| Course | NR 706 Healthcare Informatics & Information Systems |
|---|---|
| Week | 8 |
| Paper type | Executive proposal paper |
| 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 8
Executive Proposal Paper: Approve a Clinical Communication Platform for Three Hospitals, With Its Five-Year Cost, Governance, Risks and What the Board Should See in Two Years
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 706: Healthcare Informatics & Information Systems
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Executive Proposal Paper: Approve a Clinical Communication Platform for Three Hospitals, With Its Five-Year Cost, Governance, Risks and What the Board Should See in Two Years
The Decision Sought
That the board approve, on the steering committee's recommendation, a five-year commitment of about $8.2 million, split between year-1 capital and operating costs spread over the term, for one communication platform serving clinicians in all three hospitals, with go-live by hospital from October 2027.
Summary
Nurses learn of their patients' alarms from dome lights and central stations, reach physicians by pager and landline and are reached by overhead page. The strategic plan commits the system to connecting every caregiver at the point of care and reducing delays and noise. Three options were scored against criteria set by clinicians: keeping the current arrangement, the record vendor's chat module and a standalone platform. The standalone platform tied with the record vendor's module and was chosen because it routes alarms and messages through one app, the largest safety gain. Its five-year cost is about $8.2 million, offset by about $1.08 million in retired contracts. Governance changes give the clinical informatics council a quorum rule and an alarm subcommittee. The main risk is alarm misrouting or alarm fatigue, controlled by staged go-live, bedside alarms kept in place and fortnightly alarm review. In two years the board should see faster response to alarms and call lights, fewer overhead pages and spending within 10% of plan.
The Problem, in Terms the System Already Accepts
The board has already agreed, in its strategic plan, that the problem exists. The strategic plan's second pillar commits the system to cutting the delays and noise that stand in the way of care. The current arrangement routes nurses' alarms through a central technician's phone call and reaches physicians by number, not role. Overhead pages run throughout the day, on every inpatient unit, and patients' families mention them in experience surveys.
Options, and Why Each Was Kept or Dropped
Each option is summarized in a sentence or two; the selection analysis gives the full scoring. Keep the current arrangement: cheapest, about $1.1 million over five years, but delivers none of the capabilities the strategy names. Dropped.
Record vendor's chat module: strong on patient context and vendor viability, weaker on alarm routing, which would need a separate app. Kept in reserve should the chosen vendor falter, so the board is in effect approving a first choice and a tested second.
Standalone platform: strongest on alarm routing and usability for nurses, weaker on vendor size and exit cost. Recommended.
The Recommendation and Its Commitment
The board is asked to commit to five years, not one. A standalone platform, contracted for five years. The commitment is multi-year: year 1 carries the devices, network work and training, years 2 and 3 settle near a million dollars each, and year 4 brings device replacement and the first renewal. A board that approves year 1 is approving all five, and the paper says so plainly.
Governance as Part of the Recommendation
The recommendation includes three governance changes: a quorum rule for the clinical informatics council; an alarm and communication subcommittee meeting every two weeks for two years, with delegated authority over routing rules; and a single record of configuration decisions kept by the clinical informatics office. Without them, the platform's most consequential decisions would be made by analysts between quarterly meetings.
Risks Worth the Board's Attention
Alarm misrouting, cutover failure, vendor failure and alarm fatigue, each with an owner and a fallback, as set out in the risk memo, along with device loss, Wi-Fi gaps and renewal pricing. The residual risk is a rare routing fault before it is noticed, mitigated by keeping bedside and central alarms.
How the Recommendation Was Reached
The working group of nurses, physicians and analysts set criteria and weights before seeing any vendor. Twelve nurses tested each option on the same scripted tasks. Finance reviewed the costs, infrastructure surveyed the Wi-Fi and the clinical informatics council reviewed the design approach. The steering committee will vote on 18 March. Each step is documented, so that the board can see how the recommendation was formed, not only what it is. The nurses who tested the options are the people who would carry the phones, which gives their ratings weight that a demonstration to executives would not.
Outside the Board's Decision
Hiring, beyond one analyst and half a help desk position already in the cost brief. Changes to the central monitor technicians' employment. Configuration of individual alerts. Each belongs to management, and the board's decision is about money, commitment and governance.
What Has to Happen Before Signing
Three conditions: the contract must include the discontinuation notice, escrow, export and renewal cap terms set out in the risk memo; the Wi-Fi remediation must be scheduled for summer 2027; and the council's quorum rule and alarm subcommittee must be approved by the council itself. If any is missing, the recommendation is to delay signing rather than proceed without it, since each protects against one of the larger risks.
