled?
Dentures: Upper, lower, partial? With the patient now? In a labeled denture cup, not on a meal tray or in tissue?
If hearing aids are missing or not working: get the unit's pocket amplifier from the charge desk; if unavailable, use the reverse stethoscope method (earpieces in the patient's ears, speak into the diaphragm).
Whiteboard: write "Glasses / Hearing aids R L / Dentures U L" as applicable.
Handoff: say which aids the patient uses and where they are.
Risks for the Trial
Admission volume. Our unit averages four to six admissions a night. Between my shifts and my two colleagues', 10 admissions of patients aged 65 or older should take about eight shifts. Should the count fall short when Week 6 closes, the shortfall goes in the methods note as it stands, which is the rule the outline set.
Colleague uptake. Both colleagues have seen version 1 and said it looks quick. If either stops using it, I will record that as a finding rather than replace them.
The pocket amplifier. The unit owns one, kept at the charge desk. I checked it this week; it works, and the charge nurses on nights know where it is.
Decisions Needed
1. May the usability trial start in the second half of Week 5 rather than in Week 6? Starting early gives more admissions and a buffer if my shifts change. It does not change anything else in the plan. A yes or no is enough.
2. Should the trial record the time to complete the checklist, as planned, or only whether it was completed and which items were skipped? Recording time adds a step for my two colleagues and may reduce their willingness to use it. My recommendation is to record completion and skipped items only, and to time the checklist myself on my own admissions. A yes to my recommendation, or a no, is enough.
Nothing Else Is Needed From You This Week
The next document you will receive is the draft of the central section of the summary at the end of Week 5, with a short note on what I want you to look at first.
References
Arifaj, B., Shakeel, A., Nyam, L., & Sansom-Ninnes, K. (2025). Improving staff awareness of sensory aid needs and dementia status in an old age ward. BMJ Open Quality, 14(4), Article e003369. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2025-003369
MacDonald, A. A., Joyson, A., Lee, R., Seymour, D. G., & Soiza, R. L. (2012). The effect of hearing augmentation on cognitive assessment scales at admission to hospital. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 20(4), 355-361. https://doi.org/10.1097/JGP.0b013e3182107e88
Shukla, A., Nieman, C. L., Price, C., Harper, M., Lin, F. R., & Reed, N. S. (2019). Impact of hearing loss on patient-provider communication among hospitalized patients: A systematic review. American Journal of Medical Quality, 34(3), 284-292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860618798926
The Chamberlain NR 300A Week 4 instructions
The midpoint product of an independent study is usually a progress report or memo to your sponsor. Expect it to state where the work stands against the agreed plan, what has changed, problems and how they were handled, what comes next and any decisions you need. Write it as a memo with a clear subject line. Put your overall position first. Use the same names for each deliverable as the outline, so nothing has to be reconciled. Declare any slip yourself, with its cause and recovery. Number each request and phrase it so one sentence answers it, with your recommendation. Attach any draft product the plan promised for this point.
Inside the NR 300A Week 4 example
The memo header gives the subject line with its status in a few words. The position paragraph says the study is on plan, the summary was three days late and the time is recovered. Two context paragraphs restate the study and the summary's conclusions, citing Shukla et al. (2019) and MacDonald et al. (2012). Each workplan row from Week 1 to Week 8 is listed with its status, and the late summary is explained by interlibrary loan. A section reports that the electronic form already asks yes or no for each aid. Checklist version 1 is summarized line by line. Trial risks follow. Two numbered decisions close the memo, each with a recommendation, citing Arifaj et al. (2025).
NR 300A Week 4 rubric: what full points look like
Without a rubric, the sponsor typically judges a progress memo on clarity of status, accuracy against the workplan, honesty about slippage, quality of the decision requests and professional format. Status comes first in a sponsor's reading, so the position sits in the first lines. Accuracy is credited when every row matches the outline's names. Declaring the slip with a cause and recovery protects trust and the points that go with it. Decision requests score when they are numbered, answerable in a sentence and come with the writer's recommendation. Memo format with a subject line, short sections and an attachment shows the professional writing these studies expect.
Common NR 300A Week 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most expensive memo reports activity instead of position, leaving the sponsor unable to tell whether anything is late. Slippage the sponsor discovers, instead of the writer declaring it, spends trust. Open questions with nothing proposed hand the study back to someone meant only to approve it. A memo repeating the last one's position without explaining why costs points. No dates, requests buried in paragraphs, a memo longer than the work it reports and row names that no longer match the plan also lose marks. One to two pages is usually enough. If little happened, say why and what changes. Tell us your plan and progress, and an NR 300A memo can be drafted.
Get a NR 300A Week 4 example written to your instructions
Send the memo format your faculty sponsor asked for, or just the agreement and your workplan, and a custom example is written around your actual rows and returned inside 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. If your sponsor sets the contact points by phone rather than in writing, send the notes you kept and the example is built from those instead.
More NR 300A papers and RN-to-BSN samples
- NR 300A Week 1: Independent Study Project Outline
- NR 300A Week 2: Sensory Aids Annotated Bibliography
- NR 300A Week 3: Sensory Aids Literature Summary
- NR 300A Week 5: Draft Section
- NR 300A Week 6: Methods Note
- NR 300A Week 7: Revision Plan
- NR 300A Week 8: Final Reflection
- NR 305 Week 4: Concept Map
- NR 306 Week 4: Respiratory Assessment
- NR 451 Week 4: Evidence Table
- NR 307A Week 4: Organizational Assessment
NR 300A Week 4 questions, answered
How long should a progress memo be?
Short enough that a sponsor reads it on a phone between classes. One page is the usual ceiling in agreements that specify anything at all. Length here is not evidence of diligence, and a memo that runs long usually does so because it narrates the fortnight instead of reporting the state of the work at the end of it.
What if nothing much happened this period?
Say that, name the reason, and propose the correction. A memo admitting a fortnight went to a shift pattern is uncomfortable and cheap; the same fact arriving in week seven is expensive. Self-directed work keeps no attendance record, so the only evidence anybody is still on the study is the writer sending something in.
Does the memo carry marks on its own?
That depends on what was agreed, and it is worth asking outright, because some studies weight the contact points separately and others fold them into one grade at the end. Even where they carry no points directly they shape the final judgment, since a sponsor who watched the work develop marks the product differently from one meeting it cold.
Where can I find a free NR 300A Week 4 sample paper?
The full Week 4 progress memo, with the position statement, the workplan rows, checklist version 1 and two numbered decisions, is reproduced in full here.
What decisions does the NR 300A Week 4 memo ask for?
Whether the usability trial may start in the second half of Week 5, and whether to record completion time for every admission or only whether the checklist was finished and which items were skipped.