| Course | NR 707A DNP Project & Practicum III |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Protocol deviation memo |
| Length | About 800 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo with APA 7 citations |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 707A Week 3
Memorandum
To: Program project review committee
From: DNP student
Date: 22 March 2027
Re: Report of a deviation from the approved data handling arrangement
The Approved Requirement
The determination memo approved by the committee on 26 February 2027 says that no identifying details, including record numbers and birth dates, are to leave the health center's systems, and that small cells are to be combined before any table is released. The committee's determination letter of the same date classed the project as quality improvement on the condition that only aggregate data be shared with the student.
What Happened Instead
The weekly data summaries for the weeks beginning 1 March and 8 March were produced in a spreadsheet that included, on a second tab, a list of eligible visits with medical record numbers and visit dates. The spreadsheet was sent from the quality analyst's work email to the student's health center email on 9 March and 16 March. The student noticed the second tab on 17 March while checking a count, did not open the list further and told the quality analyst and the site mentor the same day.
It has stopped. From the week beginning 15 March, the weekly summary is produced from a revised template with no second tab, checked by the analyst before sending.
Records Affected
The deviation touched a small, defined set of records, listed here. Two files, covering 46 eligible visits. Both files stayed within the health center's email system; neither was forwarded, printed or saved outside the health center's network. Both were deleted from the student's mailbox and the analyst's sent items on 17 March, including the trash folders, and the health center's information security officer confirmed the deletion on 18 March.
Did It Touch What Is Measured
The committee's main concern is likely to be whether the project's figures can still be trusted. No. The aggregate counts on the first tab, which the project uses, were correct and are unchanged. The second tab was not used for any count or analysis. The measures reported for weeks 1 and 2 stand.
Not a Personnel Matter
The cause was a reporting template carried over from an internal quality report, which routinely includes record numbers for staff follow-up. When the template was adapted for the project, the second tab was not removed. The correction is to the template, which now exists as a separate project version. No individual conduct is at issue, and none is described here. The analyst raised the template's origin unprompted and helped design the fix.
How the Deviation Was Found
The student was checking the week 2 count of eligible visits against the message group log and scrolled to a second tab looking for the week's dates. The tab's first column was headed with the record number field. The student closed the file, reported it to the analyst and the site mentor by phone within the hour and by email the same afternoon. Finding it depended on a routine cross-check the project already ran, which is part of why the check will continue weekly.
What Has Changed to Prevent a Recurrence
The revised template has no second tab and a header stating that it contains aggregate counts only. The analyst checks each file against a two-line checklist before sending. The student will report to the committee if any future file contains anything other than aggregate counts. Integrated care improvement depends on trust between the teams that share data (Archer et al., 2012), and the template change protects that trust as well as the patients.
Whether Patients Were Affected
No patient information left the health center. No patient was contacted because of the files. The health center's privacy officer reviewed the event on 18 March and concluded that it was not a reportable breach, since the information stayed within the organization's systems and was accessed only by workforce members authorized to see it in their employed roles.
Request
The student asks for one decision. That the committee accept the correction, the revised template and the privacy officer's review as resolving the deviation, and confirm that the project may continue under its existing determination. If the committee wishes, the student will send the revised template for its review, and will confirm in each monthly update that the weekly files contain aggregate counts only.
Attachments
Three documents support the account above. The privacy officer's review note of 18 March. The revised weekly template, version 2.0. The information security officer's confirmation of deletion.
Why the Arrangement Matters
Improvement projects can drift toward research-like handling of data without anyone intending it, and keeping to the approved arrangement is part of what makes a project quality improvement (Ogrinc et al., 2016). Fidelity to the agreed process, not only to the intervention, is an implementation outcome worth recording (Proctor et al., 2011).
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
Ogrinc, G., Davies, L., Goodman, D., Batalden, P., Davidoff, F., & Stevens, D. (2016). SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Quality & Safety, 25(12), 986-992. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411
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
NR 707A Week 3 instructions, in plain terms
Keep the memo under two pages, dated at the top, in a flatter voice than you might expect. Name nobody and describe no conduct. Quote or closely state the approved requirement first, with the date of the document that set it. Describe what happened instead in the same register, with the day it started and whether it has stopped. Count the records affected. Say directly whether the deviation touched what the project measures. Explain the cause as a process, not a person. Describe how it was found and what has changed to prevent a recurrence. End with a request the committee can grant, and list attachments that support the account. Attach the revised template or checklist so the fix can be inspected.
Inside the NR 707A Week 3 example
The sample's requirement, from the determination approved on 26 February 2027, is that no identifiers leave the health center and small cells be combined. Weekly files sent on 9 and 16 March held a second tab of record numbers and visit dates, found by the student on 17 March during a routine cross-check and reported within the hour. Two files covering 46 visits stayed in the health center's email and were deleted, confirmed by information security. The aggregate counts were correct and untouched. The cause was a reused internal template. The privacy officer found no reportable breach. A revised template with a checklist now applies, and the committee is asked to accept the fix.
Reading the NR 707A Week 3 grading rubric
Deviation memos lose most when they read as apologies or explanations of someone's mistake, which turns a process issue into a personnel matter. Next is a memo that never states the approved requirement, so the committee cannot see what was departed from. Many memos give no dates, leaving it unclear whether the deviation has stopped. Writers often forget to say whether the measures were affected, which is the committee's first question. Causes described as human error rather than as a process gap lead to fixes that depend on people remembering. A memo closing with no request gives the committee nothing to vote on, so it is filed rather than settled.
Common NR 707A Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Reporting a deviation calmly and precisely is easier with a structure to follow. Starting from the approved document and the dates involved, we can state the requirement, describe what happened instead and count what was affected. We can also help you explain the cause as a process, describe the fix and frame a request the committee can grant. Sharing the draft with your site's privacy officer before sending it often adds a useful attachment. The memo is yours to send. A short, factual memo sent quickly usually earns more trust than a long one sent late.
Get a NR 707A Week 3 example written to your instructions
Forward the rubric, any memo template your section supplies and a short note on what departed from your approved design, and a custom NR 707A Week 3 deviation memo is written to it and returned inside 24-48h at no cost the first time. Dates, counts and the approved wording stay blank for you to fill from your own documents.
More NR 707A papers and DNP samples
- NR 707A Week 1: First Week Post
- NR 707A Week 2: Rollout Narrative
- 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 3: Change Package Outline
- NR 702A Week 3: Setting Description
NR 707A Week 3 questions, answered
Is a deviation memo the same as filing an incident report?
No, and treating them as interchangeable is a real error. This memo is an academic record about a change to an approved project design, written for the committee that approved it. Your organization's own safety and incident processes run on their own forms and their own routes, and nothing written for a classroom substitutes for them or settles whether something belongs in them.
Should the memo defend the original design?
No. The design was argued, approved and graded in an earlier term, and re-opening it here reads as an attempt to avoid reporting. The memo takes the approved design as fixed, records the distance between it and what happened, and asks the committee to decide what to do about that distance. A sentence or two of context is fine; a defense is not.
How many deviations belong in one memo?
Usually one, worked through properly, unless your section asks for a log of several. Departures that share a single cause can travel together, since the reason and the remedy are the same. Unrelated ones packed into one document tend to flatten into a list, and the paragraph that earns most of the marks, the effect on the data, ends up written once for several different effects.
Where can I find a free NR 707A Week 3 sample paper?
You can read the whole protocol deviation memo on a data file that briefly held record numbers right here.
Did the NR 707A Week 3 deviation affect the project's measures?
No; the aggregate counts the project uses were correct, and the second tab with record numbers was never used for any count or analysis.