| Course | NR 707A DNP Project & Practicum III |
|---|---|
| Week | 2 |
| Paper type | Rollout narrative |
| Length | About 1,110 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 707A Week 2
Rollout Narrative: The Same-Day Behavioral Health Introduction From the Day Before It Started Through Its First Two Weeks, in Calendar Order
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 707A: DNP Project & Practicum III
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Rollout Narrative: The Same-Day Behavioral Health Introduction From the Day Before It Started Through Its First Two Weeks, in Calendar Order
Sunday 28 February: The Day Before Anything Changed
On the last day of the old workflow, a positive PHQ-9 at the site led to a referral order and a callback two to five days later. In the baseline, about a third of these patients reached behavioral health within 30 days, well short of what integrated care assumes (Archer et al., 2012). The consultant's template had two follow-up slots at 10:00 and 14:00 that were about to become open-access slots. The behavioral health assistant made callbacks in the afternoons.
Training as Delivered
22, 24 and 26 February: five-minute huddle sessions for medical assistants, with the teach-back question about what to do when the consultant is busy. Attendance: 14 of 16 medical assistants across the three huddles. The two who missed were on leave and were briefed one to one on 1 and 2 March.
23 February: five minutes at the Tuesday operations meeting for clinicians. Present: 8 of 9 primary care clinicians. The ninth read the one-page summary by email.
24 February: twenty minutes at the behavioral health team's Wednesday meeting. Present: the consultant, the psychologist and the behavioral health assistant.
Two teach-back answers in the huddles were wrong in the same way: medical assistants said they would wait for the consultant's reply before asking the patient. The script was changed on 25 February to ask the patient first, and the change was taught at the third huddle.
The Shift That Started It
Monday 1 March, morning session, 08:00. Mornings went first because the consultant's 10:00 open slot gave the change its best chance on day one, and because the site's most experienced medical assistant works mornings. The first eligible patient was roomed at 08:40; the message was sent at 08:43; the consultant joined the visit at 09:05. By 12:00, four eligible patients had been seen, three of whom met the consultant before leaving.
What Arrived Late
Pocket cards: laminating took a day longer than planned; cards reached the rooming tablets at 14:00 on 1 March.
Daily 16:30 list for the behavioral health assistant: the quality analyst's report went live on 3 March. For 1 and 2 March, I compiled the list by hand from the message group and the schedule.
Smart phrase for recording the patient's answer: live on 22 March, three weeks after start, as the clinical informatics queue had estimated. Until then, medical assistants recorded the answer in free text.
Hold flag on the 14:00 slot: the template change was made on 26 February, but the front desk's view did not show the hold until the scheduling office corrected it on 9 March. The slot was booked over on three days in the first week.
Weeks 1 and 2 in Counts
Eligible patients: 46. Messages during behavioral health hours: 37 of 40. Same-day contacts: 21 of 40. Declines: 6. Next-business-day calls by noon: 21 of 25 not seen the same day. The proportion of same-day contacts fell from 13 of 21 in week 1 to 8 of 19 in week 2, a drop that coincided with the consultant's two days of leave on 10 and 11 March, when the psychologist covered only one of the two open slots.
What Went Better Than Expected
Patients' willingness. Only 6 of 40 eligible patients in behavioral health hours declined in the first two weeks, fewer than the working group had feared. Medical assistants' messaging: 37 of 40, from the first morning. And the behavioral health assistant's next-day calls, which reached 21 of 25 by noon despite the assistant being out on one Friday.
What Went Worse
The 14:00 slot, which depended on a scheduling system the clinic does not control. The consultant's leave on 10 and 11 March, which showed how much the same-day part depends on one person: on those days, same-day contacts fell to 2 of 7. Both are recorded as fidelity problems to be watched, and the second goes into the evaluation as a question about whether the change can survive staff absence.
Decisions Made in the First Two Weeks
On 2 March, the student and site mentor agreed to compile the daily list by hand until the analyst's report went live, rather than delay the next-day calls. On 9 March, the scheduling office was asked to fix the hold flag rather than the front desk being told to remember it, since a rule that depends on memory fails on busy days. On 12 March, the mentor decided not to add a second covering clinician for the consultant's leave days, judging that two days did not justify the cost; that decision is recorded so the evaluation can weigh it.
What the Record Cannot Show
Some of what mattered in the first two weeks left no trace in any system. Why particular patients declined, until the smart phrase went live. Whether the consultant's informal walk-ins, when free, were counted as open-slot visits or not; the schedule does not distinguish them. How long patients waited for the consultant; nobody records it. From the third week, the consultant agreed to note the time a message arrived and the time of arrival in the room on a paper sheet for one week, which will give a rough sense of waits without adding a field to the record.
Fit With Implementation Thinking
Adoption, reach and fidelity are distinct implementation outcomes (Proctor et al., 2011). The narrative records each, as the run chart that follows will need them (Perla et al., 2011): training reach was 14 of 16 medical assistants before start; adoption, measured by messages sent, was high from day one; fidelity was weakest at the 14:00 slot, for reasons outside the clinic's control.
