NR 300A Week 7 Sponsor Feedback Revision Plan Example

Course	NR 300A Directed Independent Study
Week	7
Paper type	Revision plan
Length	About 1,130 words, 4 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Chamberlain University
Program	RN-to-BSN
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for NR 300A Week 7

Revision Plan: Seven Sponsor Comments on the Draft Summary and the Trial, Weighed and Timed

Student Name

College of Nursing, Chamberlain University

NR 300A: Directed Independent Study

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title names what is being revised and whose comments drive it, which frames the plan as a set of decisions rather than a list of edits. Student APA 7 format, no running head.

Revision Plan: Seven Sponsor Comments on the Draft Summary and the Trial, Weighed and Timed

Overview

The sponsor returned seven comments at the start of Week 7 on the Week 5 draft of Section 3 and the Week 6 methods note. This plan restates each comment in my own words, says what it implies for the product, names the change, gives the place where the change lands, estimates the time, and records a decision. The comments are grouped by weight: two concern the argument, three the evidence, and two the surface. I have about ten hours for revision in Week 7, and the plan below uses eight, leaving two for Section 4, which reports the trial and is still to be written.

Comments on the Argument

Comment 1 asked, in effect, whether the checklist asks for the right thing if the items the draft calls most important, the whiteboard and the handoff, were the ones skipped most often in the trial. This is the most serious comment, because it questions the central claim of Section 3.5. It implies that the draft argued from the literature and never met the trial. Comment 2 suggested recommending that the unit buy more pocket amplifiers. It implies a wider scope than the outline set.

Table 1

Argument Comments: Changes, Locations, Time and Decisions

No.	Change	Where	Time	Decision
1	Move the handoff item to the top of checklist version 2 and add "say at report" to the whiteboard line; rewrite 3.5 to state the trial result (handoff skipped 3 times in 10, whiteboard 2) and to argue that the items matter most precisely because they are easy to skip	Checklist v2; Section 3.5; Section 4	3 hours	Accept
2	Add one sentence to Section 5 noting that the single amplifier was used once in 10 admissions and that more data would be needed before a purchase	Section 5	15 minutes	Decline the recommendation to buy; accept a sentence on the evidence

Note. Section 5 is the summary's short closing section on next steps for the unit.

Why Comment 2 Is Declined

I am declining the recommendation to buy amplifiers, and the reason is scope, not disagreement. The outline excluded cost analysis, and the trial produced one use of the existing amplifier in 10 admissions, which is not enough to justify a purchase request. Shukla et al. (2019) reported benefits from amplifiers wherever they were tried, and the summary already says so. What the summary cannot say, from this study, is how many the unit needs. I would rather give the manager an accurate sentence than a recommendation the data do not support.

What this page is doingA declined suggestion carries a reason addressed to the sponsor, not an excuse. A plan that accepted every comment would tell her they were processed rather than read.

Comments on the Evidence

Comment 3 pointed out that MacDonald et al. (2012) tested a hearing augmentation device, not patients' own hearing aids, and asked that the draft say so where the study is cited. It implies that Section 3.2 overstates how directly the trial supports the checklist. Comment 4 asked whether Inouye et al. (1999) is still the best source for the link between sensory protocols and delirium, given later work. It implies the evidence base in Section 3.6 may look dated. Comment 5 asked whether the reverse stethoscope step should stay on the checklist, since no nurse used it in the trial. It implies that an unused item may be clutter.

Table 2

Evidence Comments: Changes, Locations, Time and Decisions

No.	Change	Where	Time	Decision
3	Add "using a hearing device supplied by the researchers rather than the patients' own aids" at the first citation of MacDonald et al. (2012)	Section 3.2	20 minutes	Accept
4	Add the meta-analysis by Hshieh et al. (2015), which pooled multicomponent programs and found lower odds of delirium (odds ratio 0.47) and of falls, while keeping Inouye et al. (1999) as the original trial; state that neither isolates sensory aids	Section 3.6; references	2 hours	Accept
5	Keep the step and add a note that it was not used in the trial; revisit if the checklist is adopted	Checklist v2; Section 4	20 minutes	Accept with a note; defer removal

Comments on the Surface

Comment 6 noted that the subsection numbers in Section 3 will not match Sections 1 and 2, which are not yet drafted, and asked me to fix the numbering once the whole summary exists. Comment 7 asked that the references follow APA 7 exactly, including suffixes in author names.

Table 3

Surface Comments: Changes, Locations, Time and Decisions

No.	Change	Where	Time	Decision
6	Renumber all subsections after Sections 1, 2 and 4 are drafted	Whole summary	15 minutes	Accept; do last
7	Check every reference against APA 7, including "Jr." in Inouye et al. (1999)	References	30 minutes	Accept

What the Comments Say About the Product as a Whole

Read together, the seven comments point to one weakness and one strength. The weakness is that the Week 5 draft was written before the trial and argued from the literature alone; Comments 1 and 5 both ask the draft to meet what actually happened on the unit, and Comment 3 asks it to be exact about how far the evidence reaches. The strength is that none of the comments questions the question itself or the decision to put the checklist beside the existing property form rather than replace it. I read that as agreement with the basic design and a request to make the argument honest about the trial.

This matters for how I spend the week. It would be easy to spend most of it on the reference checks and renumbering, which are quick and satisfying to finish. The plan puts them last on purpose, because they would be the same in a weaker product and a stronger one.

