NR 543 Week 5 Workaround Write-Up Example

Course	NR 543 Information Workflow in Healthcare
Week	5
Paper type	Workaround write-up
Length	About 990 words, 3 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Chamberlain University
Program	MSN, Nursing Informatics
Updated	September 2026

Free sample paper for NR 543 Week 5

Workaround Write-Up: The MRI Technologists' Shared Spreadsheet, the Charge Nurse Group Text and the Printout Behind the Desk That Keep Inpatient Scans Moving, What Each Does Better Than the Official Process and What Each Puts at Risk

Student Name

College of Nursing, Chamberlain University

NR 543: Information Workflow in Healthcare

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title treats the workarounds as evidence of what the official process fails to do, rather than as rule-breaking, which is how a workaround write-up earns its value for redesign. Student APA 7 title page.

The Second Process

Every stalled process grows a second one beside it, and the second one usually works. In mapping how inpatient brain MRI requests move from our stroke and neuroscience unit through radiology, I found three unofficial tools that staff use every day and that appear in no policy: a spreadsheet the MRI technologists keep on a shared drive, a group text among the unit's charge nurses and the MRI lead technologist, and a printed list of pending MRIs that the day charge nurse keeps behind the nurses' station. None was designed by anyone in authority. Each was built by staff to solve a problem the official process left unsolved.

A scoping review of nurses' workarounds in acute care described workarounds as responses to blocks in work processes, often intended to protect patients and maintain care, and noted that they can carry both benefits and risks (Debono et al., 2013). This write-up describes each workaround, what it does better than the official process and what it puts at risk, so that the redesign can keep what works and remove the risks.

The Technologists' Spreadsheet

What it is. A spreadsheet on a radiology shared drive listing every pending inpatient MRI, with columns for patient location, protocol status, screening status, a free-text notes column and a priority the technologists assign. It is updated by whichever technologist is on duty, usually several times an hour.

What it does better. It is the only place where a request's whole status is visible in one row. The official process spreads that status across the protocol worklist, the nursing task list, the screening review list and the scheduling system. The notes column holds information that fits nowhere official: "daughter arriving 5 p.m.," "implant card at home, son bringing it," "patient agitated, needs sedation plan." The technologists use it to decide which request to prepare next when a slot opens.

What it puts at risk. It holds patient names and clinical notes outside the record, on a drive whose access is broader than the radiology team. It depends on being updated, and on a busy afternoon it lags the real status. And it is invisible to the unit, so nurses do not know what the technologists know.

The Group Text

What it is. A group text among the stroke unit's charge nurses and the MRI lead technologist, started two years ago after a patient missed a slot. Messages are short: "Bed 14 screen back to you, question about stent," "slot at 3 opened, anyone ready?"

What it does better. It solves the longest handoff in the process, the return of an incomplete screening form to the unit. An inbox message may wait more than two hours before a nurse sees it; a text reaches the charge nurse's phone in seconds. It also lets the technologist offer an opened slot to a patient who is ready, which prevents lost slots.

What it puts at risk. The texts contain bed numbers and clinical details on personal phones, outside the hospital's messaging policy. They are not part of the record, so decisions made in them leave no trace. And the group depends on the lead technologist; when that person is off, the group goes quiet.

The Printout Behind the Desk

What it is. Each morning, the day charge nurse prints the list of patients with pending MRI orders and writes on it through the day: which screening forms are done, which families are expected, which patients cannot answer questions.

What it does better. It turns the MRI requests into a visible nursing responsibility. Without it, the screening task is one of dozens on each nurse's worklist, with nothing to mark it as blocking a scan.

What it puts at risk. It is paper with patient information, sometimes left on the desk; it is updated by one person; and it is gone by the next shift, so the night charge nurse starts without it.

What the Workarounds Reveal

Taken together, the workarounds reveal three things the official process does not do. It does not show a request's whole status in one place. It does not signal urgent handoffs, especially the return of an incomplete screening form, to a person who can act. And it has no place for the informal but essential information that decides when a request can move, such as when a relative will arrive. Each workaround fills one of these gaps. Lean approaches to health care improvement treat such workarounds as signals of where the standard process fails (Mazzocato et al., 2010).

What Should Happen to Them

The workarounds should not simply be banned; that would remove what keeps scans moving without fixing the gaps. Nor should they continue as they are, since each carries privacy and reliability risks. The redesign should replace each with an official equivalent that keeps its strength: a single status view of pending inpatient MRIs visible to both radiology and the unit; a notification of returned screening forms to the charge nurse through the hospital's secure messaging system; and a structured field for "information pending, expected time" on the screening form. The staff who built the workarounds should help design the replacements, since they know exactly what the workarounds do. Research on handoffs has found that standardized approaches are widely recommended where communication fails (Riesenberg et al., 2010), and the workarounds show where standardization is needed.

