| Course | NR 442 Community Health Nursing |
|---|---|
| Week | 6 |
| Paper type | Health promotion plan |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | RN-to-BSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 442 Week 6
Test the Basement: A Radon Testing Promotion Plan for Homeowners in a Composite Upper Midwest County
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 442: Community Health Nursing
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Test the Basement: A Radon Testing Promotion Plan for Homeowners in a Composite Upper Midwest County
The Population and the Problem
Radon is a radioactive gas released from soil and rock that can collect in homes, especially in basements. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identifies radon as the leading cause of lung cancer among people who have never smoked and the second leading cause overall, and recommends that every home be tested and that homes at or above 4 picocuries per liter of air be fixed (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). The World Health Organization reaches similar conclusions on the risk and recommends national reference levels for homes (World Health Organization, 2009). Radon cannot be seen or smelled, so the only way to know a home's level is to test it.
This plan targets owner-occupied single-family homes with basements in Kettle County, a composite county of about 64,000 residents in the Upper Midwest, where the state radon program's map places the county in the highest radon potential zone. Of the county's roughly 18,500 owner-occupied homes, the state radon database records a test result for about 2,100, or about 11 of every 100, and 46 of every 100 of those tested results were at or above 4 picocuries per liter. The problem is not that radon is unknown; it is that most homes in a high-radon county have never been tested. The plan aims to increase testing among owner-occupants, since renters depend on landlords for any remedy, which is a different problem needing a different plan.
Activities, Deliverers and Their Authority
Activity 1, free test kits at the library and the county health department: Delivered by the county health department's environmental health staff and the public library's front desk from November through March, when windows are closed and radon levels are highest. Authority: the county health department receives short-term test kits through a subaward from the state radon program, which is funded in part by the federal State Indoor Radon Grant program; the subaward terms permit distribution of test kits and education.
Activity 2, a ten-minute radon talk at existing community meetings: Delivered by the public health nurse at the county's senior center lunch, two township board meetings and the cooperative extension office's homeowner workshop, each of which has agreed to host. Authority: public health education is within the nurse's role under the county health department's community health plan; no additional approval is needed.
Activity 3, a reminder and follow-up for anyone who picks up a kit: Delivered by the environmental health clerk, who records the address and phone number of each kit recipient and calls at three weeks if no result has reached the state laboratory. Authority: the state program's data agreement allows the county to see results for kits it distributed.
Activity 4, help interpreting high results: Delivered by the environmental health specialist, who calls every household with a result at or above 4 picocuries per liter, explains the recommended second test and gives the state list of certified mitigation contractors. Authority: the specialist is credentialed by the state radon program.
Where the plan stops: Enforcement is not part of this plan. The county has no ordinance requiring radon testing at the sale of a home, and the health department has no authority to require testing in owner-occupied houses. The state's real estate disclosure form asks sellers to report any known radon test, which is a separate lever held by the state legislature and not by any office in this plan. Education and free testing are the only tools available to the partners named here, and the plan is built around that fact rather than around a rule the county cannot make.
What the Funding May Buy
The subaward from the state radon program pays for test kits, laboratory analysis, printed education materials and a portion of the environmental health clerk's time. Under the program's terms as described by the state, it does not pay for mitigation systems in private homes, which typically cost more than a thousand dollars. That limit shapes the plan. The plan can raise testing and can connect families with high results to certified contractors, but it cannot pay for the fix. For households that cannot afford mitigation, the plan will refer them to the county's housing rehabilitation program, which is run by a different office under a community development grant and may treat radon mitigation as an eligible repair; the plan marks that referral as requiring the housing office's agreement, which has not yet been obtained.
Outcomes Counted From Systems That Already Collect
The primary outcome is the number of first-time radon test results from Kettle County homes received by the state laboratory between November and March, set against November through March a year earlier, taken from the state radon database. The target is to double the number of results from about 300 in the previous winter to 600. A second measure is the share of distributed kits that are returned to the laboratory, since a kit sitting on a shelf protects no one; the target is 70 of every 100. A third measure is the number of households with a high result who report scheduling mitigation when called at three months, recorded by the environmental health specialist. The plan does not measure lung cancer, because any effect on lung cancer would take decades to appear and could not be detected in one county.
Timeline
October: Confirm kit supply with the state program; schedule talks with the senior center, two township boards and extension; brief library staff.
November through March: Distribute kits; deliver talks; make three-week reminder calls; call households with high results.
April: Pull results from the state database; compare with the previous winter; report to the county board of health.
June: Three-month follow-up calls on mitigation; final report and decision on whether to repeat next winter.
What This Plan Depends On
The plan depends on three things outside the nurse's control: the state program continuing its subaward, the library and meeting hosts keeping their commitments, and residents' willingness to act on a risk they cannot sense. The first two are confirmed for this winter. The third is the real test. Rector and Stanley (2022) note that environmental health risks without immediate symptoms are among the hardest to promote, and the plan responds by making the test free, available where people already go and followed by a personal call.