Order of Work and Time

The work will be done in order of weight: Comment 1 first, because it changes the checklist and the central argument, then Comments 3, 4 and 5, then Section 4, and finally Comments 6 and 7. The time estimates total about 6.5 hours for the comments, plus about 2 hours for Section 4, which leaves roughly 1.5 hours of margin in a 10-hour week. If Comment 1 takes longer than 3 hours, I will shorten Section 4 to the trial results and one paragraph of discussion rather than delay the evidence changes.

One more thing will change as a result of this plan. When the Week 8 reflection sets out the outline's commitments, Comment 1 will sit beside them, because it altered the argument of the product in a way the outline did not foresee.

What this page is doingEach change has a time, and the order puts the structural items first while attention and time are both still available, with a stated fallback if the heaviest item overruns.

References

Hshieh, T. T., Yue, J., Oh, E., Puelle, M., Dowal, S., Travison, T., & Inouye, S. K. (2015). Effectiveness of multicomponent nonpharmacological delirium interventions: A meta-analysis. JAMA Internal Medicine, 175(4), 512-520. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7779

Inouye, S. K., Bogardus, S. T., Jr., Charpentier, P. A., Leo-Summers, L., Acampora, D., Holford, T. R., & Cooney, L. M., Jr. (1999). A multicomponent intervention to prevent delirium in hospitalized older patients. New England Journal of Medicine, 340(9), 669-676. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199903043400901

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

Reading the NR 300A Week 7 instructions

The Week 7 product usually responds to your sponsor's feedback on the draft and earlier work. Expect it to restate each comment, say what it implies, name the change you will make, give its location and estimate the time it will take. You may decline a suggestion if you give a reason grounded in the agreed scope. Order the work by importance, putting changes to the central argument before formatting. Trace any structural consequence a comment has for other sections. Look across all comments for what they say about the product as a whole. Keep the plan realistic for the week left, and name a fallback if the heaviest item overruns.

How the NR 300A Week 7 example is put together

The overview explains how each comment will be handled. The argument section takes Comment 1, that the items called most important were the ones skipped most often, as the most serious, and Table 1 sets out the changes, including moving the handoff item to the top of version 2. A section explains declining Comment 2 on buying amplifiers. Table 2 handles evidence comments, such as noting that MacDonald et al. (2012) used a supplied device and adding Hshieh et al. (2015). Table 3 covers renumbering and APA checks. A section reads the comments together. The close orders the work, totals about 6.5 hours and notes what the Week 8 reflection will record.

Reading the NR 300A Week 7 grading rubric

A sponsor typically grades a revision plan on understanding of the feedback, appropriateness of responses, prioritization, feasibility and professional reasoning when declining. The sponsor first checks that the comments were understood, so each comment is restated in the writer's own words with its implication. Prioritization earns credit when argument changes come before surface fixes, as the order of work shows. Feasibility is scored through time estimates that fit the week. Declining a suggestion with a scope reason shows judgment rather than resistance. Locations for every change make the plan checkable. Reading the comments together for one weakness and one strength shows the reflective thinking independent study expects. A fallback for the heaviest item shows the plan was tested against the calendar.

Common NR 300A Week 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them

The costliest plan treats all comments as equal, giving formatting the same weight as an objection to the central claim. Accepting every suggestion, including ones you could reasonably refuse, suggests the comments were processed, not read. Plans with no time estimates promise changes into days that cannot hold them. Answering comments nobody made, copying comments without interpreting them, changes with no location and silent omissions also cost points. Declining a suggestion is acceptable when the reason is scope and is explained respectfully. If feedback asks for more than time allows, say what gives. Share your sponsor's comments, and a weighted, timed plan can be drafted. Keep the plan shorter than the revisions it describes.

Get a NR 300A Week 7 example written to your instructions

Send the comments your faculty sponsor returned, the draft they were written on, and the date the product is due, and a custom example of the plan is written around your actual feedback and returned inside 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. Where the comments arrived verbally, your notes of them work just as well as a marked-up file.

More NR 300A papers and RN-to-BSN samples

NR 300A Week 7 questions, answered

Is declining a sponsor's suggestion risky?

Less risky than following one the writer cannot defend. A directed study exists partly to develop independent judgment, and a reasoned refusal demonstrates exactly that, provided the reasoning engages the point instead of restating the original text. What damages a mark is silent non-compliance, where the change was neither made nor discussed and the sponsor finds out at the end.

What if the feedback asks for more than the time allows?

Say so in the plan and propose the cut. Rank the changes, show which ones fit the days left, and ask the sponsor to confirm the boundary. Sponsors who see a costed list usually pick a subset themselves. Silence produces the worse outcome, which is every change attempted and not one of them finished properly.

Does the plan get submitted before the changes are made?

In most agreements it does, and that is the point of having one, since approval of the plan makes the revision itself uncontroversial. Where a study runs the two together, writing the plan anyway costs an hour and gives the final submission a defensible account of why the product differs from the draft the sponsor read.

Where can I find a free NR 300A Week 7 sample paper?

The full Week 7 revision plan answering seven sponsor comments, with the three tables, the declined suggestion and the order of work, is reproduced on this page.

Why does the NR 300A Week 7 plan decline buying amplifiers?

The outline excluded cost analysis, and the trial used the existing amplifier once in 10 admissions, which is not enough evidence to justify a purchase request within this study's scope.