NR 559 Week 2 Research Problem Statement Example

Course	NR 559 Research Methods and Evidence-Based Practice for Professional Nursing Practice
Week	2
Paper type	Problem statement brief
Length	About 1,190 words, 2 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Chamberlain University
Program	MSN
Updated	September 2026

Free sample paper for NR 559 Week 2

Problem Statement Brief: Older Adults on One Medical Unit Spend Most of Their Stay in Bed, Cut Twice From a Working Concern Into a Question Researchers Could Answer and Others Could Use

Student Name

College of Nursing, Chamberlain University

NR 559: Research Methods and Evidence-Based Practice for Professional Nursing Practice

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title starts from the concern as colleagues say it and promises two deliberate cuts, one toward answerability and one toward reach, with what each cut left outside. Student APA 7 title page.

Problem Statement Brief: Older Adults on One Medical Unit Spend Most of Their Stay in Bed, Cut Twice From a Working Concern Into a Question Researchers Could Answer and Others Could Use

The Concern in Working Language

Said the way a colleague would say it at the nurses' station: "Our older patients lie in bed all day, and by the time they go home they can barely walk." That sentence carries the concern accurately. It names a group, older patients, a behavior, lying in bed, and an outcome, losing the ability to walk. It also carries assumptions that research vocabulary would hide: that the bed rest causes the decline, that the decline persists after discharge and that it is common. Before any of that is tested, the concern is recorded here in the words the unit uses, so that the research question can be checked against it later.

Why It Matters

Low mobility in hospital is common among older adults and has been associated with worse outcomes, including decline in activities of daily living, nursing home placement and death (Brown et al., 2004). The association does not prove that bed rest causes these outcomes, but it makes the concern serious enough to investigate. On our unit, a two-week snapshot I took with the manager's approval found that of 22 patients aged 70 or older who could walk independently before admission, 15 had walked outside their room on fewer than half of their hospital days. Walking is also among the nursing tasks most often missed when time is short (Kalisch, 2006), which suggests that the pattern is not unique to our unit.

The First Cut, Toward Answerable

The concern as stated is too broad to study. "Older patients" includes people who could not walk before admission, people with dementia and people recovering from surgery. "Lie in bed all day" does not say what the alternative would be. "Can barely walk" is not a measure.

The first cut trims the concern to a group and a setting that researchers could recruit from: adults aged 65 or older, admitted to a general medical unit for an acute illness, who could walk independently, with or without an aid, in the two weeks before admission, and who are cognitively able to consent. The comparison becomes a structured program of assisted walking versus usual care. The outcome becomes a measured change in mobility or daily function at a set time after discharge.

What the first cut deliberately leaves out: patients with dementia or delirium, patients who could not walk before admission, surgical patients and patients in intensive care. Each of these groups matters, and the first two are common on our unit, but including them would require different interventions and outcomes. Leaving them out is a choice, stated here so that it is not forgotten when results are applied.

The Second Cut, Toward Reach

A question can be answerable and still useless if its answer applies only to the people studied. The second cut asks who else the answer should reach. A study conducted only in one type of hospital, with one type of patient, may not apply to ours. The second cut therefore adds two requirements: the study population should include women and men and a range of ethnic backgrounds, and the walking program should be one that a general medical unit could deliver with its usual staff, not only with a dedicated research team.

What the second cut leaves out: programs that depend on staff a typical unit does not have, such as a full-time mobility specialist for each unit. Those programs may work, but their results would not tell our unit what it could achieve with its own resources.

The Problem Statement

Adults aged 65 or older admitted to general medical units who could walk independently before admission often spend most of their hospital stay in bed, and it is unclear whether a structured assisted-walking program that a typical unit could deliver preserves their mobility and daily function after discharge compared with usual care.

The Researchable Question

In the PICO form: in adults aged 65 or older admitted to a general medical unit who could walk independently before admission (P), does a structured program of assisted walking at least twice daily (I), compared with usual care (C), preserve mobility and activities of daily living one month after discharge (O)?

A second, related question addresses reason rather than effect: what do older inpatients, nurses and technicians identify as the barriers to walking during hospitalization? That question calls for qualitative methods and will be important if a program is to be implemented.

How the Unit Snapshot Was Taken

The two-week snapshot behind the local figure was simple by design. With the manager's approval, I listed every patient aged 70 or older on the unit on four days spread across the two weeks, checked the admission history for whether the patient could walk independently before admission, and then read the nursing and therapy notes for each hospital day to see whether the patient had walked outside the room. A day counted as a walking day if any note recorded walking in the hallway. Twenty-two patients met the criteria; 15 walked outside the room on fewer than half their days.

The method has obvious limits. Notes may miss walks that happened, so the figure may understate mobility. Four sampling days may not represent the whole period. And the age threshold of 70 differs from the 65 used in the research question, because I wanted to focus on the oldest patients first. None of these limits changes the point of the snapshot, which was to show that the concern is real on this unit, not to measure it precisely.

