| Course | NR 300A Directed Independent Study |
|---|---|
| Week | 8 |
| Paper type | Final reflection |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | RN-to-BSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 300A Week 8
Final Reflection: What the Sensory Aid Study Promised in Week 1 and What It Delivered
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 300A: Directed Independent Study
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Final Reflection: What the Sensory Aid Study Promised in Week 1 and What It Delivered
Verdict
The study produced what it promised: a six-and-a-half-page evidence summary on glasses, hearing aids and dentures for older adults in hospital, and a one-page admission checklist, version 2, tried on 10 admissions on our medical unit. The summary is fit to hand to the nurse manager as the basis for a decision about whether to adopt the checklist. The checklist is fit for a longer trial, not yet for adoption, because the two items it depends on most were the two most often skipped.
Commitments Quoted and Answered
The commitments below are taken word for word from the Week 1 outline.
Table 1
Outline Commitments Against Delivered Work
| Commitment in the outline | What exists | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| "A written evidence summary" ("about six pages") | Evidence summary, 6.5 pages, 9 sources, submitted Week 8 | Yes |
| "A one-page admission checklist" to be "tried on 10 admissions" | Checklist version 2, one page; trial of 10 admissions, 4 mine and 6 colleagues', reported in the Week 6 methods note | Yes |
| "No measurement of patient outcomes" | No outcomes measured; the summary claims none | Yes |
| "No hearing or vision screening" | Checklist records existing aids only | Yes |
| "No cost analysis" | The request to recommend buying amplifiers was declined in the Week 7 plan for this reason | Yes |
| "No electronic record changes" | Checklist is on paper; the informatics liaison was asked whether the form could be edited, and nothing was changed | Yes |
| "Week 3: literature summary" | Submitted three days late, declared in the Week 4 memo | Late |
| "The final reflection" to "quote each commitment" and judge it | This table | Yes |
Note. Quotations are exact; ellipses mark omitted words. "Late" means delivered after the date the outline set.
Amendments, as Dated Decisions
End of Week 2, approved by the sponsor by email two days later: the reverse stethoscope step added for nights when a patient's aids are absent; claims about dentures limited to loss, because the literature offered nothing more.
Week 3, my decision, reported in the Week 4 memo: the checklist left the electronic property form and became a paper sheet fixed to the admission packet, because staff cannot edit the form.
End of Week 4, approved by the sponsor: the trial start moved to the second half of Week 5, and completion time recorded for my own admissions only.
Wednesday of Week 5, the sponsor's decision: the hearing item relies on the patient's own report that speech is clear, with no repetition test.
Week 7, in response to the sponsor's first comment: version 2 of the checklist opens with the handoff item, and Section 3.5 rewritten to report that the whiteboard and handoff items were skipped most often.
Each of these changes the product in a way that a reader comparing it only with the outline would otherwise count as a miss. The Week 7 amendment changed the argument itself, which the outline did not foresee.
The Shortfall
The checklist did not show that it can reliably do the thing the summary argues matters most. Handoff was skipped in 3 of 10 admissions and the whiteboard in 2, and every recorded reason was ordinary: forgetting at report, a missing marker, a patient asleep. That result is close to what Arifaj et al. (2025) found on a UK ward, where a stand-alone bedside checklist was mostly left blank even as overall awareness of patients' needs improved. Moving the handoff item to the top of version 2 is a reasonable response, but it has not been tested. A second shortfall is smaller: the reverse stethoscope step was never used, so the trial says nothing about it. I am not softening either point. The evidence summary makes a strong case that hearing matters in hospital (Shukla et al., 2019), and that multicomponent programs that include sensory protocols reduce delirium (Hshieh et al., 2015), but this study did not show that a paper checklist delivers the information to the next nurse.
What the Product Can Be Relied On For
The evidence summary can be relied on for three things. It gives an accurate account of what is known: that hearing loss harms communication in hospital, that simple amplification helps, and that a patient assessed without hearing support may look more impaired than they are. It is explicit about where the evidence stops, especially for glasses and dentures, where the literature found offered only commentary and counts of loss. And it separates what the checklist is for, making sure patients have their own aids and that staff know, from what it cannot claim, such as preventing delirium on its own.
The checklist can be relied on to be quick. The four admissions I timed took between two and four minutes, and none of the three nurses said it slowed them down. It found two sets of dentures wrapped in tissue and one hearing aid with a dead battery in 10 admissions, which is a small count but a concrete one. What it cannot yet be relied on for is carrying the information past the admitting nurse, and version 2 is a guess about how to fix that rather than a tested answer.
