| Course | NR 711 Fiscal Analysis and Project Management |
|---|---|
| Week | 1 |
| Paper type | Discussion post with two replies |
| Length | About 660 words |
| Format | Discussion post with APA 7 citations |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN, Nurse Executive |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 711 Week 1
Week 1 Discussion: Initial Post
Our Video Monitoring Request Lost to Eight ICU Infusion Pumps, and the Committee Was Right
Initial Post
The pair: last April, our 32-bed medical-surgical unit asked for a video patient monitoring system, and the last money in the hospital's patient safety capital pool went to eight replacement smart infusion pumps for the ICU instead.
Our ask. Twelve portable cameras, a central monitoring station, installation and network work: $96,000 in year one. Every year after: a software license of $14,400, rising about 4% a year, and half the cost of a monitor technician watching the screens around the clock, which the finance office priced at $105,120 a year for our share. The case for it rested on cutting the unit's one-to-one sitter hours, which cost $394,638 last fiscal year. Hospitals that moved to video monitoring have reported large drops in sitter use (Burtson & Vento, 2015), and we projected a 50% cut on our unit.
Their ask. Eight smart pumps with the drug library software: $71,200 in year one. Every year after: a service contract of $4,800. The manufacturer of the ICU's existing pumps ends support and drug library updates on 31 December 2026.
Who signed. The chief nursing officer and the vice president of finance, from a pool that had $100,000 left when both requests reached the last meeting.
Why theirs cleared the line, in the decider's words. The pumps replace equipment that will stop receiving safety updates on a known date, so not buying them creates a risk the hospital would carry on every infusion in the ICU from 1 January. Their recurring cost is small and certain. Ours was the reverse: a modest purchase price with a recurring cost larger than the purchase every single year, justified by savings the unit had not yet shown it could produce. Capital budgets weigh the full life cost of an asset, not its price tag (Finkler et al., 2019), and on that basis our request asked the hospital to commit about $120,000 a year on a projection.
I would have made the same call. We had sitter-hour data, but no evidence that our sitter orders could be replaced by cameras, because nobody had audited which of our sitter patients would have been eligible. Nurse leaders are expected to argue requests in the terms of the people who allocate money (Penner, 2017), and we argued ours in terms of falls and staff relief, which are real but are not what decided it.
What we are doing instead: auditing every sitter order for three months to count how many patients a camera could safely have covered. If it is fewer than about 40%, the savings do not cover the recurring cost, and we will not resubmit.
My question for the group, and I would like you to argue it: if the pumps had cost the same as our cameras, with the same recurring cost, would ours have won? I think the answer is still no, because the pumps had a date attached, and I am curious whether, in anyone's experience, a request has ever beaten a dated obligation.
Reply to Jasmine
Jasmine, your unit's request for four extra education hours per nurse lost to a hospital-wide charting upgrade. Can you put figures on both? Four hours for about 60 nurses at an average loaded rate near $48 is roughly $11,500 a year, every year. If the charting upgrade was a one-time cost with a vendor deadline, I suspect it won on the date, as the pumps did, not on importance.
Reply to Tyler
Tyler, you said the second bladder scanner was "cheap", at $9,800. What did it lose to, and what is the service cost after year one? If the winner had a recurring cost and yours did not, that is worth naming, because a request that is cheap once and cheap forever is rare and should be easy to argue next cycle.
References
Burtson, P. L., & Vento, L. (2015). Sitter reduction through mobile video monitoring: A nurse-driven sitter protocol and administrative oversight. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 45(7/8), 363-369. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000216
Finkler, S. A., Smith, D. L., & Calabrese, T. D. (2019). Financial management for public, health, and not-for-profit organizations (6th ed.). CQ Press.
Penner, S. J. (2017). Economics and financial management for nurses and nurse leaders (3rd ed.). Springer Publishing.
NR 711 Week 1 instructions, in plain terms
The prompt wants a pair, not a grievance. Name something your unit asked for and name what the same money went to instead, with both described the way a finance reader would describe them: what each costs in its first year, what each costs every year after and who signed off. Keep the post near four hundred words. Explain why one request read as stronger, and write that reason as the person holding the money would have put it, even when the reason went against you. Avoid arguing that nursing was treated unfairly; the course is about choices made under a limit. Close with a question that classmates can argue from their own pairs. In each reply, take a different pair from the classmate's post and run the same comparison on it, adding figures the classmate left out, so the reply tests the argument rather than agreeing with it.
