| Course | NR 528 Leading and Managing Evidence-Based Change in Nursing |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Stakeholder analysis |
| Length | About 1,150 words, 3 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 528 Week 3
Stakeholder Analysis: Who the Head-of-Bed Change Affects, Who Can Help or Block It, and Whose Calendar the Start Date Is Actually Waiting On
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 528: Leading and Managing Evidence-Based Change in Nursing
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Stakeholder Analysis: Who the Head-of-Bed Change Affects, Who Can Help or Block It, and Whose Calendar the Start Date Is Actually Waiting On
Purpose
This analysis identifies the people and groups affected by the progressive care unit's head-of-bed practice for continuously tube-fed patients, assesses their interest and influence, and, most important for planning, identifies whose schedules, decisions or supplies the change must wait for. The first attempt at this change failed partly because it was planned around who cared about it rather than who controlled its steps. A stakeholder with no strong opinion can still delay a project by six weeks if their calendar decides when teaching or equipment arrives.
The Stakeholders
Table 1 lists each stakeholder, how the practice affects them, their influence and what the project is waiting on from them.
Table 1
Stakeholders in the Head-of-Bed Practice
| Stakeholder | How affected | Influence | What the project waits on |
|---|---|---|---|
| Day shift registered nurses | Must maintain the angle and document exceptions | High for daily practice | Teaching at two staff meetings |
| Night shift registered nurses | Same, with repositioning and baths at night | High; lowest current compliance | A night teaching session, not yet scheduled |
| Nursing assistants | Reposition and bathe; must return beds to 30 degrees | High at the bedside | Inclusion in teaching; a clear script for telling the nurse |
| Unit educator | Designs and delivers teaching | High for timing | Next open teaching slot: six weeks away |
| Wound care nurse | Concerned about sacral pressure with higher angles | Moderate; can raise safety objections | Agreement on repositioning and support surfaces |
| Providers | Write contraindication orders | Moderate | A standard contraindication order in the order set |
| Forms and order set committee | Approves changes to documentation and order sets | High for documentation | Monthly meeting; next agenda cutoff in three weeks |
| Supply chain and biomedical engineering | Stock and install bed angle indicators | High for equipment | Purchase approval and delivery of 24 indicators |
| Patients and families | Comfort, sliding down in bed | Moderate | Explanation at admission |
Who Is Being Waited On
Three stakeholders set the start date, and none of them is the most interested party.
The unit educator. Her next open teaching slot is six weeks away because of annual competency days. Teaching cannot begin before then unless the educator frees time or delegates. The project's start therefore depends on her calendar, not on staff readiness.
The forms and order set committee. The change needs a documentation field for head-of-bed angle in the flowsheet and a standard order for documenting contraindications. The committee meets monthly; to reach next month's meeting, the request must be on the agenda within three weeks. If it misses that cutoff, the documentation will not exist when teaching begins, and nurses will be taught to document in a field that is not there.
Supply chain. Only one bed on the unit has an angle indicator, taped on by a charge nurse. Our beds do not display the angle clearly from the doorway. Twenty-four indicators need purchase approval and delivery, typically two to four weeks. Teaching staff to maintain 30 degrees without a way to see 30 degrees repeats the failure of the first attempt.
The Stakeholder Who Could Block It
The wound care nurse has the most legitimate objection. Raising the head of the bed increases shear and pressure on the sacrum and heels, and patients slide down. If the practice is introduced without addressing this, she could reasonably argue that it trades one harm for another, and the practice council would listen. Her concern is not an obstacle to manage but a safety issue to design for. The analysis recommends involving her before teaching is designed, agreeing on repositioning schedules and pressure-redistributing mattresses for patients who will spend long periods at 30 to 45 degrees, and including her guidance in the teaching.
Interest and Influence
Night nurses and nursing assistants have the greatest influence on whether the practice happens, because they control the bed at the moments it is most often lowered. Their interest is mixed: they support aspiration prevention but carry heavy workloads at night, and raising the bed after every repositioning adds a step. The first attempt did not teach night shift at all. This time, night nurses and nursing assistants should help design the night routine, including when the feeding is paused and restarted, so the practice fits their work.
What Each Group Needs to Hear
Stakeholders differ in what will persuade them, and the plan should speak to each. Providers and the practice council respond to guidance: the national nutrition support guideline recommends 30 to 45 degrees for critically ill adults receiving enteral nutrition who are at high risk of aspiration (McClave et al., 2016), and a nursing practice alert makes a similar recommendation (American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, 2016). Staff nurses and nursing assistants are more likely to respond to what happened on our own unit, the aspiration event on a night when the bed was flat, and to the finding that a protocol including head-of-bed elevation was associated with far fewer aspiration events and pneumonias than usual care (Metheny et al., 2010). The wound care nurse needs to hear that pressure injury prevention has been designed into the practice, not added afterward. Supply chain needs a cost and a count. Patients and families need a plain explanation of why the bed stays up and what to do if they slide down. Tailoring the message is not spin; it is matching each group to the reason that bears on their role.
What the Analysis Changes in the Plan
The analysis moves three items to the front of the plan. First, the request to the forms and order set committee goes in this week, to meet the agenda cutoff. Second, the purchase request for angle indicators goes in the same week. Third, a meeting with the wound care nurse is scheduled before the teaching content is written. Teaching is then scheduled for the educator's open slot, six weeks out, by which point the documentation field and the indicators should both exist. The start date is set by these dependencies, and the plan says so.
