| Course | NR 669 Advanced Nursing Role Immersion Part 3 |
|---|---|
| Week | 7 |
| Paper type | Outcome and impact summary |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 669 Week 7
Outcome and Impact Summary: Five Immersion Objectives in Their Agreed Words, With Verdicts, Evidence and the Small Changes a Skilled Nursing Facility Kept
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 669: Advanced Nursing Role Immersion Part 3
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Outcome and Impact Summary: Five Immersion Objectives in Their Agreed Words, With Verdicts, Evidence and the Small Changes a Skilled Nursing Facility Kept
Objective 1: Weekly Surveillance
The objective as agreed, in brief: weekly surveillance of urinary and respiratory infections against the revised criteria, reported to the IP.
What was done: eight weekly reviews from 11 September to 30 October, 34 suspected infections entered on the line list, each assessed against the revised surveillance definitions (Stone et al., 2012).
What exists: an up-to-date line list for eight weeks and a one-page monthly summary for September and October, filed in the IP's binder.
Verdict: met.
Objective 2: Committee Presentation
The objective as agreed, in brief: attend both committees and present surveillance findings at one of them.
What was done: sat in on the September quality committee without presenting. The October meeting moved to November because of the state survey. The infection control committee did not meet during the immersion.
What exists: a five-slide summary of surveillance and antibiotic findings, handed to the IP to present on 12 November.
Verdict: not met as worded. The setting, a quarterly committee and a survey that displaced the monthly one, explains it.
Objective 3: Hand Hygiene Audits
The objective as agreed, in brief: hand hygiene audits on both long-term units, with the results taken back to staff.
What was done: 120 observations over eight weeks; feedback at shift report from early October.
What exists: an audit summary showing adherence of 58% in September, 69% in early October and 72% in late October, with the caveat that staff knew audits were happening.
Verdict: met.
Objective 4, Exchanged: Change-in-Condition In-Service
The objective as exchanged in week 2, in brief: teach assistants to notice and pass on changes that may mean infection.
What was done: three 15-minute sessions at shift reports, reaching 31 of about 45 assistants on day and evening shifts.
What exists: a one-page handout now in the staff development binder and used in new-hire orientation.
Verdict: partly met. Night-shift assistants were not reached.
Objective 5: Antibiotic Review
The objective as agreed, in brief: check each new antibiotic start against the long-term care minimum criteria and summarize the pattern for the IP.
What was done: 24 starts reviewed over eight weeks against the minimum criteria (Loeb et al., 2001). The summary was talked through with the medical director in a phone call on 22 October. A one-page aid was drafted for nurses to complete before phoning about a possible urinary infection.
What exists: the summary, and the decision aid, which the director of nursing and medical director agreed to trial on one long-term unit from 1 November.
Verdict: met, with the trial beginning after the immersion ends.
What Did Not Work
The plan to take antibiotic findings to the prescribers directly. Because the prescribers belong to a contracted group with no seat at facility meetings, the only route was the medical director's visit, which the survey shortened. The phone call on 22 October worked, but it was a substitute for a conversation with the prescribers who write most of the orders. The decision aid is partly a response to that: if the prescribers cannot be reached, the information they receive can be changed.
What the Objectives Missed
None of the five objectives touched employee health, which takes a large share of the IP's week. A future student in this facility would learn more about the role by including it.
What Nobody Predicted
The state survey in early October, which absorbed the IP for a week and moved the quality committee. And the extent of the IP's employee health work, which took more of the role's time than either infection prevention function and appears in no job description.
How the Verdicts Were Checked
The IP reviewed each verdict on 28 October and agreed with all five, adding that objective 2 should be recorded as "deferred" rather than "not met," since the presentation will happen in November. The summary keeps "not met" because the objective's window was the immersion, but notes the IP's view.
What the Exchanged Objective Achieved That the Original Would Not
The catheter care in-service would have reached assistants caring for six residents. The change-in-condition session reached 31 assistants caring for all 120. The exchange widened the objective's reach and connected it to the antibiotic review, since what assistants notice is what nurses report to prescribers.
Impact on the Site, Claimed Small
The facility now has a line list that was current for eight weeks, an audit tool that has been used again, a handout in orientation and a decision aid starting a trial. Whether any of these continues depends on the IP's time. The impact claimed is that the facility has tools it can keep using; it is not that infections or antibiotic use have fallen.
Impact on Me, From Episodes
Three episodes changed how I think about advanced roles, more than any of the objectives did. The hand hygiene audit where I said nothing taught me to ask what my position permits before I need to know. The 14 September shift the IP spent on a medication cart taught me that the role's expertise is easy to see and its time is easy to lose. The phone call with the medical director taught me that a one-page summary, brought to the person who prescribes, does more than a longer report left in a binder. Each lesson came from something going differently than I had planned.
Whether the Outcomes Will Last
The line list will continue if Friday afternoons stay protected. The audit tool will be used if someone has time to walk the halls. The handout is now in orientation and will last. The decision aid's future depends on the trial, which the IP will track. The outcomes most likely to last, judging from what the facility has kept before, are the ones written into existing routines, orientation and the line list, rather than those that depend on extra hours. That is consistent with the claim the synthesis paper will make about the role.
Fit With National Data
Nursing home infection preventionist staffing remains limited (Stone et al., 2020), and the outcomes here show what a part-time role can sustain: surveillance and audits when someone has time, and little when they do not.
