| Course | NR 706 Healthcare Informatics & Information Systems |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | System selection analysis |
| Length | About 1,140 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN, Nursing Informatics |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 706 Week 3
System Selection Analysis: Three Options for Clinical Communication, Including Keeping the Current Setup, Scored Against Weighted Criteria Drawn From the System's Own Needs
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 706: Healthcare Informatics & Information Systems
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
System Selection Analysis: Three Options for Clinical Communication, Including Keeping the Current Setup, Scored Against Weighted Criteria Drawn From the System's Own Needs
The Decision
Which clinical communication arrangement the three-hospital system should run for the next five years.
Criteria, Before Candidates
Weights were set by the project's working group, five nurses, three physicians, two analysts and the infrastructure director, on 14 January 2027, from the problems the system already has, before any vendor demonstration.
| Criterion | Weight | Why it matters here |
|---|---|---|
| Routing of nurse call and monitor alerts to the assigned nurse's phone | 25 | Nurses currently learn of alarms from dome lights and central stations; the largest safety gain lies here |
| Patient context from the electronic record in messages | 20 | Messages without patient context are a common source of errors and call-backs |
| Reliability and behavior during downtime | 15 | A communication outage during a code is a patient safety event |
| Five-year total cost of ownership | 15 | The capital and operating budgets are both constrained |
| Usability for nurses at the bedside | 10 | Nurses are half the users and the most affected |
| Vendor viability | 10 | A five-year commitment depends on the vendor existing for five years |
| Exit cost and data portability | 5 | Leaving must be possible without losing message records |
The Candidates
A. Keep the current arrangement: pagers for physicians and some nurses, a physician-only texting app, unit landlines and overhead paging, and alarms at central stations and dome lights. Renew the texting license and pager contract.
B. The electronic record vendor's built-in secure chat module on hospital-issued phones for nurses and physicians, with separate middleware to route nurse call and monitor alerts.
C. A standalone clinical communication platform on hospital-issued phones, with its own alert routing and integration with the electronic record.
Scoring, by Criterion
Scores from 1 to 5, multiplied by weight. Reasoning is given for each so a reader who disputes a score can see where the disagreement lies.
Alert routing: A scores 1, since alarms never reach phones. B scores 3: middleware can route alerts, but the chat module and alert routing are separate apps on the phone, so nurses would switch between them. C scores 5: alerts and messages arrive in one app with escalation rules.
Patient context: A scores 1, as pages carry a callback number only. B scores 5, since chat is inside the record and messages attach to the patient. C scores 4: integration supplies patient context, but it depends on an interface that must be maintained.
Reliability: A scores 4, as pagers work on their own network during Wi-Fi outages. B scores 3, since chat fails if the record is down. C scores 3, as it depends on Wi-Fi and its own hosting; it has a downtime mode using cellular data, which the infrastructure team considers partly reliable in the basements.
Cost: A scores 5, the cheapest. B scores 3. C scores 2. Figures come from the cost of ownership brief.
Usability: A scores 2, with nurses phoning landlines and waiting at the station. B scores 3 in the demonstration, with nurses finding the chat module awkward on a small screen. C scores 4, rated higher by nurses in the scripted demonstration.
Vendor viability: A scores 4, with established pager vendors. B scores 5, since the record vendor is the system's largest vendor. C scores 3: the vendor is profitable and widely used, but smaller and a possible acquisition target.
Exit cost: A scores 5. B scores 4. C scores 3, as message records must be exported at exit.
Weighted Totals
A: 25 + 20 + 60 + 75 + 20 + 40 + 25 = 265. B: 75 + 100 + 45 + 45 + 30 + 50 + 20 = 365. C: 125 + 80 + 45 + 30 + 40 + 30 + 15 = 365.
B and C tie at 365. A trails well behind.
Breaking the Tie
The tie is broken by the criterion the working group weighted highest: alert routing, where C scores 5 and B scores 3. A reader who weights patient context higher than alert routing would choose B, and the analysis says so plainly. The recommendation is C, on the grounds that alarms reaching nurses directly is the largest safety gain and the reason the project began. B remains a strong second choice and the obvious fallback if C's vendor cannot meet contract terms.
What the Nurses Said in Testing
After the scripted tasks, nurses were asked what they would change about each option. For A they asked only for more phones on the unit. For B they said switching between the chat app and the alarm app would be confusing during a busy shift. For C they asked that alarm sounds be distinct from message sounds, which the vendor confirmed is configurable. Those comments shaped the usability scores and will shape the alert design if C is chosen.
Evidence a Purchaser Would Accept
Scores for usability came from a scripted demonstration in which twelve nurses performed the same five tasks on each option and rated them. Reliability scores came from the infrastructure team's Wi-Fi survey and each vendor's published downtime procedures. Vendor viability came from the finance team's review of public filings. Published evidence that secure messaging improves physicians' perception of communication efficiency compared with paging comes from a small randomized trial (Przybylo et al., 2014), and a mixed-methods study found smartphones improved efficiency but increased interruptions for nurses (Wu et al., 2011), which is why usability and alert design weigh as they do.
Sensitivity of the Result to the Weights
If alert routing were weighted 15 instead of 25, with the 10 points moved to patient context, B would score 385 and C 375, and B would lead. If cost were weighted 25 instead of 15, taking 10 from usability, A would rise to 345 but still trail. The recommendation therefore depends on the working group's judgment that alarms reaching nurses directly matters most, which the paper states rather than hides.
