| Course | NR 587 Advanced Nursing Leadership Within Healthcare Environments |
|---|---|
| Week | 6 |
| Paper type | Safety climate brief |
| Length | About 1,130 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN, Nurse Executive |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 587 Week 6
Safety Climate Brief: Event Reports Fell From 212 to 148 on One Medical-Surgical Unit While Near Misses Fell From 31% to 18% of Reports, and Why That Is Not Improvement
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 587: Advanced Nursing Leadership Within Healthcare Environments
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Safety Climate Brief: Event Reports Fell From 212 to 148 on One Medical-Surgical Unit While Near Misses Fell From 31% to 18% of Reports, and Why That Is Not Improvement
The Split That Carries the Argument
The unit filed 212 safety event reports in 2023, 175 in 2024 and 148 in 2025. A falling count could be read as fewer events. The composition of the reports says otherwise. Near misses, events caught before reaching a patient, made up 31% of reports in 2023 (66 of 212), 24% in 2024 (42 of 175) and 18% in 2025 (27 of 148). Reports of events that reached a patient barely changed: 146, 133 and 121.
When near misses disappear from the reports faster than harm events do, the likeliest explanation is that staff have stopped writing down the small things. Harm events are harder not to report, because a patient was affected and others may know. Near misses depend entirely on someone choosing to file.
Trend Over a Long Window
| Year | Reports | Near misses | Near-miss share | Reached patient |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 198 | 63 | 32% | 135 |
| 2022 | 205 | 66 | 32% | 139 |
| 2023 | 212 | 66 | 31% | 146 |
| 2024 | 175 | 42 | 24% | 133 |
| 2025 | 148 | 27 | 18% | 121 |
From 2021 to 2023, the near-miss share was steady at about a third. The drop began in 2024. Patient days were similar across the five years, so the fall is not explained by fewer patients.
Hutchinson et al. (2009), studying national incident reporting in England, found that hospitals reporting more incidents tended to have more positive safety culture scores, not worse safety. Reporting volume, and especially near-miss reporting, behaves more like a signal of openness than a count of danger.
The Case Everybody Remembers
In March 2024, a night nurse gave a dose of insulin to the wrong patient. The patient's glucose dropped, was corrected and left no lasting effect. The nurse filed the report personally. The nurse was suspended for three shifts and placed on a written warning. Staff on both shifts still bring it up. Several survey comments refer to it without naming anyone, including one that said, "We all saw what happens when you report."
The drop in near-miss reporting began in the quarter after that event. Timing alone does not prove the event caused it, but it is the explanation staff give, and the survey items below support it.
Survey Items That Ask the Right Thing
The spring 2026 engagement survey and the hospital's safety culture survey from late 2025 include items about belief, not compliance. Three matter here.
The engagement statement about voicing a concern safely on the unit: 49% agreed (59% days, 37% nights), against a hospital medical-surgical average of 66%.
Safety culture survey, response to an event: asked whether staff feel that reporting an event leads to the person being blamed rather than the problem being fixed, 58% of the unit's respondents agreed, against 34% across the hospital's medical-surgical units.
Safety culture survey, feedback: 29% agreed they are told about changes made because of event reports, against 47% across the hospital.
Each asks what staff believe will happen if they speak up. The unit's answers are worse than the hospital's on all three. Edmondson (1999) found that teams in which members believed it was safe to take interpersonal risks reported and learned from errors more; the unit's scores describe the opposite belief.
What the Remembered Case Teaches
The 2024 event shows how one response can set a unit's climate for years. The nurse did what the policy asked by reporting the error. The response treated the report as evidence against the person. Staff on both shifts drew the obvious lesson. The Joint Commission (2008) has warned that behaviors and responses that discourage staff from speaking up undermine safety, and the unit's near-miss trend is what that warning looks like in data. A changed policy will not undo the lesson; a visibly different response to the next report might.
Who Should Read This Brief
The unit's manager and the nursing director above that role, who decide how events are reviewed and how staff are told about outcomes. The quality coordinator, who runs the review process. The unit practice council, whose members can say whether staff see any change. The brief is not for the whole staff in this form; a shorter version would be shared at huddles once the steps below are agreed.
Climate Is Not Compliance
The unit's policy states that reporting is encouraged and non-punitive. The policy has not changed since 2021. The climate has. This brief does not use audit results, hand hygiene compliance or harm rates as evidence of climate, because they measure what staff do when watched, not what they believe.
What Would Count as Improvement
Improvement would mean the report count rises before it falls. Specifically:
Near-miss share of reports back above 28% within four quarters.
Total reports above 180 a year while patient days are stable.
"Raise a concern without fear" above 55% on nights at the next survey.
The blame item below 40%.
A reduction in reports, without these, would be read as a warning. The first sign of change is likely to be more near-miss reports from day shift, where staff already feel somewhat safer, followed by nights. If nights do not follow within two quarters, the review should ask night staff directly what is holding them back.
What the Unit Could Do
Two steps follow directly. First, the nurse manager and quality coordinator review events with a structured approach that separates system causes from individual choices, and tell staff the outcome of each review in the monthly huddle. Second, the 2024 event is discussed openly with staff, with the manager stating how it would be handled now. Both are inexpensive and both act on what staff say they believe.
