NR 652 Week 4 Data Collection Summary Example

Data Collection Summary: How Each PC-114 Measure Was Defined, Pulled and Counted From January to February 2027, and Where Cases Went Missing

Student Name

College of Nursing, Chamberlain University

NR 652: Healthcare Policy Concluding Graduate Experience II

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Data Collection Summary: How Each PC-114 Measure Was Defined, Pulled and Counted From January to February 2027, and Where Cases Went Missing

Measure 1: Interpreter-Supported Discharge Teaching

Definition: adult discharges from the three medical-surgical units with "Interpreter needed" set to "Yes" at discharge; of those, the number whose "Interpreter used for teaching" row holds "Qualified interpreter" with an "Interpreter ID" present.

Source: the "Discharge Education Monthly" report.

Extracted by: the nursing quality coordinator, on 3 February for January and 3 March for February.

Dates: 1 January to 28 February 2027.

Cases returned against expected: the report returned 142 qualifying discharges. The admissions system showed 145 discharges with "Interpreter needed" set to "Yes" in the same dates; the three not returned are described below.

The Date a Definition Changed

On 15 February at 07:00, the row became required. Before that date, a nurse could leave it blank; after it, a value had to be chosen before the discharge education record could be closed. The values and the numerator definition did not change, but the meaning of a blank did: before 15 February, a blank could mean anything; after it, blanks are impossible, and every discharge is sorted into one of the four values. The two periods are therefore reported separately, and February is not given as one month. Anyone combining them later would be adding two different measures.

Measure 2: Reach of Education

This measure exists because the January slip made it necessary; it was not in the original plan. Definition: registered nurses on each unit's staff list on 1 January who signed the huddle sheet for the PC-114 talk, and those who acknowledged the policy bulletin in the hospital's learning system.

Source: huddle sign-in sheets held by unit managers; the learning system's acknowledgment report.

Extracted by: the student from the managers' counts; the clinical educator for the learning system.

Measure 3: January Results by Unit

These are reported because Unit A was the only unit educated in January.

Absence, by Pattern

Three qualifying discharges did not appear in the report. All three were discharged from the discharge lounge that opened on 18 January, after the patient had been moved off the unit; the report assigns discharges to the unit of the final location, and the lounge is not one of the three units. The pattern points to a structural gap rather than random loss: as the lounge is used more, more discharges may fall out of the report. The coordinator is checking whether lounge discharges can be assigned to the sending unit.

Blank rows before 15 February were not evenly spread. Of the 38 blanks across January and early February, 26 were on evening discharges after 17:00, when, according to unit managers, fewer staff are available and discharge teaching is often done quickly. Evening discharges were about 40% of the total.

How the Counts Were Checked

The coordinator's January figure was checked against a second pull on 10 February; the two matched. The student counted the huddle sign-in sheets twice, once from photographs the managers sent and once from the sheets themselves on 20 February, and the counts agreed. The learning system's acknowledgment report was taken as it stands, since its counts come from the system itself rather than from a person.

Why Reach Is Measured at All

The outcome depends on nurses knowing the policy changed. A rise on one unit and not the others could reflect education rather than the policy wording, and the evaluation can only separate the two if reach is counted by unit and date. Trained interpreters matter for patients (Karliner et al., 2007), but a policy that nurses have not heard about cannot change which interpreter they use.

What Was Expected and Not Received

The vendor's February device report, due in mid-March, had not arrived when this summary was written. The device question will therefore be answered for January only in the outcome evaluation, where January's minutes by hour show most video use between 10:00 and 15:00, and February's device use will be added to the final presentation if it arrives in time.

Measure 4: Device Use

Definition: minutes of video interpreting by hour of day, from the vendor's monthly report. Requested from Patient Experience on 10 February; received on 18 February for January only. February's report is due in mid-March.

What the Required Row Did to the Values

After 15 February, the 35 discharges were spread across all four values, with "Not available" at 5 and "Family member" at 5. Before that date, those values were rare, and most uncertainty sat in blanks. The required row did not create those cases; it made them visible. That shift is recorded here as a fact about the data, not as a finding about practice.

Evening Discharges

Because 26 of the 38 blanks fell after 17:00, the coordinator added a time-of-discharge column to the March report at the student's request. It costs nothing to run and will let the outcome evaluation see whether the evening pattern continues under the required row.

How Identifiers Were Stripped and Where the File Sits

All tables are aggregate counts. The coordinator removed patient identifiers before release; the sign-in counts were taken from the sheets without names. The working file is on the nursing quality shared drive, in a folder the student can read until 31 March, after which only the coordinator and the Language Services coordinator have access.

What This Summary Does Not Do

Compare the figures with the baseline, explain them or judge the amendment. That is the outcome evaluation. Data completeness is itself a dimension of quality that shapes how any figure can be used (Weiskopf & Weng, 2013), and the summary describes completeness first for that reason. Reach of education, measured here, is the implementation outcome that sets how much effect the policy could have (Proctor et al., 2011).

References

Karliner, L. S., Jacobs, E. A., Chen, A. H., & Mutha, S. (2007). Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literature. Health Services Research, 42(2), 727-754. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00629.x

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

Weiskopf, N. G., & Weng, C. (2013). Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: Enabling reuse for clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 20(1), 144-151. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000681