NR 307A Week 8 Equity Course Reflection Example

Advancing Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity in Healthcare Chamberlain University Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This NR 307A Week 8 sample paper follows one automatic reaction, the word difficult, to families who ask questions, caught twice in eight weeks. Chamberlain NR 307A (NR-307A), Advancing Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity in Healthcare, closes by asking RN-to-BSN students what changed in their practice and how they know. The paper names the reaction and why it can be tested, uses FitzGerald and Hurst and Hall and colleagues, returns to the Week 2 son who asked for a medication list, sets beside it a Week 7 daughter at 0200 and the handoff sentence that passed on her need instead of the reaction, reports an attempt to change a handoff field that stalled and ends with a modest next step.

CourseNR 307A Advancing Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity in Healthcare
Week8
Paper typeCourse reflection
LengthAbout 1,110 words, 5 pages
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolChamberlain University
ProgramRN-to-BSN
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for NR 307A Week 8

1

The Word "Difficult": One Automatic Reaction to Families Who Ask Questions, Caught Twice in Eight Weeks

Student Name

College of Nursing, Chamberlain University

NR 307A: Advancing Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity in Healthcare

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title names one reaction and promises two dated encounters, which is the only kind of evidence a closing reflection can offer for a change. Patients and families are composites with details changed. Student APA 7 format, no running head.
2

The Word "Difficult": One Automatic Reaction to Families Who Ask Questions, Caught Twice in Eight Weeks

The Reaction

The reaction this reflection follows is a single word that arrives in my head before I have decided anything: difficult. It arrives when a family member asks for something I did not offer, such as a printed list of medications, the name of every drug in an IV bag, or a call from the doctor that evening. I first wrote it down in my Week 2 self-audit, after I felt irritated by an older Black man's son who asked for his father's medication list, and realized I had felt the opposite about a white daughter who asked for the same thing a week earlier. I called her thorough. The reaction came before I had done anything, and the difference between the two families was not in their requests.

I have kept to that one reaction because it is the part of this course I can actually test. FitzGerald and Hurst (2017) found in their review that health care professionals show implicit biases at levels similar to the general population, and Hall et al. (2015) linked these biases to differences in how clinicians communicate. Neither review says how to remove a reaction. What they suggested to me is that I could notice it and decide what to do after it arrived.

What this page is doingThe paper picks one automatic reaction, dated to an earlier assignment, rather than a tour of the term. The sources explain what the writer was trying to do rather than decorating the paper.
3

The First Encounter, Week 2

The first encounter was the one I described in the self-audit. The son was polite and specific. He asked for a list with each drug and its purpose, because his father had been sent home from another hospital on a medication he was not supposed to take. I gave him the list and answered his questions, so my actions were acceptable. But at handoff I said to the oncoming nurse, "The son in 14 is a little difficult." I had not planned to say it. That sentence went into the next shift with me, and the oncoming nurse went into the room already expecting trouble. My action at the bedside was fine; my handoff passed the reaction along.

The Second Encounter, Week 7

Five weeks later, at 0200, a Filipino woman sitting with her mother, who had pneumonia and a new confusion, asked me three times in an hour what was in the new IV bag, why the oxygen had been turned up, and whether the doctor would come before morning. I felt the word arrive. This time I noticed it before I spoke. I stopped outside the room, wrote the word on the back of my paper report sheet, and went back in. I answered her questions and asked what had happened the last time her mother was in hospital. She told me that her mother had been given a sedative during a previous admission and had fallen out of bed, and that no one had told the family until the next morning. Her questions were not about me. They were about the last time she had not asked.

At handoff, I told the oncoming nurse: "Her daughter is staying overnight and wants to know about any new medicine before it is given, because her mother fell after a sedative last time. She is very helpful with reorienting her mother." That sentence was the change. It passed on what the family needed instead of my reaction to it. Davidson et al. (2017) recommend that family members of critically ill patients be included and kept informed, and the daughter's questions were exactly the kind of participation that guidance describes.

What this page is doingThe claim of change rests on two dated encounters, months apart, and on what was done differently the second time: a handoff sentence that passed on the family's need rather than the writer's reaction.
4

What Changed and What Did Not

The reaction did not go away. I felt it in Week 7 as clearly as in Week 2. What changed was the gap between the reaction and what I did, especially in what I said at handoff, which is where my reaction had been reaching other nurses without my noticing. I also cannot say that the reaction is now equal across families. I only have two encounters, and the families were different in many ways besides race. The claim this reflection can make is narrow: I noticed the reaction at the moment it arrived, I delayed what I said until I had asked one question, and I changed the handoff sentence. A colleague could check the last part by listening to my report. Between the two encounters, I also noticed the word three more times, each after a family member asked a question late at night. Twice I caught it before I spoke and once I did not; on that night I told the oncoming nurse that a patient's wife was "a lot," and I only realized what I had done on the drive home. I am including that night because the pattern is not that I have stopped, but that I now notice more often than I used to, and the misses are visible to me when they happen.

The Attempt That Went Nowhere

In Week 6, I tried to change one arrangement on the unit that feeds this reaction. Our handoff tool has a free-text field labeled "Family concerns." In practice, nurses use it to warn each other about families, and the word difficult appears there often. I proposed to our unit practice council that the field be renamed "What the family has asked for," so the entry would record requests rather than judgments. The council discussed it for five minutes and decided that the field name is set by the electronic record vendor and cannot be changed locally before the next system upgrade, which is scheduled for late next year. A council member suggested adding a line to the handoff education instead, and that is now on the agenda for the spring.