Cost of the Steps
Both steps cost staff time rather than money. The structured review adds about four hours a month for the manager and the quality coordinator together. The open discussion of the 2024 event takes one huddle on each shift. Against the cost of a serious event that went unreported because a near miss before it was never filed, the expense is small.
Limits
The safety culture survey had 36 respondents from the unit. The insulin event is the explanation staff give, but other changes in 2024, including the rise in night vacancies, could also have reduced reporting, since busy nurses have less time to file.
References
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Hutchinson, A., Young, T. A., Cooper, K. L., McIntosh, A., Karnon, J. D., Scobie, S., & Thomson, R. G. (2009). Trends in healthcare incident reporting and relationship to safety and quality data in acute hospitals: Results from the National Reporting and Learning System. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 18(1), 5-10. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2007.022400
The Joint Commission. (2008). Behaviors that undermine a culture of safety (Sentinel Event Alert No. 40). The Joint Commission.
What the NR 587 Week 6 assignment asks for
The Week 6 brief makes one figure carry the argument. State the reporting pattern first: how many events were filed, what share were near misses rather than harm and how that split has moved. A place where nearly everything filed involves harm is a place where small things are not being written down. Read the trend over a long window. Use survey items that ask what people believe will happen if they speak up, handled carefully. Address the case everyone remembers. Most rubrics mark down a falling report count read as improvement, a policy quoted as if it were a climate, a drift into compliance data and an improvement target that cannot be checked.
Inside the NR 587 Week 6 example
The sample shows reports falling and the near-miss share dropping from 31% to 18%, while harm reports barely changed. A table from 2021 to 2025 shows the share steady until 2024. National research links higher reporting with better safety culture. The 2024 insulin error, the suspension that followed and staff comments about it are described, with the timing noted and its limits. Three survey items about speaking up, blame and feedback are compared with the hospital. Sections explain what the remembered case teaches, who should read the brief, why policy is not climate, what improvement would look like and two inexpensive steps.
Reading the NR 587 Week 6 grading rubric
Reading a falling report count as improvement is the error that costs most, and this brief shows why the fall is a warning. Quoting a policy as a climate loses the next share; the brief notes the policy has not changed while beliefs have. Mixing climate with compliance costs a row, so audit and harm rates are deliberately set aside. Unsupported claims about the remembered case lose marks, and the brief states that timing alone does not prove cause. Defining improvement as a rise in reports first, with figures, earns the final criterion and gives leaders a way to check progress. Proposing two inexpensive steps shows the brief leads somewhere a manager can act.
NR 587 Week 6 help from the desk
Weak NR 587 Week 6 briefs celebrate fewer incident reports as fewer incidents. Others quote the organization's reporting policy as evidence of a safe culture. Many slide into infection rates or audit results that say little about belief. The case staff remember is often avoided. Few briefs say what improvement would look like in numbers. Split your reports into near misses and harm events, read them over several years, find survey items that ask about speaking up and address the event people still talk about. If your unit differs, send its report counts by type, and a sample brief can read the split the same way. Say who should read the brief and why.
Get a NR 587 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Send the instructions and rubric, and tell us what the reporting picture looks like where you work, in whatever detail you are comfortable giving. A custom NR 587 Week 6 example is written to your prompt and returned inside 24-48h. The first one is free, and it stays generic wherever you would rather it did.
More NR 587 papers and MSN samples
- NR 587 Week 1: Opening Figure Post
- NR 587 Week 2: Practice Environment Assessment
- NR 587 Week 3: Engagement Data Analysis
- NR 587 Week 4: Workforce Investment Plan
- NR 587 Week 5: Standards Enforcement Memo
- NR 587 Week 7: Resource Allocation Memo
- NR 587 Week 8: Executive Action Plan
- NR 562 Week 6: Tradeoff Memo
- NR 534 Week 6: Policy Rollout Plan
- NR 533 Week 6: Capital Request Write-Up
- NR 532 Week 6: Capacity Analysis in Layers
NR 587 Week 6 questions, answered
Is it acceptable to argue that the reporting figures look good?
Yes, provided the argument survives the same test. A high near-miss count with few harm events is genuinely a healthy pattern, and saying so is a real finding. What fails is treating any low number as good news without asking what would produce it. Writers who state which reading they rejected, and why, mark better than writers who found only the answer they expected.
Where do I get climate evidence if my employer publishes none?
Behavior is evidence. Whether people use the anonymous route rather than the named one, whether concerns arrive through a manager or through a friend, whether new starters are warned about somebody in their first week. Describe what you can observe, be clear that it is observation rather than a measured result, and the brief stays defensible.
How much of the brief should be recommendations?
Less than most writers give it. The genre is a reading of a place, and a brief spending half its length on solutions usually has a thin first half. One or two changes, specific and funded, are enough, and they should follow from the figures already presented rather than from a general view about what improves safety culture.
Where can I find a free NR 587 Week 6 sample paper?
The full safety climate brief showing why falling event reports signal a worse climate is published on this page.
What would count as improvement in the NR 587 Week 6 brief?
Near misses back above 28% of reports, more than 180 reports a year, and better answers on speaking up and blame at the next survey.