| Course | NR 622 Nurse Educator Concluding Graduate Experience II |
|---|---|
| Week | 2 |
| Paper type | Delivery plan |
| Length | About 1,140 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN, Nurse Educator |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 622 Week 2
Delivery Plan: Run Sheet for the First 45-Minute Heparin Practice Huddle on 27 October, Clock Times Down the Left, a Row for the Measure and a Drop Order Decided in Advance
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 622: Nurse Educator Concluding Graduate Experience II
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Delivery Plan: Run Sheet for the First 45-Minute Heparin Practice Huddle on 27 October, Clock Times Down the Left, a Row for the Measure and a Drop Order Decided in Advance
The Session
Tuesday 27 October 2026, 14:00 to 14:45, unit conference room, cardiac step-down unit. Nine new graduate nurses invited; the clinical nurse educator co-facilitates; the student leads.
Run Sheet
| Time | What happens | Who | What must be in hand |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13:30 | Set up: pump on pole, saline bag spiked, drug library confirmed on heparin, scenario packs on table, job aids at each seat | Student | Pump, pole, 1 L saline bag, tubing, 9 scenario packs, 12 job aids, 9 calculators |
| 13:50 | Educator checks pump library version matches live pumps | Educator | Library version number from pharmacy email |
| 14:00 | Welcome, purpose in two sentences, the eight steps on the job aid | Student | Job aid |
| 14:05 | Pairs work scenario 1 on paper; one of each pair goes to the pump to program | Student calls pairs; educator at pump | Scenario packs, calculators |
| 14:15 | Pairs swap roles for scenario 2; the second partner calculates independently before comparing | Student | Same |
| 14:25 | Scenario 3 at boundary row, each person alone | Student and educator observe | Same |
| 14:35 | Measure: each new graduate's three attempts scored on the eight-step checklist, totals recorded | Educator scores; student records | 9 checklists, clipboard |
| 14:40 | Two most common errors named; second sitting date confirmed | Student | Tally from 14:35 |
| 14:45 | End; new graduates return to the floor | All | None |
Timing Arithmetic
Content time: 40 minutes, from 14:00 to 14:40. Setup: 30 minutes beforehand. Wrap-up: 5 minutes. The measure is inside the 40 minutes, not added on.
Materials, With Quantities and Locations
Practice smart pump with current drug library: unit storage room, shelf 2; educator holds the key.
IV pole, saline bag and tubing: central supply cart, unit storage room.
Scenario packs: 9 packs, each with three scenarios, printed on 26 October, in a folder in the educator's office; electronic copy on the unit shared drive.
Answer key: 1 copy, educator only.
Job aids: 12 printed, in the same folder.
Calculators: 9, borrowed from the unit's medication room.
Eight-step checklists: 9, on the clipboard.
The Room, Described by What It Has
A table for six, chairs for ten, one power outlet near the door, a wall screen not needed. The pump pole fits beside the outlet. There is no sink, so hand sanitizer is brought in.
Drop Order, Decided in Advance
If the session starts late or must end early, drop in this order:
1. The closing discussion of common errors; send it by email instead.
2. Scenario 2; each person does scenarios 1 and 3.
3. Paired programming; one person programs while others watch.
Never dropped: the measure at 14:35, since without it the session cannot be evaluated.
Named Failures, Named Fallbacks
Pump not available: the scenarios run as paper work only, the pump steps wait for the second sitting, and the measure scores steps 1 to 6 only.
Fewer than six new graduates released: run with those present; others get 15-minute individual slots the same week.
Educator called away: the student runs the session alone; the measure is scored by the student and checked by the educator afterward.
Drug library mismatch: stop pump practice; use paper only; report to pharmacy.
Why the Plan Is Built This Way
A plan written as paragraphs cannot be followed by a stand-in under time pressure. The run sheet can be handed to the educator if the student is absent. Practice with feedback on each attempt is the core of the approach (McGaghie et al., 2011), so the timings protect three attempts per person.
Infection and Safety
The practice pump is used only with saline; no heparin enters the conference room. Pump surfaces are wiped before and after.
After the Session
Checklists filed in the educator's office. Totals emailed to the manager and educator the same day. Scenario packs collected and shredded, since they contain the answer key on the back of one sheet.
Roles During the Session
The student keeps time, calls the pairs and records totals. The educator stays at the pump for the whole session, because the needs assessment found programming errors at the pump and the educator knows the drug library best. Neither facilitator answers a calculation question with the answer; both point the learner back to the row heading or the units on the job aid. That keeps the scenarios a test of the learner's steps rather than of the facilitator's speed.
The Pairing Rule
Pairs are set in advance, not chosen on the day. Each pair puts a new graduate who made a row-selection error at the week 5 return demonstration with one who did not, so that every pair has someone who can spot that error. In scenario 2 the second partner calculates alone before the pair compares answers, because a second check that starts from the first nurse's numbers tends to repeat the first nurse's mistake rather than catch it (Alsulami et al., 2013). The pairing list is printed on the back of the run sheet so a stand-in can use it.
How the Scenarios Match the Unit
Every scenario uses the unit's posted weight-based nomogram, which follows the general design of weight-based heparin dosing tested in the early 1990s (Raschke et al., 1993), with the row boundaries and rate changes the unit actually uses. Weights run from 54 to 118 kg, so learners meet both small and large numbers. Three of the nine scenarios put the anti-Xa result exactly on a boundary, because boundary rows produced five of the eleven errors at baseline.
Messages Before the Day
On 20 October the manager emailed the nine new graduates and their preceptors with the date, the time and the instruction that preceptors cover patients from 13:55. On 26 October the student confirmed release with the charge nurse for each new graduate on shift. Anyone not on shift that Tuesday is listed for an individual slot, so that nobody is left with no practice at all.