References
Loeb, M., Bentley, D. W., Bradley, S., Crossley, K., Garibaldi, R., Gantz, N., McGeer, A., Muder, R. R., Mylotte, J., Nicolle, L. E., Nurse, B., Paton, S., Simor, A. E., Smith, P., & Strausbaugh, L. (2001). Development of minimum criteria for the initiation of antibiotics in residents of long-term-care facilities: Results of a consensus conference. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 22(2), 120-124. https://doi.org/10.1086/501875
Stone, N. D., Ashraf, M. S., Calder, J., Crnich, C. J., Crossley, K., Drinka, P. J., Gould, C. V., Juthani-Mehta, M., Lautenbach, E., Loeb, M., MacCannell, T., Malani, P. N., Mody, L., Mylotte, J. M., Nicolle, L. E., Roghmann, M.-C., Schweon, S. J., Simor, A. E., Smith, P. W., . . . Bradley, S. F. (2012). Surveillance definitions of infections in long-term care facilities: Revisiting the McGeer criteria. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 33(10), 965-977. https://doi.org/10.1086/667743
Stone, P. W., Agarwal, M., & Pogorzelska-Maziarz, M. (2020). Infection preventionist staffing in nursing homes. American Journal of Infection Control, 48(3), 330-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2019.12.010
NR 669 Week 7 instructions, in plain terms
Work objective by objective, giving each in its agreed wording or a faithful brief form. Under each, say what was done and what came of it, expressed as an object wherever one exists: a revised form, a delivered session, a drafted protocol, a list handed to someone. Include met, partly met and not met, and explain the unmet ones by the setting rather than defending them. Where an objective produced nothing to point at, say so and give the reason. Note what nobody predicted and what did not work. Claim impact on the site modestly, matching what the immersion can show. Describe impact on yourself through specific episodes rather than general growth.
How this NR 669 Week 7 example is built
The sample records surveillance as met with an eight-week line list, the committee presentation as not met because a state survey moved the meeting, hand hygiene audits as met with rising adherence and the caveat that staff knew they were watched, the exchanged in-service as partly met with night staff unreached, and antibiotic review as met with a decision aid on trial. The IP's view that one objective was deferred is noted. What did not work was reaching outside prescribers directly. Site impact is claimed as tools that can continue, and personal impact is drawn from the audit episode, a lost day to floor coverage and a phone call that worked. Outcomes most likely to last are those written into existing routines, such as orientation and the line list.
Where the points sit in the NR 669 Week 7 rubric
Outcome summaries lose most when every objective is reported as met, which graders read as unlikely. Next are verdicts with no object or evidence attached. Many summaries defend unmet objectives instead of explaining the setting feature that blocked them. Impact claims often run far ahead of the evidence, such as claiming infections fell after eight weeks of audits. Personal impact written as general growth, rather than tied to episodes, reads as filler. Summaries that leave out what did not work or what nobody predicted present an immersion tidier than any real one. Caveats on improving figures are often missing. Summaries that never explain how verdicts were checked also invite doubt about each one. Exchanged objectives reported without saying what they achieved over the original look like retreats.
NR 669 Week 7 help: mistakes that cost points
Summarizing outcomes honestly means reporting the objectives that did not work as plainly as those that did. A guided draft can help you state each objective, attach evidence and objects to each verdict and explain unmet ones by the setting. We can also help you claim impact modestly and describe personal impact through specific episodes. Asking your preceptor to review the verdicts usually adds a perspective worth recording. The summary and its verdicts are yours. Describing what an exchanged objective achieved over the original belongs in the draft as well.
Get a NR 669 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Send the summary instructions, the rubric and your objective list as it was originally agreed, and a custom outcome and impact summary is written to them and returned inside 24-48h. The first one is free, with the verdicts and their evidence already paired up row by row.
More NR 669 papers and MSN samples
- NR 669 Week 1: Role in Place Post
- NR 669 Week 2: Objectives Review
- NR 669 Week 3: Setting and Role Analysis
- NR 669 Week 4: Reflective Analysis
- NR 669 Week 5: Progress Brief
- NR 669 Week 6: Evidence and Application
- NR 669 Week 8: Immersion Synthesis Paper
- NR 500 Week 7: Professional Goals Statement
- NR 662 Week 7: Role Justification Memo
- NR 500NP Week 7: Practice Entry Plan
- NR 560 Week 7: Assembled Capstone Paper
NR 669 Week 7 questions, answered
One of my objectives was never met.
Write it as not met, with the setting condition that prevented it and what you did instead. That is a normal outcome and it accounts better than a met marked against thin activity. The version that costs marks is an objective softened until it can be called met, because the evidence underneath will not support the wording above it.
Can I claim impact on the site when nothing measurable changed?
Claim what you can show. A form somebody now uses, a question added to a routine, a summary a manager kept: small and real. Where nothing carried, say the immersion produced no change at the setting and name what would have been needed. Faculty accept that reading and mark down unevidenced claims of improvement.
How is this different from the final paper?
This one accounts and the final paper argues. Here the immersion is reported against the objectives it was given, objective by objective, verdict by verdict. In the closing week the same material gets rebuilt around a claim about the role that a reader outside your setting can use. The evidence overlaps; the purpose does not.
Where can I find a free NR 669 Week 7 sample paper?
The finished outcome and impact summary for an infection prevention immersion is available here in full.
Why does the NR 669 Week 7 summary claim impact modestly?
Eight weeks can leave tools in place, such as a line list and a decision aid, but cannot show that infections or antibiotic use have fallen.