What this page is doingEach workaround is described by what it does better than the official process and what it risks, and the recommendation replaces each with an official equivalent that keeps its strength.

References

Debono, D. S., Greenfield, D., Travaglia, J. F., Long, J. C., Black, D., Johnson, J., & Braithwaite, J. (2013). Nurses' workarounds in acute healthcare settings: A scoping review. BMC Health Services Research, 13, Article 175. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-175

Mazzocato, P., Savage, C., Brommels, M., Aronsson, H., & Thor, J. (2010). Lean thinking in healthcare: A realist review of the literature. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 19(5), 376-382. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2009.037986

Riesenberg, L. A., Leisch, J., & Cunningham, J. M. (2010). Nursing handoffs: A systematic review of the literature. American Journal of Nursing, 110(4), 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000370154.79857.09

The Chamberlain NR 543 Week 5 instructions

For the fifth week, the focus falls on the unofficial fixes staff use to keep work moving. You can expect the prompt to ask for a description of the workarounds, why staff created them, their benefits and risks, and recommendations for the official process. Find workarounds by asking staff how things really get done, not by reviewing policy. Describe each one plainly: what it is, who uses it and how often. Explain what it does better than the official process, since that shows what the process lacks. Then name its risks to privacy, safety or reliability. Look for a pattern across the workarounds. Recommend replacements that keep each workaround's strength. Draw on published work about nurses' workarounds, cited in APA 7, to frame the analysis.

Inside the NR 543 Week 5 example

The write-up opens with the idea that every stalled process grows a second one beside it. Three sections follow, one per workaround, each split into what it is, what it does better and what it puts at risk. The spreadsheet shows a request's whole status in one row and holds notes like an expected relative's arrival, but it sits on a broadly shared drive. The group text returns incomplete forms in seconds but runs on personal phones. The printout makes screening a visible nursing job but disappears at shift change. A section draws out the three gaps the tools reveal. The recommendations replace each with an official equivalent, and a closing paragraph warns that users may describe their tools at their best.

Reading the NR 543 Week 5 grading rubric

Workaround write-ups are usually marked on accurate description, balanced analysis of benefits and risks, insight into what the workarounds reveal and realistic recommendations. Treating the workaround as a signal of a process gap, rather than a rule broken, shows the perspective the course is building. A consistent structure for each workaround makes the comparison easy to follow. Naming concrete risks, such as patient information on personal phones, shows attention to privacy and policy. Recommendations that preserve what staff built, and involve them in the replacement, tend to score well. A frank note about how the information was gathered strengthens credibility. Evidence from literature on workarounds supports the framing, and APA 7 citations with a clear, professional voice complete the work.

NR 543 Week 5 help: mistakes that cost points

Write-ups sometimes read as reports on staff misconduct, which misses the point and can alienate the people whose help the redesign needs. Describe workarounds with respect. Another weakness is listing benefits without risks, or risks without benefits; give both for each tool. Some writers recommend banning the workarounds outright, which removes what keeps the work moving without fixing the gap. Suggest official replacements instead. Be careful not to include identifying details from texts or spreadsheets in your paper. Look for the pattern that links the workarounds, because that pattern is the real finding. Avoid overstating what you observed; if you relied on users' descriptions, say so and propose a way to check them before any redesign begins.

Get a NR 543 Week 5 example written to your instructions

Send the assignment page and the rubric, plus a line or two about the route your unit actually uses, and we write a Week 5 example around that situation. It returns inside 24-48h and the first one is free. Keep names and the real site out of what you send us; a described setting is enough to write from.

More NR 543 papers and MSN samples

NR 543 Week 5 questions, answered

Will documenting this get somebody in trouble?

It is a fair worry and the usual answer is to write by role and by process rather than by person. No names, no unit that could be identified, no dates that pin an incident down. The assignment wants the mechanism, not the individual, and a write-up that anonymizes properly is normally the stronger document anyway.

What if the second route is genuinely unsafe?

Say so, specifically, and describe the harm pathway rather than labeling it dangerous. A paper spreadsheet that holds results outside the record creates a defined exposure: information that is never reconciled, never audited and lost if the sheet is thrown away. Naming the mechanism is what lets a reader act on the finding.

Do I need permission to write about it?

For a coursework example built on a described situation, generally no. If you are documenting real work at a real employer, the position changes: what you observed on their time and in their systems is theirs, and most sections are content with a setting described by type and a process described in general terms.

Where can I find a free NR 543 Week 5 sample paper?

The spreadsheet, group text and printout write-up is provided above as the NR 543 Week 5 sample, with nothing locked. If staff on your unit use different workarounds, describe them to our team and a write-up in this format can be prepared.

Should I recommend banning workarounds in NR 543 Week 5?

Usually not. Replace each with an official tool that keeps its strength and removes its risk. The sample proposes a shared status view, secure notification and a structured field for pending information.