| Course | NR 360 Information Systems in Healthcare |
|---|---|
| Week | 1 |
| Paper type | Discussion post with one reply |
| Length | About 530 words |
| Format | Discussion post with APA 7 citations |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | RN-to-BSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 360 Week 1
Week 1 Discussion: A Task the System Now Decides
The Braden Score That Adds Itself Up
Initial Post
The task I want to write about is scoring pressure injury risk. On my 28-bed medical-surgical floor, where I work days, with five or six patients per nurse, we complete a Braden assessment on admission and every shift. When I started, the Braden was a paper grid in the admission packet. I looked at the patient, chose a rating for each of the six subscales, sensory perception, moisture, activity, mobility, nutrition and friction and shear, added them up myself and wrote the total at the bottom. If the total was 18 or lower, I started the pressure injury prevention plan. The scale was developed to predict pressure sore risk from those six observations (Bergstrom et al., 1987), and adding it up was part of thinking it through.
Our electronic record now does most of that for me. The activity and mobility subscales are pulled automatically from the mobility fields I chart earlier in the shift, the nutrition subscale defaults to the previous shift's value unless I change it, and the total appears on its own. When the total crosses the threshold, the system adds the prevention interventions to the care plan and sends a consult to the wound nurse.
What I gained is real. The consult to the wound nurse no longer depends on my remembering to page her, the prevention bundle is on the care plan every time, and totals are no longer miscalculated at 0400. What moved is the judgment. I used to look at a patient and ask, subscale by subscale, what I was seeing. Now the two subscales most likely to change during a stay are filled from other documentation, and the nutrition score carries forward unless I stop and question it. Last month I noticed that a patient who had eaten almost nothing for two days still had a nutrition subscale of 3, adequate, because it had carried forward from admission. The total stayed above the threshold, so no consult went out. The software behaved exactly as built. The decision it made was one I used to make myself and had stopped noticing I was no longer making.
My question for classmates is whether anyone has found a way to keep the automatic benefits, the consult and the care plan, while putting the nurse back into the subscales that change. Is a forced review of carried-forward values worth the extra click?
Reply to a Classmate
The fall risk score you described, which defaults to low risk for patients under 65, is close to mine, and I think it shows the same pattern from another angle. In your case the default is set by age, so a 50-year-old on a new sedative starts at low risk unless someone overrides it. I wonder whether the people who built the default know how often it is overridden. On my unit, our informatics nurse told me that nobody had ever asked for a report on how often carried-forward Braden values were changed. If that report existed, it might tell us whether the default is a convenience or a blind spot.
References
Bergstrom, N., Braden, B. J., Laguzza, A., & Holman, V. (1987). The Braden Scale for predicting pressure sore risk. Nursing Research, 36(4), 205-210. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198707000-00002
NR 360 Week 1 instructions, in plain terms
The NR 360 opening discussion asks you to describe a nursing task that technology has changed and reflect on how the change affects practice. The usual list includes a specific example, the situation before and after, the benefits, the drawbacks, a source and a reply to a classmate. Choose one routine you perform yourself, described well enough that a nurse elsewhere could say whether it holds on their unit. Tell the before and the after in the same terms. Name the gains honestly before the cost. State the judgment that moved, in one sentence with an example. Ask classmates a question about a fix. In the reply, add a practical next step instead of agreeing.
Inside the NR 360 Week 1 example
The post opens by naming the task, scoring pressure injury risk, and the unit where it happens. The second paragraph explains that activity and mobility subscales are pulled from earlier mobility charting and that the nutrition subscale defaults, so the total is calculated without the nurse reviewing each part. The third paragraph lists the gains: the consult to the wound nurse no longer depends on memory, the prevention bundle always appears and totals are no longer miscalculated. The cost follows, stated as a decision the nurse no longer makes at the bedside. The fourth asks whether a forced review of changing subscales would help. The reply connects a classmate's fall risk default for patients under 65 to the same pattern and suggests an override report.
Where the points sit in the NR 360 Week 1 rubric
Chamberlain discussion rubrics for this course usually assign points for answering every part of the prompt, depth of analysis, practice application, a scholarly source, the peer reply and APA, and posting dates are tracked too. Depth of analysis earns the most when the post names both what was gained and what judgment moved, which this one does with the subscales. Application is credited because the example comes from the writer's own unit with numbers a reader can picture. The scholarly row is met by Bergstrom and colleagues, who explain what each subscale was built to capture. Peer engagement scores when the reply suggests a report on how often defaults are overridden. A correctly formatted reference finishes the rubric.
Common NR 360 Week 1 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The costliest Week 1 mistake is describing what an electronic record contains when the prompt asks what changed and at what cost. Close behind is a post that praises or condemns the technology without a specific routine. Students also skip the gains and list only complaints, which reads as one-sided. A cost stated in general terms, such as "less critical thinking," earns less than one subscale named with an example. Replies that only share a similar frustration add little. Keep employer and system vendor names out if your program asks for that. If you have a routine that changed at work and want to frame it well, describe it to us and an NR 360 Week 1 post can be outlined around it.
Get a NR 360 Week 1 example written to your instructions
Send us the Week 1 prompt exactly as your classroom words it, plus any rubric, the number of replies expected and the citation style. We write a finished NR 360 discussion post to those instructions and return it inside 24-48h. The first one is free, and the floor in it is constructed, never lifted from another nurse.
More NR 360 papers and RN-to-BSN samples
- NR 360 Week 2: Technology Evaluation
- NR 360 Week 3: Workflow Analysis
- NR 360 Week 4: Case Analysis
- NR 360 Week 5: Data Security Brief
- NR 360 Week 6: Patient Teaching Handout
- NR 360 Week 7: Informatics Project Outline
- NR 360 Week 8: Reflection
- NR 361 Week 1: Discussion Post
- NR 351 Week 1: Introduction and Return to Study Post
- NR 393 Week 1: Discussion Post
- NR 307A Week 1: Equal Versus Equitable Post
NR 360 Week 1 questions, answered
Does the Week 1 example have to use my own hospital?
It does not, and most finished posts are safer when they do not. A composite floor assembled from work you recognize carries the same authority and removes any risk of naming an employer or a colleague. What the post cannot survive is vagueness: a routine with no equipment, no roles and no timing in it gives classmates nothing they can test against their own units.
How long is a Week 1 post normally?
Classrooms differ, so the published length in your section governs. The pattern worth copying is proportional rather than numeric: roughly a fifth of the words setting up the task, most of the middle spent on the before and after, and a short close that hands the thread somewhere to go. Replies usually run much shorter than the original post.
Is a reference needed on a discussion post?
Nearly every section wants a current source or two, and the finished example puts them where they do some work. A citation attached to the general shift being described, whether documentation burden or the staffing effects of a technology, supports the claim the post is actually making. A source appearing only in a closing sentence tends to read as decoration.
Where can I find a free NR 360 Week 1 sample paper?
Read the Week 1 post in full on this page: the automated Braden score, with the gains, the judgment that moved, the question for classmates, the reply about fall risk defaults and the Bergstrom reference.
What does the NR 360 Week 1 post say the nurse lost when the Braden score automated?
The bedside judgment on subscales that change, such as mobility and nutrition, because the record now fills them from earlier charting or defaults, so the total appears without the nurse weighing each part.