| Course | NR 632 Nurse Executive Concluding Graduate Experience II |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Data collection plan |
| Length | About 1,210 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN, Nurse Executive |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 632 Week 3
Data Collection Plan: Where Each Readiness Pilot Number Lives, Who Runs It, When It Can First Exist and Whether the Project Takes It as It Stands
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 632: Nurse Executive Concluding Graduate Experience II
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Data Collection Plan: Where Each Readiness Pilot Number Lives, Who Runs It, When It Can First Exist and Whether the Project Takes It as It Stands
How the Plan Is Organized
One block for each number the evaluation will use. Each block says first where the number physically lives and who produces it, then what it counts, when it can first exist for a given week and what it was originally built to do. Only then does it say how the project uses it.
Number 1: First Cases In the Room on Time, Rooms 3 to 6
Where it lives: the first-case detail report in the operating room information system, a scheduled report in the perioperative reports folder.
Who runs it: the OR Information Systems analyst built the weekly version; it now runs automatically each Monday at 06:00 for the previous week.
Earliest date: Monday after the week ends. Week three's figure exists on 14 December.
What it was built for: the monthly quality packet, which reports the whole suite by calendar month. The weekly, four-room version was asked for by the project.
Take it or ask for it: asked for. The request cost about six hours of analyst time and waited behind the upgrade; it was delivered on 2 December instead of 13 November. For weeks one and two the student tallied in-room times from the daily OR board log, and when the report was run back over those weeks it matched the hand count in 36 of 37 cases.
Definition used: patient-in-room time no more than five minutes after the published 07:30 start, cases on the 15:30 list the day before, weekdays only, add-ons and cancellations excluded, as set in the aim.
Number 2: Late First Cases With Readiness as the Primary Delay Code
Where it lives: the delay code report, same folder.
Who runs it: the same analyst; it was already a monthly report and now also runs weekly.
Earliest date: as for number 1.
What it was built for: assigning delays to departments in the monthly packet. That purpose shapes the count: the circulator picks one code, and the list was designed to say who owned a delay rather than what caused it.
Take it or ask for it: taken as it stands. Changing the code list would need the OR Executive Committee and would break comparison with the baseline.
Number 3: Readiness Checks Completed
Where it lives: two places. From 16 November, a paper log kept by the pre-admission testing nurse, one line per patient. From 7 December, a new field, "readiness checked," in the pre-admission testing worklist, which time-stamps itself when the nurse ticks it.
Who runs it: the pre-admission testing nurse on duty fills the log or ticks the field; the student counts weekly.
Earliest date: the afternoon of the check.
What it was built for: the paper log was made for this project; the worklist was built for scheduling clinic visits.
Take it or ask for it: asked for. The new field cost about one hour of analyst time and was added in the same request as number 1.
Number 4: Open Items Found and Resolved Before 07:00
Where it lives: the paper log only.
Who runs it: the pre-admission testing nurse records items found; the early-shift holding charge nurse records whether each was resolved by 07:00.
Earliest date: the morning after the check.
What it was built for: this project.
Take it or ask for it: made by the project. It depends on two people writing on paper and is the number most likely to stop being filled in.
Number 5: Calls to Surgeons' Offices Returned by 16:30
Where it lives: the student's own tally, kept in a spreadsheet on the unit shared drive.
Who runs it: the student, from the pre-admission testing nurse's call notes.
What it was built for: this project, to see whether offices are taking part.
Number 6: Same-Day Cancellations and Day-Before Reschedules
Where it lives: same-day cancellations are in the cancellation report in the OR information system; day-before reschedules are not recorded anywhere as a category and are counted from the paper log.
What it was built for: the cancellation report serves the finance department's lost-revenue figures, so it counts cancellations after the patient arrives, not those before.
Take it or ask for it: taken for same-day cancellations; day-before reschedules are counted by the project. There is no baseline for day-before reschedules, which the evaluation will need to say.
Number 7: Comparison Rooms
The same report as number 1, run for rooms 1, 2 and 7 to 12. Taken as it stands.
Arrivals Against the Term
| Number | Pilot wk 1 | Pilot wk 2 | Pilot wk 3 | Pilot wk 4 | Ready for evaluation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. On time | Hand count | Hand count, checked against report | Report 14 Dec | Report 21 Dec | 21 Dec |
| 2. Readiness code | Report rerun | Report rerun | 14 Dec | 21 Dec | 21 Dec |
| 3. Checks done | Paper | Paper | Worklist field | Worklist field | 19 Dec |
| 4. Items resolved | Paper | Paper | Paper | Paper | 19 Dec |
| 5. Calls returned | Student tally | Student tally | Student tally | Student tally | 18 Dec |
| 6. Cancellations | Report | Report | Report | Report | 21 Dec |
| 7. Comparison rooms | Report rerun | Report rerun | 14 Dec | 21 Dec | 21 Dec |
Display
Each week's figure is plotted in sequence, and the January to June median is drawn across the chart for reference. With only four pilot weeks, the usual run chart rules for a shift cannot be met, which the evaluation will state rather than ignore (Perla et al., 2011).
Why Custody Comes First
Two of the seven numbers were not available when the pilot started, and one, day-before reschedules, has never been recorded by anyone. Knowing that in advance changed the plan: the hand count was set up before day one, and the evaluation will say plainly that the reschedule figure has no baseline. A plan written from definitions alone would have assumed the report existed. Distinguishing measures that records produce as a by-product from those that depend on someone filling in a form is also central to judging how far each can be trusted over time (Proctor et al., 2011).