The attempt did not produce the change I wanted, but it taught me where the change has to be made. My reaction is mine to manage. The field where it gets written down belongs to the organization, and the organization moves on a different schedule.

What this page is doingAn attempted change that stalled is reported with the obstacle named, which shows the term produced action rather than only reflection.
5

Where This Leaves Me

I will keep writing the word on the back of my report sheet when I feel it, and I will keep one question ready before I respond: what happened the last time? I will take the handoff wording to the spring education session. I do not expect the reaction to disappear. I expect to keep catching it, and to keep it out of the report I give the next nurse.

References

Davidson, J. E., Aslakson, R. A., Long, A. C., Puntillo, K. A., Kross, E. K., Hart, J., Cox, C. E., Wunsch, H., Wickline, M. A., Nunnally, M. E., Netzer, G., Kentish-Barnes, N., Sprung, C. L., Hartog, C. S., Coombs, M., Gerritsen, R. T., Hopkins, R. O., Franck, L. S., Skrobik, Y., . . . Curtis, J. R. (2017). Guidelines for family-centered care in the neonatal, pediatric, and adult ICU. Critical Care Medicine, 45(1), 103-128. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000002169

FitzGerald, C., & Hurst, S. (2017). Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: A systematic review. BMC Medical Ethics, 18, Article 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0179-8

Hall, W. J., Chapman, M. V., Lee, K. M., Merino, Y. M., Thomas, T. W., Payne, B. K., Eng, E., Day, S. H., & Coyne-Beasley, T. (2015). Implicit racial/ethnic bias among health care professionals and its influence on health care outcomes: A systematic review. American Journal of Public Health, 105(12), e60-e76. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302903

What the NR 307A Week 8 assignment asks for

The final reflection asks you to describe how your understanding and practice changed during the course, with evidence. Expect the prompt to want specific experiences, connections to course concepts and sources, honest discussion of what did not change and next steps, in APA. Choose one reaction or behavior and follow it through the term rather than summarizing each week. A claim of change needs at least two encounters to compare. Report attempts that did not work and what blocked them. Keep the focus on your own reactions, not patients' cultures. Avoid promising to advocate for everyone; a small, specific next step is more believable.

Inside the NR 307A Week 8 example

The paper opens with the reaction, a single word that arrives before any decision, and explains why it was chosen with FitzGerald and Hurst (2017) and Hall et al. (2015). The first encounter returns to Week 2: the son who asked for a list after his father was sent home on the wrong drug. The second, in Week 7, is a daughter asking three questions in an hour at 0200, followed by the handoff sentence that described her need. A section states that the reaction stayed while the action changed. Another reports trying to change the handoff tool's family concerns field, with Davidson et al. (2017) cited, and why it stalled. The close names one next step.

Where the points sit in the NR 307A Week 8 rubric

Final reflection rubrics usually grade evidence of change, depth of self-analysis, connection to course content and sources, honesty about limits, a realistic plan and APA. Evidence carries the most weight, so the claim rests on two dated encounters and a handoff sentence that shows what changed. Self-analysis scores when the writer separates the reaction from the action. Course content is credited through the bias reviews and the family-centered care guideline. Honesty earns points for stating that the reaction did not go away and that the field change stalled. A small next step is graded as realistic. Keeping APA elements in a personal paper protects points that sections still mark.

Common NR 307A Week 8 mistakes, and how to avoid them

The biggest loss is reporting growth without an incident, sentences about awareness that could have been written in Week 1. A week-by-week summary that never says what changed comes next. Ending with a promise to advocate for every patient reads as having nothing specific left. No course sources, a story about a patient's culture rather than about the writer, dropped APA elements and a claim of change with no second encounter all cost points. If nothing changed, say what you tried and what that taught you. A reflective model helps if your section suggests one. Earlier material can be revisited if you add a new encounter. Send your earlier papers, and the reflection can be built around one reaction.

Get a NR 307A Week 8 example written to your instructions

Send the Week 8 instructions with the rubric and any reflection model your classroom names, and a custom example is written to it and returned inside 24 to 48 hours, free the first time. The encounters in it are constructed, not taken from anybody's shifts, so the version you submit is the one carrying your own.

More NR 307A papers and RN-to-BSN samples

NR 307A Week 8 questions, answered

What if nothing changed?

Write that, and write why. A paper reporting an honest failure to shift a reaction, with the moment it recurred and the reason it held, is markable in a way that a claimed transformation is not. Sections mark the quality of the examination rather than the outcome. What fails is the paper that claims change and produces no occasion on which it was visible.

Should I use a reflective model?

Use the one your classroom names and let it stay in the background. Where a model is required, its stages usually map onto headings and the paper is graded on what fills them, not on the labels. Where none is required, a plain shape works: the reaction, the two encounters, the arrangement you tried to change, and what is still open.

Can I reuse material from earlier weeks?

Referring back is expected and copying is not. Sections generally want the final paper to build on the audit and the assessment you already submitted, so naming them and saying what each produced is fine. Lifting paragraphs across is self-plagiarism in most classroom policies, and it is easy to spot because the voice changes mid-page.

Where can I find a free NR 307A Week 8 sample paper?

The full Week 8 reflection on the word difficult, with the two dated encounters and the stalled attempt to change a handoff field, is reproduced on this page.

What changed in the NR 307A Week 8 reflection?

The reaction stayed, but the action changed: at the Week 7 handoff the nurse described the daughter's reason for her questions and her help with reorienting her mother instead of passing on irritation.