Stakeholders in the Question

The framing of the question matters to several groups. Patients and families care about going home able to manage. Nurses and technicians care about workload and falls. Physical therapists care about whether their scarce visits are used well. Managers care about length of stay and staffing. The research question as written speaks most directly to patients' outcomes, which is appropriate, but a recommendation based on the answer will need to address the others, particularly workload and falls, if it is to be adopted.

What the Brief Does Not Do

The brief does not claim that bed rest causes decline, only that the association and local observation justify the question. It does not propose an intervention for our unit yet. And it does not include the groups the cuts left out, which should be the subject of separate questions later. Framing questions in structured form, and stating what they exclude, is a core step in evidence-based practice because it determines which evidence will be found and how far it can be applied (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2019).

References

Brown, C. J., Friedkin, R. J., & Inouye, S. K. (2004). Prevalence and outcomes of low mobility in hospitalized older patients. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 52(8), 1263-1270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52354.x

Kalisch, B. J. (2006). Missed nursing care: A qualitative study. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 21(4), 306-313. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001786-200610000-00006

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2019). Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.

What the NR 559 Week 2 assignment asks for

This week asks you to develop a problem statement for a practice issue and frame it as a researchable question. The prompt usually requests the problem, its significance, the population and setting, and a structured question such as PICO. Write the concern first in plain words, as colleagues would say it, before adding research vocabulary. Explain why it matters, using evidence and any local observation, with the method and limits of that observation stated. Make a first cut toward an answerable question, narrowing the group and setting to ones researchers could recruit from, and say what the cut leaves out. Make a second cut toward reach, so the answer applies beyond one site. Then state the problem and the question. Name stakeholders. Reference your sources, including a standard text on evidence-based practice, in APA 7.

Inside the NR 559 Week 2 example

The brief opens with the concern in a colleague's words and names the assumptions it carries. A significance section cites an observational study and a missed-care study and reports a local snapshot of 22 older patients, 15 of whom rarely walked, with the method and limits described. The first cut narrows to adults 65 and over on medical units who walked before admission and can consent, and states that patients with dementia and surgical patients are left out. The second cut adds diversity and deliverability by ordinary staff. A problem statement and a PICO question follow, with a separate reason question. Sections on stakeholders and what the brief does not claim close it.

Where the points sit in the NR 559 Week 2 rubric

Problem statement briefs are generally assessed on a clear and significant problem, appropriate narrowing, a well-formed researchable question, supporting evidence and awareness of scope. Starting from the concern in working language keeps the question honest about its origins. Evidence of significance, including local observation with its method stated, shows the problem is real. Making cuts deliberately and naming what they exclude shows mature scoping. A second cut toward reach shows awareness of generalizability. A correctly structured question with population, intervention, comparison and outcome demonstrates research literacy. Adding a companion reason question shows recognition that effect is not the whole story. Stakeholder awareness and APA 7 citations complete the brief.

NR 559 Week 2 help: mistakes that cost points

Problem statements often jump straight to research vocabulary, losing the practical concern that makes the question matter. Start in plain words. Another weakness is narrowing without saying what was left out, which hides important groups from later application. Name the exclusions. Some students frame questions too broadly to answer or so narrowly that answers apply only to one unit. Make both cuts. Avoid claiming causation from association. Check that the PICO elements are specific: an age range, a setting, a defined intervention, a comparison and a measurable outcome at a set time. Mention stakeholders whose support any eventual change will need.

Get a NR 559 Week 2 example written to your instructions

Paste the assignment as your classroom words it, including required headings and the length your section sets, and a custom NR 559 Week 2 brief lands within 24 to 48 hours, the first one at no cost. Tell us the concern you started from and the cutting gets done on your practice instead of on a stock one.

More NR 559 papers and MSN samples

NR 559 Week 2 questions, answered

Can the brief use numbers from my own unit?

Where your classroom allows it a local figure helps, and it needs a source named beside it and a period attached to it. What the brief must never do is invent one to make the concern look larger. A concern resting only on what staff report noticing is still legitimate, provided the brief says openly that this is what it rests on.

What if the practice question turns out to be answered already?

That is a result rather than a dead end. Say where it was answered and in whom, then look at whether those patients resemble yours and whether the answer reaches the part of the practice you touch. Most concerns survive that test in a narrower form, and the narrower version tends to make the stronger brief anyway.

How narrow is too narrow?

The floor is set by the literature. If nobody has ever studied a group that specific, the searching in later weeks returns nothing and the term stalls. Keep the group tight enough to act on and wide enough that somebody has studied it, then let the recommendation rather than the question carry the local detail.

Where can I find a free NR 559 Week 2 sample paper?

The hospital mobility problem statement brief is the NR 559 Week 2 sample shown above, with every section included. If your practice concern is different, send it to us in plain words and a brief with both cuts can be prepared.

What are the two cuts in the NR 559 Week 2 sample?

The first narrows the concern to a group and setting researchers could recruit from; the second checks that the answer would reach patients beyond one site.