| Course | NR 632 Nurse Executive Concluding Graduate Experience II |
|---|---|
| Week | 6 |
| Paper type | Barrier analysis |
| Length | About 1,110 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN, Nurse Executive |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 632 Week 6
Barrier Analysis: The Readiness Pilot's Obstacles Sorted by Who Owned Them, With the Delay Each Caused Counted in Days
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 632: Nurse Executive Concluding Graduate Experience II
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Barrier Analysis: The Readiness Pilot's Obstacles Sorted by Who Owned Them, With the Delay Each Caused Counted in Days
How the Obstacles Are Grouped
By who could have removed them. The grouping is the finding, because it shows where effort would have paid off.
Group 1: Obstacles the Student Could Have Cleared Without Asking
| Obstacle | What it delayed | Days lost |
|---|---|---|
| The paper log kept on a different floor from holding | "Resolved by 07:00" recording | Recording fell from complete to 60% by week three; no start date lost |
| Script wording that asked offices to "call back" rather than giving a deadline | Office replies | About 3 days, until the script was changed on 2 December |
| Readiness slip format, first version too long to read in the huddle | Huddle use | 2 days |
This group is the shortest. Each was fixed within a week once noticed. The lesson is that the student should have walked each step at the hour it runs before day one, rather than reading the plan at a desk.
Group 2: Obstacles Owned by Another Function
| Obstacle | Owner | What it delayed | Days lost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weekly report behind the system upgrade | OR Information Systems | Automatic weekly figures | 19 days, 13 November to 2 December; hand count used |
| Worklist "readiness checked" field | OR Information Systems | System-recorded check measure | 24 days, from planned 13 November to 7 December |
| Friday shift ending at 15:00 | Pre-Admission Testing rota | Checks for Monday cases | Not started by the end of the pilot; earliest fix 8 January, since the rota is published six weeks ahead |
| Two offices routing calls to voicemail after 15:00 | Independent surgeons' offices | Same-day replies for those offices | Throughout; 4 of 5 unreturned calls |
| In-room time moved to a new screen in the upgrade | OR Information Systems, with circulators | Reliable in-room times in week one | 5 days |
Each of these sat in a queue or a rule belonging to someone else. None of their owners refused anything; they had other work first. The report and the field were in the same request and waited behind an upgrade the whole department depended on, which was the right priority for the hospital.
Group 3: Things Nobody at the Site Can Move
The pre-admission testing vacancy. The post has been advertised since early October with no qualified applicants; the regional market for perioperative nurses is short. Without it, every hour for calls comes from five nurses rather than six.
The federal rule on how recent a history and physical must be, with an update required close to the procedure. It means some updates can only happen within a short window before surgery, and the afternoon call can request but not complete them.
Cost to the Shift, Not Attitude
The barriers show up as time, not resistance. On Fridays, the pre-admission testing nurse had no free hour before 15:00. On Mondays, the holding charge nurse had to search for the log on another floor. The pre-admission testing team gave 3.5 hours of overtime in week one, before the clinic schedule was adjusted. No obstacle in this list came from someone declining to take part.
How the Barriers Were Found
The barriers come from four sources: the paper log's gaps, the student's tally of unanswered calls, the dates on the analyst's ticket and short conversations with the pre-admission testing manager, the holding charge nurses and the OR charge nurse. None came from a survey. Every obstacle in the tables carries the record it was found in, which lets anyone retrace it.
What Was Not a Barrier
Staff willingness. Every nurse asked to make calls made them, and every holding charge nurse read the slip. Surgeons did not object; the committee chair's office reported no complaints. The anesthesia group was not affected. Recording these non-barriers matters, because a reader expecting resistance might otherwise assume it was hidden. Implementation research separates whether a change is acceptable to the people doing it from whether it is feasible in their setting (Proctor et al., 2011), and the evidence here points to a feasibility problem, not an acceptability one.
Weighing the Groups
Group 1 cost about five days in total and was fixed. Group 2 cost the most: the Friday rule alone left 9 of 16 Monday cases unchecked, and the report delay meant three weeks of hand counting. Group 3 set the limits within which everything else happened.
Barriers That Did Not Delay Anything but Cost Time
Some obstacles cost effort without moving any date. Pre-admission testing nurses had to look in two places for consents, because some offices scan them to the record and others fax them. Holding charge nurses had to search for the printed slip on two mornings when the OR charge nurse kept it. The student spent about four hours a week chasing the analyst's ticket and hand counting. None of these appears in the days-lost column, yet each made the process heavier than it needed to be, and the heaviest of them, the double search for consents, would grow with every room added. A single agreed route for consents, owned by the scheduling office, would remove it, and is listed in the handover as a request for the director.
What the Pattern Says About the Area
Surgical services absorbs change through its information systems queue and its rotas, both of which work on a horizon of four to six weeks. A change that needs a system field or a shift adjustment will wait that long however willing the staff are. In implementation research these sit in what is called the inner setting: the resources an area has to spare and how well a change fits work already under way (Damschroder et al., 2009). For this area, the practical lesson is that any future change should submit its system and rota requests at least six weeks before the start, and should be designed to run on paper for its first month.