Agreement With the Hospital's Definition
The project keeps the hospital's own definition of on time, patient in room within five minutes, rather than switching to a stricter one. A published case built its targets around time of incision and allowed no grace minutes at all (Allen et al., 2019); doing so here would break comparison with the baseline and with the quality packet, which the committee reads every month.
Access and Privacy
The paper log carries patient names and is kept in the locked pre-admission testing office. The spreadsheet holds counts only. No surgeon names are recorded in any project number, as agreed with the committee chair's office.
What This Plan Does Not Collect
Patient views of the calls; minutes saved later in the day; costs. Each would need a separate data source the project does not have.
References
Allen, R. W., Taaffe, K. M., Neilley, V., & Busby, E. (2019). First case on-time starts measured by incision on-time and no grace period: A case study of operating room management. Journal of Healthcare Management, 64(2), 111-121. https://doi.org/10.1097/JHM-D-17-00203
Perla, R. J., Provost, L. P., & Murray, S. K. (2011). The run chart: A simple analytical tool for learning from variation in healthcare processes. BMJ Quality & Safety, 20(1), 46-51. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs.2009.037895
Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., & Hensley, M. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
The Chamberlain NR 632 Week 3 instructions
Write one block for each number your evaluation will use. Begin each block with custody: the specific report or file, who produces it, how often and the earliest date a figure for a given period can exist. Then say what the number was originally built for, because a count kept for billing or staffing counts different things from one kept for quality. State whether you take the figure as it stands or have asked for something added, and what asking cost in time and goodwill. Define each number tightly. Note figures that have no baseline. End with a short table showing when each number arrives relative to your term, so a reader can see what will be ready for the final evaluation. Mention any privacy arrangements for records that carry names.
How the NR 632 Week 3 example is put together
The sample's first block covers on-time first cases: a scheduled report in the perioperative folder, built weekly by the analyst at a cost of six hours and delivered 19 days late, with weeks one and two tallied by hand and later matched in 36 of 37 cases. The delay code report is taken as it stands, since changing codes would break comparison. Readiness checks moved from a paper log to a self-stamping worklist field. Items resolved depend on two people writing on paper. Calls returned are the student's own tally. Day-before reschedules have no baseline. A table sets every number against the four pilot weeks, and short sections cover privacy and what is not collected.
Where the points sit in the NR 632 Week 3 rubric
Plans lose the most when they define each measure carefully but never say where it lives or who produces it, so the figure turns out not to exist when needed. Another common gap is ignoring the cycle: a month-end figure for December does not exist in December. Many plans never ask what the number was built for and then misread what it counts. Students also forget to say whether they changed a report, and what that cost. Numbers with no baseline are often presented as if they had one. A plan with no timetable of arrivals leaves the evaluation week without the data it promised, which graders notice quickly. Plans that rely on the student's personal spreadsheet for core figures, without saying where they will live afterward, raise questions about handover.
Common NR 632 Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Tracing each number to its source and owner is the part of this week most students underestimate. A worked draft can help you write a block per measure starting from custody, set out the cycle and earliest date for each, and note what each figure was originally built to count. We can also help you build the arrivals table against your term. The data sources are yours, and so is every decision about what goes in. If a report you need does not yet exist, we can also help you plan a fallback count before the first week ends.
Get a NR 632 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Three inputs matter for Week 3: the prompt in your classroom's exact wording, the rubric, and a list of the numbers your project intends to use. Send any planning table too. The example plan is written around those numbers and reaches you within 24-48h, the first one free, on your template rather than ours.
More NR 632 papers and MSN samples
- NR 632 Week 1: First Days in Figures
- NR 632 Week 2: Implementation Update
- NR 632 Week 4: Process Measure Summary
- NR 632 Week 5: Outcome Comparison
- NR 632 Week 6: Barrier Analysis
- NR 632 Week 7: Evaluation Report
- NR 632 Week 8: Handover Briefing
- NR 631 Week 3: Needs Assessment
- NR 588AI Week 3: Vendor Evaluation Memo
- NR 588 Week 3: Alignment Memo
- NR 529 Week 3: Staffing Assignment Rationale
NR 632 Week 3 questions, answered
What if a department will not release the figures?
Write the plan around what is genuinely reachable and say plainly which measure has no route. A substitute that is weaker but reachable, clearly labeled as a substitute, holds up far better than a strong measure you never get. Naming the refused source and its owning function is legitimate content, and it usually explains a limitation the evaluation would otherwise have to invent a reason for.
How many measures should a plan carry?
Fewer than most drafts propose, and each one has to survive the custody test. Two or three that arrive reliably beat six that depend on favors. Where a section publishes a required number, follow it exactly. Where none is published, a workable set is one number about whether the change is being done, one about what it was meant to affect, and one about what it might disturb.
Does the plan need statistics chosen in advance?
Usually less than students expect. A project like this compares small numbers across a few periods, so the honest plan says which figures will be set beside which, and in what units, rather than naming a test the design cannot support. Where a section does require an analysis section, describing the arithmetic plainly and stating what it cannot establish scores better than borrowing language from a study design nobody used.
Where can I find a free NR 632 Week 3 sample paper?
You can read the whole data collection plan for the readiness pilot, with seven numbers traced to their sources, right here.
Why does the NR 632 Week 3 plan put custody before definition?
Two numbers did not yet exist when the pilot started, and knowing that in advance let the project set up a hand count before it was needed.