| Course | NR 706 Healthcare Informatics & Information Systems |
|---|---|
| Week | 5 |
| Paper type | Business case |
| Length | About 1,100 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 5
Business Case: A Request for $1.79 Million in Capital and About $6.4 Million in Operating Costs Over Five Years for a Clinical Communication Platform
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 706: Healthcare Informatics & Information Systems
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Business Case: A Request for $1.79 Million in Capital and About $6.4 Million in Operating Costs Over Five Years for a Clinical Communication Platform
The Request
That the information technology steering committee approve $1.79 million in fiscal 2028 capital and about $6.44 million in operating costs over five years for a standalone clinical communication platform across the three hospitals, by its 18 March 2027 meeting, so that contracting can finish before the summer Wi-Fi remediation window.
Options Considered
Three options were scored in the selection analysis; their costs are summarized here so the committee can weigh them side by side. Keep the current arrangement of pagers, physician texting, landlines and central alarm stations: roughly $1.1 million across the five years, all of it in existing contracts, with no change in how alarms reach nurses.
The electronic record vendor's chat module with separate alert middleware: about $7.6 million over five years, scoring equal to the recommended option in the selection analysis but weaker on alert routing.
The recommended standalone platform: about $8.2 million over five years, with alerts and messages in one app.
Buying nothing is a real option; it costs least and changes least. The recommendation was chosen over it, not assumed, and the comparison with doing nothing is the one the committee should weigh most carefully, since it is the default if no decision is made.
Benefits, Each With an Owner
A benefit without an owner tends not to be measured, so each one below names who will answer for it. Retiring pagers and the physician texting license: about $216,000 a year in avoided contracts. Owner: director of information technology infrastructure, who will cancel the contracts after a six-month overlap.
Nurse call and monitor alerts delivered to the assigned nurse's phone: expected to shorten response to call lights and alarms. Owner: the chief nursing officer, through unit managers, measured by the nurse call system's response time reports before and after go-live on each unit.
Faster reach to physicians: expected to shorten the time from a nurse's question to a physician's reply. Owner: the chief medical officer, measured in the platform's message logs, which record when a message was sent and when it was read and answered.
Fewer overhead pages: expected to reduce noise on inpatient units. Owner: the director of patient experience, measured by counting overhead pages per day before and after, from the paging system's own log.
Improved clinician perception of communication efficiency, as a small trial found with secure messaging compared with paging (Przybylo et al., 2014). Owner: the clinical informatics council, measured by a staff survey at six months. Labeled as hard to measure precisely, since a survey reflects perception and may be influenced by enthusiasm for a new tool in the first months.
Why the Standalone Platform Over the Record Vendor's Module
The two scored the same in the selection analysis. The case recommends the standalone platform because alarms and messages arrive in one app, which nurses rated more usable in scripted testing, and because alarm routing to the assigned nurse is the main safety gain the project was started for. The record vendor's module remains the fallback if the recommended vendor fails, which keeps the decision reversible.
Released Time Is Not Automatically Money
This is the point boards most often press on, so the case states its position plainly. If each nurse saves ten minutes a shift by not walking to a phone or the central station, that is time returned to patient care, not money returned to the budget, since staffing levels will not change. The case does not count released time as savings. It counts it as a benefit to care, to be measured in response times rather than dollars.
Capital and Operating Are Different Arguments
The two kinds of money are approved, budgeted and judged differently. Capital, $1.79 million in year 1, buys devices, Wi-Fi and middleware: assets the system owns. The argument for it is infrastructure the system will need for any mobile clinical technology, including future applications. Operating, about $6.44 million over five years, buys subscription, labor, training and support. The argument for it is the ongoing benefit, and it commits future budgets, which the committee should weigh as a multi-year commitment, not a year-1 figure. Finance has noted that leasing devices would move about $1.1 million from capital to operating at a similar total, which the committee may prefer if capital is tighter than operating in fiscal 2028.
What Happens if the Committee Says No
The current arrangement continues: pagers renewed for another year, the physician texting license renewed, alarms relayed through central stations. The Wi-Fi remediation would still proceed, since other projects need it, which would lower the cost of revisiting the platform in a later year. A decision to defer is therefore not a decision to waste the preparation, and the case says so to make a no as informed as a yes.
Risk, Written for a Skeptic
The biggest risk is that alerts to phones increase interruptions and alarm fatigue rather than reducing missed alarms (Sendelbach & Funk, 2013). The case answers that with a staged go-live, an alarm subcommittee meeting every two weeks and a requirement that each unit's alert rules be approved before go-live. A second risk is that nurses find the platform adds work, as smartphone studies have reported for some nursing groups (Wu et al., 2011); the case answers with the usability scores from nurses' scripted testing and a six-month survey.