What Working Without a Syllabus Taught Me
Three findings are specific enough to be wrong. First, I underestimated the time that other people's systems take: interlibrary loan cost two days, and the informatics request route would have cost months if I had waited for it. Next time I would ask about every outside dependency in Week 1. Second, the most useful habit of the term was ending the Week 4 memo with numbered decisions and my recommendation for each; the sponsor answered both within a day, and the trial started early as a result. Third, I should have designed the trial tally sheet before the checklist, not after. Deciding what I would count forced me to see that the handoff item could not be checked from the page, and I realized that only after the trial had started.
The next step belongs to the unit rather than to this course. I will give the summary and checklist version 2 to the nurse manager with a proposal for a four-week trial on all admissions of patients aged 65 or older, counting handoff completion by asking the oncoming nurse at the bedside rather than relying on the page.
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
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
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
NR 300A Week 8 instructions, in plain terms
The final assignment of the independent study usually asks you to submit the finished product with a reflection that evaluates it. Expect the reflection to compare what you committed to in the outline with what you delivered, explain any changes, judge the quality of the product and describe what you learned about directing your own work. Quote commitments from the written plan, not from memory. Record every amendment with its date and who approved it. State any shortfall plainly. Say what the product is good for now and who should use it. Lessons about self-direction should be specific enough that a later study could prove them wrong.
How the NR 300A Week 8 example is put together
The reflection opens with its verdict: the study delivered a 6.5-page summary and a one-page checklist tried on 10 admissions. Table 1 quotes each outline commitment and sets it against what exists. Five amendments follow as dated decisions, from the Week 2 reverse stethoscope addition to the Week 7 reordering. The shortfall paragraph states that the items argued to matter most were skipped most often, for ordinary reasons. A section explains what the summary and checklist can be relied on for, citing Shukla et al. (2019) and Hshieh et al. (2015). Three lessons follow, including how long other people's systems take. The next step is a four-week unit trial.
Reading the NR 300A Week 8 grading rubric
A sponsor grading this reflection usually looks at accurate comparison with the agreed plan, honest evaluation of the product, treatment of amendments, insight into self-directed learning and writing quality. The comparison carries the most weight, which is why commitments are quoted exactly and judged in a table. Honesty is credited through a shortfall stated without softening. Amendments score when each has a date and approver, so the product is judged against what was last agreed. Insight earns points when lessons are specific, such as asking about other systems' timelines in Week 1. Saying who should use the product next shows its value beyond the course. Clear APA references for the sources still relied on complete the document.
Common NR 300A Week 8 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The costliest reflection narrates the term week by week and never reaches a verdict. A reflection where everything succeeded is not believable to a sponsor who watched the work. Answering a remembered plan instead of the written one is easy to spot. Amendments never recorded make the product look like it missed moved targets. Thanks offered where judgment was asked for, lessons so general nothing could contradict them, evidence redescribed instead of cited and no statement of what the product is good for all lose points. Be honest about shortfalls. Submit the product with the reflection if your sponsor requires it. Send your outline and final product, and an NR 300A reflection can compare them.
Get a NR 300A Week 8 example written to your instructions
Send the agreement, the outline you started from and whatever your faculty sponsor asks the closing document to cover, and a custom example is written against your own commitments and returned inside 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. If the product goes in alongside it, send that too, since the reflection should point at the product rather than repeat it.
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 4: Independent Study Progress Memo
- NR 300A Week 5: Evidence Summary Draft Section
- NR 300A Week 6: Independent Study Methods Note
- NR 300A Week 7: Sponsor Feedback Revision Plan
- NR 305 Week 8: Reflection
- NR 306 Week 8: Head to Toe Write-up
- NR 451 Week 8: Capstone Presentation
- NR 307A Week 8: Reflection
NR 300A Week 8 questions, answered
How honest should the shortfall be?
Completely, because the sponsor holds the outline, the memos and the drafts and can see the shape of the term without being told. A named shortfall with a reason reads as judgment; the same gap left for a reader to find reads as evasion. Studies rarely lose more for what went unfinished than for the pretense that everything was done.
Is the product submitted with the reflection?
Usually, and the agreement will say. Where they arrive together, the reflection should point at parts of the product instead of summarizing them, since the reader has both documents open. Where the product went in earlier, the reflection carries more description, but it still argues rather than recounts and it still reaches a verdict.
What makes a self-direction finding worth writing down?
It has to be falsifiable and about this person. That an independent study requires discipline is true of everyone and worth nothing. That the writer consistently underestimated how long reading takes, and corrected for it after the second contact point, is a finding a sponsor can believe and the writer can carry into the next negotiated study.
Where can I find a free NR 300A Week 8 sample paper?
The complete Week 8 reflection, with the verdict, the commitments table, the dated amendments and the shortfall paragraph, is shown in full on this page.
What shortfall does the NR 300A Week 8 reflection admit?
The handoff item was skipped in 3 of 10 admissions and the whiteboard in 2, so the checklist did not show it can reliably do the thing the summary argues matters most.