Checking the Plan Before It Runs
The educator walked the run sheet on 22 October, using the practice pump and three scenarios, and the timings held with two people. Nine people will be slower, which is why the drop order exists. The check also found that the saline bag needed spiking before 13:50 so the pump could be primed in time.
What This Plan Does Not Cover
The individual slots in week 8, which have their own short plan. Preceptor preparation, which happens at the November preceptor meeting.
References
Alsulami, Z., Conroy, S., & Choonara, I. (2013). Double checking the administration of medicines: What is the evidence? A systematic review. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 97(9), 833-837. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2011-301093
McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, S. B., Cohen, E. R., Barsuk, J. H., & Wayne, D. B. (2011). Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Academic Medicine, 86(6), 706-711. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318217e119
Raschke, R. A., Reilly, B. M., Guidry, J. R., Fontana, J. R., & Srinivas, S. (1993). The weight-based heparin dosing nomogram compared with a "standard care" nomogram: A randomized controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 119(9), 874-881. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-119-9-199311010-00002
What the NR 622 Week 2 assignment asks for
Build the plan as a table with clock times, not as paragraphs, because a plan in prose cannot be followed by someone stepping in at short notice. Give the measure its own row, with a time and the name of whoever scores it, so it is not squeezed out at the end. List each material with a quantity and an exact location, including who holds keys. Describe the room by what it actually has: outlets, seats, sinks, space for equipment. Decide a drop order in advance and state what is never dropped. For each likely failure, name the fallback and what it does to the measure. Show the timing arithmetic so a reader can see that content fits inside the slot. A short note on who has checked the plan, such as a dry run, adds weight.
How the NR 622 Week 2 example is put together
The run sheet runs from setup at 13:30 to the end at 14:45 on 27 October. Pairs calculate on paper and take turns at the practice pump; each learner then works a boundary scenario alone. The measure runs at 14:35, scored by the educator on an eight-step checklist. Materials include nine scenario packs, twelve job aids, nine borrowed calculators and a pump kept on shelf 2 in the storage room. The drop order removes the closing discussion first, then scenario 2, then paired programming, and never the measure. Four failures have fallbacks: no pump, low release, the educator called away and a library mismatch. Pairs are set from week 5 errors, and the plan cites sources on deliberate practice, independent double checks and weight-based heparin dosing.
NR 622 Week 2 rubric: what full points look like
The most frequent weakness is a plan that lists topics with no times, which cannot show whether the content fits the slot. Close behind is a measure placed at the very end with no owner, which is exactly the part that disappears when a session runs over. Materials listed without counts or locations force the facilitator to hunt on the day. Fallbacks written as "adapt as needed" are not fallbacks. Graders also mark down a plan that ignores what the needs assessment found, such as running generic practice when the errors clustered at specific steps. Finally, a plan that only its author could run fails the purpose of the assignment, which is a document someone else can pick up and use.
NR 622 Week 2 help from the desk
If your plan still reads as paragraphs, we can work with you to turn it into a run sheet with clock times, named owners and counted materials. Together we can settle a drop order, write fallbacks for the failures your setting is most likely to see and check that the timing arithmetic actually adds up inside your slot. We can also help you set pairs or groups from your baseline data. Your session, your learners and your content stay yours, and you decide the final version that goes to your instructor.
Get a NR 622 Week 2 example written to your instructions
We work from what your classroom gives you: the Week 2 instructions, the rubric, any planning template, and a few lines about the session you intend to run, its room and its expected group size. A custom example delivery plan comes back on that template inside 24-48h, free the first time you ask for one.
More NR 622 papers and MSN samples
- NR 622 Week 1: Delivery Change Post
- NR 622 Week 3: Teaching Materials Package
- NR 622 Week 4: Implementation Progress Report
- NR 622 Week 5: Participant Feedback Summary
- NR 622 Week 6: Outcome Evaluation
- NR 622 Week 7: Handover Package
- NR 622 Week 8: Dissemination Summary
- NR 621 Week 2: Problem Statement
- NR 537 Week 2: Test Item Set With Rationales
- NR 524 Week 2: Curriculum Philosophy Statement
- NR 536 Week 2: Concept Definition Brief
NR 622 Week 2 questions, answered
How detailed do the timings need to be?
Detailed enough that the total can be added up and checked against the time you actually have. Most sections do not publish a format, so the safe test is whether a colleague could follow the sheet without asking a question. Five minute granularity through the teaching, with setup and packing away included, is usually enough to expose an hour that was never going to fit.
Is a delivery plan the same as a lesson plan?
They overlap and are graded differently. A lesson plan argues for teaching choices and shows the reasoning behind an activity. A delivery plan assumes those decisions are already made and concerns itself with whether the hour can physically happen: the room, the release of staff, the printing, the equipment, the order of collapse when time runs short. Marks here follow logistics, not pedagogy.
What belongs in the contingency section?
Failures with a real chance of happening at your site, each with the version that runs instead. Equipment is the obvious one, but attendance is the more damaging: a plan built on pairs collapses at an odd number, and a plan built on twelve collapses at four. Naming an alternate facilitator matters too, because illness on the day is the failure nobody writes down.
Where can I find a free NR 622 Week 2 sample paper?
This page carries the full run sheet for the 27 October heparin practice huddle, including materials, drop order and fallbacks.
Why does the NR 622 Week 2 run sheet give the measure its own row?
A measure with a time and an owner happens; one left for the end of the session is the first thing lost when time runs short.