What the First Two Weeks Suggest for the Rest
The change can run on a normal day with the staff in place. It is fragile when the consultant is away and when another department's system does not do what its ticket says. The remaining ten weeks will show whether the first two were typical or whether the early attention lifted them; the weekly counts will be read with that question in mind.
Who Has Read This Narrative
The director of behavioral health and the site medical director read it on 16 March and corrected one date, the day the hold flag was fixed.
References
Archer, J., Bower, P., Gilbody, S., Lovell, K., Richards, D., Gask, L., Dickens, C., & Coventry, P. (2012). Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012(10), CD006525. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006525.pub2
Perla, R. J., Provost, L. P., & Murray, S. K. (2011). The run chart: A simple analytical tool for learning from variation in healthcare processes. BMJ Quality & Safety, 20(1), 46-51. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs.2009.037895
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
Reading the NR 707A Week 2 instructions
Organize the narrative by the calendar. Start the day before anything changed, describing the unit as it then was, since everything after is measured from there. Follow events in order with a date on each: training sessions and how many attended, the shift that went first and why that shift, the day materials reached the floor. Record training as actually delivered, including who missed it and anything corrected. Say what arrived late and how the gap was covered. Give counts for the period. Separate what went better than expected from what went worse. Close with what the record cannot show, and with any decisions made along the way. Where a decision was made mid-rollout, give the date and who made it.
Inside the NR 707A Week 2 example
The sample begins on Sunday 28 February with referrals and delayed callbacks. Training ran on 22, 23, 24 and 26 February, with two absent medical assistants briefed individually and a teach-back error fixed by changing the script to ask the patient first. Monday morning went first because of the 10:00 open slot and an experienced assistant; the first message went at 08:43. Late items were laminated cards, the analyst's daily list, the note phrase and the hold flag. Counts for two weeks are 46 eligible, 37 of 40 messages, 21 same-day contacts and 21 of 25 calls. The consultant's two leave days showed fragility, waits went unrecorded and three dated decisions are listed.
Reading the NR 707A Week 2 grading rubric
Rollout narratives lose most when they are organized by topic, so the reader cannot see what happened in what order. Next is a narrative that begins on the start day, leaving no picture of the unit before the change to measure against. Training is often described as planned rather than as delivered, hiding who missed it. Late materials and how the gap was covered are frequently left out. Many narratives report only what went well. Few say what the record cannot show, such as waiting times or reasons for declining, which later weeks will need. Decisions made during the rollout are often lost unless written down with dates. Narratives that rely on memory rather than emails and sign-in sheets also tend to get dates wrong by a day or two.
Common NR 707A Week 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Reconstructing the first two weeks in date order usually means going back through emails, sign-in sheets and the log. With those in front of you, we can set the day before, record training as delivered and list what arrived late and how it was covered. We can also help you separate what went better from what went worse and name what the record cannot show. Asking the site mentor to check the dates is a quick way to catch errors. The rollout and its account are yours. Dates that disagree between sources are worth settling before the draft goes to your preceptor.
Get a NR 707A Week 2 example written to your instructions
Give us the rubric, the template your section publishes and the dates you are working from, and a custom NR 707A Week 2 rollout narrative comes back built to them within 24-48h, free for the first one. It arrives with placeholders where your own dates, counts and materials go, so the chronology stays yours.
More NR 707A papers and DNP samples
- NR 707A Week 1: First Week Post
- NR 707A Week 3: Protocol Deviation Memo
- NR 707A Week 4: Midpoint Data Summary
- NR 707A Week 5: Missing Data Memo
- NR 707A Week 6: Staff Feedback Write-up
- NR 707A Week 7: Practicum Log Narrative
- NR 707A Week 8: Committee Progress Presentation
- NR 705A Week 2: Intervention Design
- NR 702A Week 2: Practice Gap Write-Up
NR 707A Week 2 questions, answered
My rollout happened over six weeks rather than on one day. How does that get written?
As a staged chronology, which is the commoner case anyway. Each stage gets its own date range, the unit or shift it covered, and a line saying what moved it on to the next. What faculty are checking is whether the stages are reported in the order they occurred and whether anything was running before the people doing it had been trained.
How much of the original plan belongs in this narrative?
Only enough to identify what was supposed to happen, usually a reference to the approved document and its date. Arguing for the design, defining measures or defending the intervention was the work of an earlier term and is graded there. Here the plan appears as a fixed point that actual events are compared against, and the comparison is the assignment.
Training did not go as planned. Does that go here or in the deviation memo?
Both, at different depths. The narrative records what happened and when, in one or two factual sentences, because the chronology is incomplete without it. The memo written later takes one departure and works it through properly: what the approved design required, what occurred instead, and what that costs the data. Repeating the full analysis in the narrative usually costs space the rollout itself needed.
Where can I find a free NR 707A Week 2 sample paper?
This page holds the full rollout narrative for the first two weeks of a same-day behavioral health introduction.
Why did mornings go first in the NR 707A Week 2 rollout?
The consultant's 10:00 open slot gave the change its best chance on day one, and the most experienced medical assistant works mornings.