Who Has Reviewed This Case
The nursing, medical and information executives have each reviewed the case and support it. The clinical informatics council reviewed the selection analysis and the alarm design approach. The vice president of finance reviewed the cost brief. The nurse working group that set the selection weights has seen the recommendation. Each review is recorded with its date in the project file.
What the Committee Is Not Being Asked to Decide
The configuration of alerts on each unit, which belongs to the alarm subcommittee. The go-live order of hospitals, which belongs to the project team. The future of the central monitor technicians, who are retained for monitoring and whose roles will be reviewed with human resources separately.
What Will Be Reported Back
At six and twelve months: the five measured benefits, actual spending against the cost brief and any change to the risk register.
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 5 instructions
Open with the request in plain terms: this amount, over this period, for this purpose, decided by this date. List options briefly, including buying nothing, so the recommendation is seen to be chosen rather than assumed. State benefits as things someone will answer for, each with a named role and a measure, and label benefits that resist measurement as such. Do not count released staff time as money unless it actually leaves the budget. Treat capital and operating spending as different arguments. Write risk for a skeptic, with your answer to each. Say who has reviewed the case, what follows if the committee declines and what will be reported back.
How the NR 706 Week 5 example is put together
The sample asks the steering committee to approve the spending by its 18 March 2027 meeting so contracting can finish before summer Wi-Fi work. Options are the current arrangement at about $1.1 million, the record vendor's module at about $7.6 million and the standalone platform at about $8.2 million. Benefits include about $216,000 a year in retired contracts owned by infrastructure, faster alarm and call light response owned by the nursing executive, faster physician replies, fewer overhead pages and perceived efficiency. Released nursing time is treated as a care benefit, not savings. Risks of alarm fatigue and interruptions are answered with staged go-live and review. A no would still leave Wi-Fi work in place. Reviews by the nursing, medical and information executives are noted.
NR 706 Week 5 rubric: what full points look like
Business cases lose most when they bury the request after pages of background, so the decision-maker has to search for what is being asked. Next is a case with only the recommended option, which looks predetermined. Benefits without owners are rarely measured, and benefits counted as money when they are really released time overstate the return. Many cases blur capital and operating spending, though committees approve them differently. Risks written to reassure rather than to answer a skeptic lose credibility. A case silent on the consequences of a refusal makes declining look like failure rather than a legitimate choice. Cases that never list what the committee is not deciding also invite debate about details that belong elsewhere.
NR 706 Week 5 help from the desk
Writing a case for a committee's signature means putting the request first and backing every benefit with an owner. Working from your cost brief and selection analysis, we can write the request, set out options and assign owners and measures to each benefit. We can also help you separate capital from operating arguments and write risks for a skeptic. Reading the draft as the finance chief would usually shows which benefit needs a firmer owner. The case is yours. Listing what the committee is not being asked to decide is worth doing too.
Get a NR 706 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Send us your prompt, your rubric and any organizational context the week supplies, and we will write a custom NR 706 Week 5 business case around them. It returns inside 24-48h and the first one costs nothing, which lets you check your own draft against a version written for a reader with signing authority.
More NR 706 papers and MSN samples
- NR 706 Week 1: Governance Bodies Post
- NR 706 Week 2: Governance Critique
- NR 706 Week 3: System Selection Analysis
- NR 706 Week 4: Cost of Ownership Brief
- 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 5: Information Model for Oxygen Charting
- NR 643 Week 5: Sustainment Plan
- NR 515 Week 5: Standards Comparison, HL7 v2 and FHIR
- NR 642 Week 5: Current State Analysis
NR 706 Week 5 questions, answered
How much financial detail does a nursing case need?
Enough to be taken seriously by whoever signs, which is less than a finance analyst produces and considerably more than students expect. Capital and recurring costs separated, one accepted measure such as payback, and the run rate once the project ends will carry most cases. Getting the categories right matters more than sophisticated modeling ever does.
Should the case include options that were rejected?
Yes, and treat them fairly. A recommendation looks stronger beside real alternatives than it does alone, and executives suspecting the comparison was staged stop trusting the numbers entirely. Two or three options plus the possibility of leaving things alone is usually enough, each carrying its cost and its consequence in the same terms.
What if the honest case is that the benefit is unmeasurable?
Say so, then argue on the ground where the benefit actually lives, such as risk reduction, a regulatory obligation, or capability the organization currently lacks. A case admitting that something resists measurement and justifying the spend another way reads as competent. One assigning a confident figure to the unquantifiable invites the whole document to be discounted.
Where can I find a free NR 706 Week 5 sample paper?
The finished business case for a clinical communication platform is reproduced on this page.
Why does the NR 706 Week 5 case not count released nursing time as savings?
Staffing levels will not change, so time returned to nurses is a benefit to care measured in response times, not money leaving the budget.