References
Rector, C., & Stanley, M. J. (2022). Community and public health nursing: Promoting the public's health (10th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). A citizen's guide to radon: The guide to protecting yourself and your family from radon (EPA 402/K-12/002). https://www.epa.gov/radon/citizens-guide-radon-guide-protecting-yourself-and-your-family-radon
World Health Organization. (2009). WHO handbook on indoor radon: A public health perspective. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241547673
NR 442 Week 6 instructions, in plain terms
The Week 6 plan has you design a health promotion program for a population in your community. Points are attached to the population and problem, activities with who delivers them, the resources and funding, measurable outcomes, a timeline, dependencies and APA. Narrow the population until you can picture it. State the problem as a measured gap rather than a lack of awareness. Give every activity a named deliverer and the authority it runs on, such as a grant or a credential. Say what the funding is allowed to pay for and what it cannot. Count outcomes from systems that already collect them. Put an end, a report and a decision point in the timeline. Name what the plan depends on.
How the NR 442 Week 6 example is put together
The first section describes radon, cites the EPA and WHO, and defines the target as owner-occupied single-family homes with basements in Kettle County, where the state map shows high potential. Activity 1 gives free test kits at the library and health department. Activity 2 adds a ten-minute talk at the senior center lunch, two township boards and an extension meeting. Activity 3 has the environmental health clerk call kit recipients at three weeks. Activity 4 has the environmental health specialist call households with results at or above 4 picocuries per liter. A short section says enforcement is outside the plan. The funding section lists what the subaward pays for. Outcomes compare first-time tests from November to March with the previous winter.
Where the points sit in the NR 442 Week 6 rubric
Health promotion plan rubrics in NR 442 generally weigh a defined population, a measured problem, activities with deliverers and authority, realistic resources, measurable outcomes, a timeline with evaluation and APA. Named deliverers and authority are the row this plan wins most clearly, since every activity names who does it and under what grant or credential. The population row is credited for owner-occupied homes with basements in one county. The problem scores as a testing gap measured against state data. Resources earn points because the subaward's allowed uses and its gap are both stated. Outcomes are credited for coming from the state laboratory database. A timeline ending in a report and a decision completes the rubric.
Common NR 442 Week 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The biggest loss on this plan is having no named deliverer, so activities happen in the passive voice and no office is responsible. Another is outcomes nobody could measure, such as increased awareness. Students also assume funding can pay for anything, leave out the end of the timeline or forget what the plan depends on. Theory is helpful only where it shapes an activity. The plan should be one a public health nurse could really run with existing partners. Objectives should be specific enough to count. If your population and behavior are different, send them and an NR 442 promotion plan can be built with a deliverer for every activity.
Get a NR 442 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Send the planning template your section uses, the rubric and the problem you have already assessed, and we will write a fresh NR 442 Week 6 health promotion plan around your population instead of this one. It returns inside 24-48h, filled into your template, and the first one costs nothing.
More NR 442 papers and RN-to-BSN samples
- NR 442 Week 1: Public Health Authority Discussion
- NR 442 Week 2: Rural Town Windshield Survey
- NR 442 Week 3: Maternity Care Desert Assessment
- NR 442 Week 4: Infant Mortality Disparity Analysis
- NR 442 Week 5: Hepatitis A Outbreak Epidemiology
- NR 442 Week 7: Community Teaching Plan
- NR 442 Week 8: Reflection
- NR 446 Week 6: Leadership Style Analysis
- NR 441 Week 6: Ethiopia Health Extension Critique
- NR 447 Week 6: Team Improvement Proposal
- NR 439 Week 6: Isopropyl Alcohol Evidence Synthesis
NR 442 Week 6 questions, answered
Does the plan have to be one the writer could really run?
It has to be one somebody could run. Rubrics for this genre reward feasibility, meaning a setting that exists, a deliverer with the standing to act and resources that could plausibly be found. A plan requiring a new clinic and three hires reads as fantasy however well it is written, and graders mark it down under feasibility rather than under content.
How specific do the objectives need to be?
Specific enough to fail. Each one wants a population, a number, a measure and a date, so that at the end somebody can say whether it happened. Objectives phrased as increasing awareness or promoting healthy behavior cannot be tested and are the most common single reason this genre loses points in the outcomes column.
How much theory belongs in it?
One model, applied rather than described. Many sections require a health behavior framework and reward writers who use its constructs to explain why a particular activity was chosen for this population. Two pages summarizing the model earns almost nothing, while one paragraph showing that perceived barriers drove the choice of venue and timing usually earns the whole allocation.
Where can I find a free NR 442 Week 6 sample paper?
This page has the complete Week 6 radon testing plan for Kettle County, with the population, four activities and their deliverers, funding limits, outcomes, timeline, dependencies and three references.
How are outcomes counted in the NR 442 Week 6 plan?
By the number of first-time radon test results from county homes received by the state laboratory from November to March, compared with the same months of the previous winter.