What Would Have Changed the Result
Had the Friday check run from the start, about nine more Monday cases would have been checked. Since Monday cases supplied most of the pilot's readiness-coded delays, the on-time figure might have been closer to the 75% aim, though four weeks cannot show that.
Lessons From Elsewhere
Hospitals that sustained first-case gains built improvement resources into the department and kept data visible (Phieffer et al., 2017). The barriers here suggest the same need: someone whose job includes chasing the queue.
References
Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4, Article 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
Phieffer, L., Hefner, J. L., Rahmanian, A., Swartz, J., Ellison, C. E., Harter, R., Lumbley, J., & Moffatt-Bruce, S. D. (2017). Improving operating room efficiency: First case on-time start project. Journal for Healthcare Quality, 39(5), e70-e78. https://doi.org/10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000018
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 6 instructions
Sort obstacles into three groups by who owns them: those you could have cleared without asking, those owned by another function, and those nobody at the site can move. The grouping is the finding, so keep it honest, and expect your own group to be the shortest. For each obstacle, say what it delayed and by how many days. Treat queues in other departments as their own kind of barrier, since nobody refuses and yet everything waits. Describe costs in terms of shift time rather than staff attitudes. Record what you expected to be a barrier but was not. Close with what the pattern says about how your area absorbs any change. Note effort that cost time without delaying anything, because it grows if the change is extended.
Inside the NR 632 Week 6 example
The sample's first group lists a log kept on the wrong floor, a script that asked offices to call back without a deadline and a slip too long to read, each fixed within days. The second group includes the report delayed from 13 November to 2 December, a worklist field delayed 24 days, the Friday session ending at 15:00, two offices switching to voicemail and a moved in-room screen. The third holds a vacancy with no applicants and the federal timing rule for histories and physicals. Effort that delayed nothing is recorded. Staff willingness is listed as a non-barrier. The pattern points to a four- to six-week planning cycle in surgical services.
Reading the NR 632 Week 6 grading rubric
The most frequent loss is a barrier list made of attitudes, such as staff resistance or lack of buy-in, with no time, queue or rule behind them. Analyses that leave the writer's own mistakes out look one-sided. Many students list barriers without saying what each delayed or for how long, so the reader cannot tell which mattered. Queues in other departments are often described as refusals, which is unfair to the people concerned and wrong about the cause. A closing paragraph that only lists recommendations, without saying what the pattern shows about the area, misses the analytic point of the week and costs marks under most rubrics. Leaving out the barriers that cost effort without delaying anything also understates what extending the change would demand.
NR 632 Week 6 help from the desk
Sorting barriers by owner, and counting what each cost in days, turns a list of frustrations into analysis a leader can use. We can help you group your obstacles, find the evidence for each and describe them as time and queues rather than attitudes. We can also help you write the closing paragraph on what the pattern says about your area. You bring the obstacles; how they are weighed is your call. Sometimes the most useful step is simply asking each manager involved how many days a request usually waits in their queue.
Get a NR 632 Week 6 example written to your instructions
The desk works from your Week 6 instructions, the rubric, any analysis framework your section prescribes, and a short list of what actually got in the way at your site. A custom example analysis is written around that list and lands inside 24-48h. First requests are free, and the example follows your framework rather than a generic one.
More NR 632 papers and MSN samples
- NR 632 Week 1: First Days in Figures
- NR 632 Week 2: Implementation Update
- NR 632 Week 3: Data Collection Plan
- NR 632 Week 4: Process Measure Summary
- NR 632 Week 5: Outcome Comparison
- NR 632 Week 7: Evaluation Report
- NR 632 Week 8: Handover Briefing
- NR 631 Week 6: Approval Map
- NR 588AI Week 6: Override Policy Draft
- NR 588 Week 6: Escalation Case Study
- NR 529 Week 6: Incident Follow-Up Memo
NR 632 Week 6 questions, answered
Is it acceptable to write that the obstacle was my own doing?
It is usually the strongest entry in the document. An executive who can name a decision of their own that cost the project a fortnight is demonstrating exactly the judgment the course grades. What is not acceptable is putting it in the group belonging to somebody else. The test a reader applies is whether the first group contains anything at all, because on a real project it always does.
Where do the obstacles come from if I kept no formal record?
From dated evidence you can still point at: the message asking for something and the reply, the date an item arrived, the week a post was covered by agency staff. Reconstructing from memory alone produces the version everyone recognizes as tidy. Where a date genuinely cannot be recovered, saying so beside the entry costs far less than an invented one.
Should the analysis propose solutions?
One per group, and each addressed to the post that could take it. A recommendation aimed at the writer for obstacles that belong two levels up is theater, and an instructor reads it as such. Where a group has no available action, say that plainly and say what the project did instead. Many sections publish a required format here, and where they do, it takes precedence over this shape.
Where can I find a free NR 632 Week 6 sample paper?
Here you will find the full barrier analysis for the readiness pilot, with obstacles sorted by owner and counted in days.
Why does the NR 632 Week 6 analysis list a non-barrier?
Recording that staff willingness was not a problem stops a reader from assuming hidden resistance where the record shows only time and queues.