How this NR 711 Week 1 example is built
The opening sentence names the pair: twelve cameras and a monitoring station for a 32-bed unit against eight smart pumps for the ICU, with $100,000 left in the pool. The cameras cost $96,000 in year one and then a license of $14,400 plus a technician share of $105,120 every year. The pumps cost $71,200 and then $4,800 a year, and their manufacturer ends drug library updates on 31 December 2026. The post states the pumps' advantage as a dated risk with a small, certain tail, and admits the unit had never shown its sitter patients could be covered by cameras. It ends with a three-month sitter order audit and a 40% threshold for resubmitting. One reply prices a classmate's education hours at about $11,500 a year; the other asks what a $9,800 scanner lost to.
Where the points sit in the NR 711 Week 1 rubric
Points in the first week go first to having two requests on the page. A post describing one unmet need describes a shortage, and the discussion is about a decision between uses of money. Next comes the presence of figures: two asks compared on how important they feel cannot be ranked by anyone, so each needs a year-one cost and a recurring cost. Graders then look at whose reasoning the post uses. A post that treats the refusal as a mistake loses ground, while one that states the winner's case in the decider's terms shows the writer can read a budget decision from the other chair. Replies earn their share only when they introduce a new pair or a missing figure; a reply that agrees and extends gets little. Citations count when they support a point about how capital is weighed, not when they decorate the opening.
NR 711 Week 1 help: mistakes that cost points
Most nurses can name what their unit asked for, but few have the numbers for what won instead. If you can tell us the request, roughly what it cost and what the money went to, we can help you find or estimate a first-year and recurring figure for each side and write the winner's reason in the words a finance officer would use. We can also help you choose a question that will draw real argument from classmates. The pair and the figures you settle on are your own, and so is the judgment about who was right.
Get a NR 711 Week 1 example written to your instructions
Send whatever your classroom posted for week one, including its rules on length and replies, and a custom example is written to it and returned inside 24-48h, the first one free. Real dollar figures off your employer's statements stay with your employer; what comes back runs on published rates and clearly flagged stand-ins you can swap.
More NR 711 papers and MSN samples
- NR 711 Week 2: Cost Analysis
- NR 711 Week 3: Operating Budget Draft
- NR 711 Week 4: Business Case
- NR 711 Week 5: Variance Write-up
- NR 711 Week 6: Project Scope Statement
- NR 711 Week 7: Risk Register
- NR 711 Week 8: Funding Recommendation
- NR 703 Week 1: Organizational Oddity Post
- NR 670 Week 1: Leadership Occasion Post
- NR 529 Week 1: Discussion on Refusing a Request
- NR 632 Week 1: First Days in Figures
NR 711 Week 1 questions, answered
Do I need my employer's real budget for this post?
Not for this one, and few sections expect it. A described unit with figures you label as estimates carries the argument perfectly well, because what is being marked is whether you can set two asks against one limit and defend an order. Regional pay data and a supplier's published price list are enough to make both sides of the pair checkable by a reader.
What if my unit never refuses anything openly?
Then look at what was requested and quietly never appeared. A capital form that went in two cycles ago and has not come back is a refusal with better manners. Education hours cut from a schedule, a vacancy held open, a supply switched for a cheaper version: each is money moved toward something else, and each gives the post a pair to work with.
Can I use an ask that was eventually funded?
Yes, provided you say what waited while it was paid for. A funded request is only interesting here once the queue behind it is visible, so name the item that slipped to the next cycle and the reason it could wait. Sections reward the sentence that shows one decision having two consequences rather than one.
Where can I find a free NR 711 Week 1 sample paper?
This page carries a full Week 1 post comparing a video monitoring request with the ICU pumps that won the money, followed by two replies.
Why does the NR 711 Week 1 post agree with the decision that went against the unit?
Because the pumps had a support end date and a small recurring cost, while the camera request rested on savings the unit had not yet measured.