Stakeholders Missed in the First Draft
Two groups were missed in the first draft of this analysis. Respiratory therapists reposition patients during treatments and sometimes lower the bed for chest physiotherapy, so they need to know the pause-and-restart rule. Transport staff move tube-fed patients to imaging and back, and a bed returned flat after a scan undoes the practice at a time when no audit is scheduled. Both groups were added after a night charge nurse pointed them out, and each now receives a short briefing from the unit educator.
References
American Association of Critical-Care Nurses. (2016). Prevention of aspiration in adults [Practice alert]. Critical Care Nurse, 36(1), e20-e24. https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2016831
McClave, S. A., Taylor, B. E., Martindale, R. G., Warren, M. M., Johnson, D. R., Braunschweig, C., McCarthy, M. S., Davanos, E., Rice, T. W., Cresci, G. A., Gervasio, J. M., Sacks, G. S., Roberts, P. R., & Compher, C. (2016). Guidelines for the provision and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically ill patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.). Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 40(2), 159-211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148607115621863
Metheny, N. A., Davis-Jackson, J., & Stewart, B. J. (2010). Effectiveness of an aspiration risk-reduction protocol. Nursing Research, 59(1), 18-25. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0b013e3181c3ba05
NR 528 Week 3 instructions, in plain terms
In Week 3 you identify the stakeholders in your proposed change and analyze how each may affect it. Prompts usually ask you to list internal and external stakeholders, rate their interest and influence, predict support or resistance and describe how you will engage each group. Many rubrics mention a grid or matrix. Go beyond sorting people into quadrants. Ask what the project is waiting on from each group, whether a teaching slot, a committee vote or a purchase, because those dependencies set your timeline. Treat serious objections as information. Consider groups who touch the patient only occasionally. Support your engagement approach with literature on change or stakeholder analysis in APA 7, and observe any page limit your instructor sets.
Inside the NR 528 Week 3 example
A purpose statement frames the analysis around planning. A table lists nine stakeholder groups with the effect of the change on each, their influence and the item the project is waiting on. The next section singles out three groups whose schedules set the start date: the educator with a six-week gap, the committee with an agenda cutoff, and purchasing for angle indicators. A section on the wound care nurse treats her concern about sacral shear as legitimate. An interest and influence section explains why night staff matter most. The paper then states what message fits each group, what moves forward in the plan as a result, and which two groups a first draft had missed.
Reading the NR 528 Week 3 grading rubric
Stakeholder analysis rubrics generally award points for completeness of the stakeholder list, accurate assessment of interest and influence, thoughtful prediction of support or resistance, and practical engagement strategies. Graders look for analysis rather than a list; explaining why a group matters and what it controls earns more than rating it high or low. A table or matrix that the prose actually uses tends to help the organization score. Addressing a legitimate objection with respect is often credited under leadership. Linking the analysis to concrete changes in the project plan shows application. Scholarly support for engagement approaches, clear writing and APA 7 citations, together with any required figure, round out the grading.
NR 528 Week 3 help: mistakes that cost points
A frequent weakness is a stakeholder list that stops at nurses, physicians and managers. Think about everyone who touches the practice, including support departments and staff who move or treat the patient for short periods. Another is rating influence by job title rather than by what the person controls in this change. Students also describe resistance as something to overcome instead of asking whether the objection is correct. Avoid engagement plans that say only communicate regularly. State what each group needs to hear and who will say it. Do not forget dependencies; an analysis that never asks what you are waiting on misses the reason projects slip. Finally, revise the plan after the analysis, and say what changed.
Get a NR 528 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 3 instructions and the table your classroom uses, along with a short description of your setting and the change, and a custom example is written into that table and returned inside 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free. Roles carry the whole analysis, so no real colleague has to appear anywhere in it.
More NR 528 papers and MSN samples
- NR 528 Week 1: Discussion on a Stalled Change
- NR 528 Week 2: Practice Problem Brief
- NR 528 Week 4: Implementation Plan
- NR 528 Week 5: Change Model Application
- NR 528 Week 6: Measurement Plan
- NR 528 Week 7: Barrier Mitigation Brief
- NR 528 Week 8: Sustainability Plan
- NR 527 Week 3: Difficult Conversation Script
- NR 520 Week 3: Applied Theory Case, Comfort Theory
- NR 519 Week 3: Assessment Findings Write-Up
- NR 518 Week 3: Measures of Association Exercise
NR 528 Week 3 questions, answered
How do I know how long another department takes?
Say what you are assuming and mark it as an assumption. The last thing you watched go through that department is a defensible source, and so is a sentence saying you asked. Where you genuinely cannot find out, write the row with a range and note that the start date moves with it, which is more useful to a reader than a confident figure nobody checked.
Do people who only need telling belong here?
Yes, in a short list of their own with a date beside each. Being told is work somebody has to do, and the groups finding out last are reliably the ones a change fails on: weekend staff, the float pool, the department downstream that receives whatever your unit now sends it. A line each is enough.
What if a party would simply refuse?
Then their handover is not available, and the analysis says so plainly together with the route that does not depend on it and what that route costs. A plan resting on cooperation nobody has confirmed is the version graders test first. Naming the refusal and working around it is stronger than a schedule quietly assuming agreement.
Where can I find a free NR 528 Week 3 sample paper?
The head-of-bed stakeholder analysis shown above, table included, is the whole NR 528 Week 3 sample and it is open to read. For an analysis of your own change and unit, list the groups involved on our form and a version built around them can be prepared.
Does the NR 528 stakeholder analysis need a grid?
Many sections ask for an interest and influence grid or a table. The sample uses a table with a column for what the project is waiting on from each group, because that column is what the rest of the plan relies on.