Where the Case Is Weakest
The tie in the selection analysis, which the paper does not hide. A board member who weights patient context above alarm routing would choose the record vendor's module, at lower cost and lower vendor risk. The case rests on the judgment that alarms reaching nurses directly is the larger safety gain, a judgment the board can accept or reject knowing exactly what it is. That judgment is supported by the working group of nurses and physicians who set the weights, but it is a judgment. A second weakness: published evidence on secure messaging is mostly about physicians' perceptions (Przybylo et al., 2014), and evidence on nurses includes increased interruptions (Wu et al., 2011). The case relies on alert design and measurement to manage that.
What the Board Should See in Two Years
A board decision should arrive with a plan for judging it. Response time to call lights and alarms on each unit, against the pre-go-live baseline. Overhead pages per day. Alert volumes per nurse per shift, as a check on alarm fatigue (Sendelbach & Funk, 2013). Spending against the cost brief. A staff survey of communication efficiency. If response times have not improved by the end of year 2, the steering committee should review whether to continue.
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
Reading the NR 706 Week 8 instructions
Carry one argument the whole way. State the decision sought in the first paragraph. Write a summary that could stand alone, since it is the document most readers will see. Build toward the recommendation: the problem in terms the institution already accepts, the options with a reason each was kept or dropped, the recommended course and the commitment in money and years, not year one alone. Make governance part of the recommendation. Put the risks worth a board's attention in plain terms. Argue where the case is weakest instead of hiding it. End with what the organization will look at in two years to know whether the decision was right. Set conditions that must be met before signing.
How the NR 706 Week 8 example is put together
The sample asks the board to approve about $8.2 million over five years with go-live from October 2027. Its summary covers the problem, the three scored options, the tie, the cost and offsets, governance changes and two-year measures. The current arrangement is dropped, the record vendor's module kept as fallback and the standalone platform recommended. The commitment's year-4 spike is explained. Governance includes a quorum rule, an alarm subcommittee and a decision record. Contract terms, scheduled Wi-Fi work and council approval are conditions before signing. The weakest points are the tie and evidence that secure messaging can interrupt nurses, and the board will see response times, overhead pages, alert volumes and spending. It lists what the board is not being asked to approve, such as alert configuration.
Where the points sit in the NR 706 Week 8 rubric
Executive proposals lose most when earlier assignments are stacked together with no single argument running through them. Close behind is a decision buried at the end, after background the board did not need. Many proposals present only year-one cost, which a board will discover was a partial figure. Governance is often left out of the recommendation, as if a platform governed itself. Proposals that present only strengths look like advocacy; arguing openly where the case is weakest builds trust. Papers that never say what the board will see later give it no way to judge whether the decision was right. Proposals that never set conditions before signing also leave the most important protections to chance. Graders look for them.
Common NR 706 Week 8 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Turning a term of analysis into one argument for a board means cutting most of what you wrote. Working from your earlier documents, we can state the decision first, write a summary that stands alone and build the argument from problem to recommendation. We can also help you commit in years, include governance and argue where the case is weakest. Reading the summary alone, as a busy board member would, is the best test of whether it carries the decision. The proposal is yours. Listing conditions before signing is worth doing too.
Get a NR 706 Week 8 example written to your instructions
Send us the prompt, the rubric and anything from earlier weeks your section wants carried forward, and we will write a custom NR 706 Week 8 proposal to those requirements. It arrives inside 24-48h and the first one is free, which gives you a finished executive argument to read your own draft against.
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 5: Business Case
- NR 706 Week 6: Strategic Alignment
- NR 706 Week 7: Risk and Contingency Memo
- NR 512 Week 8: Informatics Position Paper
- NR 643 Week 8: Portfolio Narrative
- NR 515 Week 8: Informatics Synthesis Paper
- NR 642 Week 8: Project Plan Paper
NR 706 Week 8 questions, answered
How much can the paper reuse from earlier weeks?
The material carries forward, the writing rarely does. Earlier pieces were built for different readers and different purposes, and pasted sections show as seams in tone and length. Rebuild each element inside the argument this paper makes, keeping the analysis and discarding the framing, and put working detail into appendices where it supports without interrupting.
Who is the intended reader?
A governing body or an executive committee: intelligent, financially literate, short of time, and not informatics specialists. That reader wants the request, the money, the alternative and the risk, and will delegate anything technical. Writing for them changes vocabulary, order and length, and doctoral markers assess whether the paper reaches that audience rather than an academic one.
Should the paper acknowledge that the recommendation might be wrong?
It should state the conditions under which it would be, which differs from hedging. Naming the assumptions the recommendation depends on, and the point at which the organization ought to revisit the decision, reads as confidence rather than doubt. Boards approve proposals from people who tell them what would change their own mind.
Where can I find a free NR 706 Week 8 sample paper?
The complete executive proposal for a clinical communication platform across three hospitals is set out on this page.
Where does the NR 706 Week 8 proposal say its case is weakest?
In the tie with the record vendor's chat module, which a board weighting patient context above alarm routing could reasonably prefer.