The Status Quo's Hidden Costs
Option A scored highest on cost because its costs are mostly invisible: nurses walking to stations, physicians called back several times, overhead pages that raise noise. None appears on an invoice. Alarm fatigue research suggests that how alarms reach nurses, not only how many there are, affects whether they are acted on (Sendelbach & Funk, 2013), and Option A relies on the least direct route.
What the Analysis Does Not Settle
Which configuration of alerts will avoid adding to alarm fatigue. That is a design question for the project team and the alarm subcommittee.
References
Przybylo, J. A., Wang, A., Loftus, P., Evans, K. H., Chu, I., & Shieh, L. (2014). Smarter hospital communication: Secure smartphone text messaging improves provider satisfaction and perception of efficacy, workflow. Journal of Hospital Medicine, 9(9), 573-578. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2228
Sendelbach, S., & Funk, M. (2013). Alarm fatigue: A patient safety concern. AACN Advanced Critical Care, 24(4), 378-386. https://doi.org/10.4037/nci.0b013e3182a903f9
Wu, R., Rossos, P., Quan, S., Reeves, S., Lo, V., Wong, B., Cheung, M., & Morra, D. (2011). An evaluation of the use of smartphones to communicate between clinicians: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(3), e59. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1655
The Chamberlain NR 706 Week 3 instructions
Shape the analysis around a decision. Name the candidates, and include the option of installing nothing new, since it has costs too. Set criteria early, weighted and justified from the organization's own needs rather than a vendor's comparison sheet, ideally before any demonstration. Score each candidate criterion by criterion with the reasoning visible, so a reader who disputes a weight or score can see where. Count what leaving would cost. Use evidence a purchaser would accept, such as scripted user testing, infrastructure surveys and financial reviews. Test how sensitive the result is to the weights, and say what the analysis does not settle. Record what end users said in testing.
Inside the NR 706 Week 3 example
The sample's working group of nurses, physicians, analysts and the infrastructure director set weights on 14 January 2027: alarm routing 25, patient context 20, reliability 15, cost 15, usability 10, vendor viability 10, exit cost 5. Option A, the current setup, scores 265; the record vendor's chat module and the standalone platform both score 365. The standalone platform is recommended because it leads on alarm routing, with the module as fallback. Moving ten points from alarm routing to patient context would favor the module, and the paper says so. Twelve nurses tested scripted tasks, asking for distinct alarm and message sounds. It also explains that the status quo's low cost hides time costs that never appear on an invoice, and that nurses asked for distinct alarm and message sounds in testing.
Where the points sit in the NR 706 Week 3 rubric
Selection analyses lose most when they compare product features in a table without weights tied to the organization's needs. Next is an analysis that leaves out the option of keeping the current system, which makes the recommendation look predetermined. Criteria chosen after seeing vendor demonstrations tend to favor whichever vendor presented best. Scores without visible reasoning cannot be challenged or checked. Exit costs are usually missing. Analyses that never test how the result depends on the weights hide the judgment a reader most needs to see. Ties broken without explanation look arbitrary, and graders look for the reasoning. Analyses that never record what end users said in testing also lose the most persuasive evidence for a usability score.
NR 706 Week 3 help: mistakes that cost points
Setting criteria and weights before seeing vendors is the step most selection processes skip. With your working group's priorities in hand, we can set weighted criteria, score each option with visible reasoning and include the current system as a real candidate. We can also help you test the result against different weights and record user testing evidence. Running the same scripted tasks with a few end users usually changes at least one score. The analysis is yours. Recording what end users said is worth doing too.
Get a NR 706 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Send the assignment prompt, the rubric and any case materials your section published, and we will write a custom NR 706 Week 3 selection analysis to those requirements. It returns inside 24-48h, the first is free, and setting a finished comparison beside yours tends to expose the criteria you left unweighted.
More NR 706 papers and MSN samples
- NR 706 Week 1: Governance Bodies Post
- NR 706 Week 2: Governance Critique
- NR 706 Week 4: Cost of Ownership Brief
- NR 706 Week 5: Business Case
- NR 706 Week 6: Strategic Alignment Write-up
- NR 706 Week 7: Risk and Contingency Memo
- NR 706 Week 8: Executive Proposal Paper
- NR 512 Week 3: Terminology Comparison for One Finding
- NR 643 Week 3: Adoption Evidence
- NR 515 Week 3: Data Exchange Analysis, One Result
- NR 642 Week 3: Needs Assessment
NR 706 Week 3 questions, answered
How many candidates should the analysis compare?
Two or three plus the current arrangement is typical, and adding more usually thins the analysis rather than strengthening it. Depth counts at this level: a marker would rather see three options examined against weighted criteria with the trade-offs argued than six described briefly. Where the section specifies a number, that number governs regardless of what reads better.
Can I use real vendors and real products?
Most sections allow named products and the analysis gains realism from them. Work from material anyone can obtain, such as published evaluations, certification listings and the vendor's own documentation, and attribute claims about capability rather than stating them flatly. Pricing is the exception, since public figures are rarely comparable and negotiated ones are not yours to publish.
Does the recommendation have to be the highest score?
Not necessarily, though a divergence has to be argued. Where the writer overrides the scoring, the paper says which criterion carried more weight in practice and why, which is a legitimate executive move and often a strong finish. What loses marks is a scoring exercise followed by a recommendation quietly ignoring it with nothing explained.
Where can I find a free NR 706 Week 3 sample paper?
You can read the whole system selection analysis for a clinical communication platform right here.
How is the tie broken in the NR 706 Week 3 analysis?
On alarm routing, the most heavily weighted criterion, where the standalone platform scores 5 and the record vendor's module scores 3.