| Course | NR 711 Fiscal Analysis and Project Management |
|---|---|
| Week | 4 |
| Paper type | Business case |
| Length | About 1,130 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN, Nurse Executive |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 711 Week 4
Business Case: $96,000 From the FY2028 Patient Safety Capital Pool for Video Patient Monitoring on 4 West
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 711: Fiscal Analysis and Project Management
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Business Case: $96,000 From the FY2028 Patient Safety Capital Pool for Video Patient Monitoring on 4 West
The Request
Approve $96,000 from the FY2028 patient safety capital pool for twelve video monitoring cameras and a central station for the 32 beds of 4 West, an adult medical-surgical unit, with go-live on 1 July 2027. Approval also commits operating funds: $15,110 one-time in FY2028 for training and two weeks of parallel running, and recurring costs of $119,520 in FY2028, $131,650 in FY2029 and $133,337 in FY2030, for the software license, hardware service and the unit's half share of a monitor technician. The full three-year cost is $495,617. The medical-surgical nursing director signs the request; approval would come jointly from the hospital's chief nurse executive and its finance vice president.
What This Request Is Competing With
The pool holds $260,000 for FY2028, and four requests are in front of the committee. Their sum is $271,400, so at least one will not be funded this cycle.
Table 1
Requests Before the FY2028 Patient Safety Capital Pool
| Request | Capital | Recurring per year | Dated obligation | What it buys |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Video monitoring, 4 West | Replaces about 6,930 sitter hours a year | $96,000 | $119,520 rising to $133,337 | None |
| Ceiling lifts, two bariatric rooms | Fewer staff lifting injuries | $58,000 | $2,400 | None |
| Emergency department behavioral health safe room | One ligature-resistant room for patients awaiting placement | $88,000 | $0 | None |
| Bladder scanners, three units | Replaces devices before support ends | $29,400 | $1,800 | Support ends March 2029 |
Note. Note. Capital totals $271,400 against a pool of $260,000. Figures from each request as submitted.
Read honestly, the lifts and the safe room are strong. Staff on 4 West and 5 West reported four lifting injuries with bariatric patients last year, and the hospital's workers' compensation cost for them was about $61,000; two lifts with a service cost of $2,400 a year would pay back on avoided claims alone if they prevented one injury of that kind. The safe room has no financial return and does not need one; two emergency department patients last year waited more than ten hours in an unprotected room. Neither of those should lose to this request. The scanners are the only request whose timing could move, because their manufacturer supports them until March 2029, which leaves a full cycle before they become a risk.
So the real choice in front of the committee is this: funding video monitoring means the bladder scanners wait one year. Funding the scanners now and video monitoring next year leaves $84,600 of the pool unspent this cycle and postpones the sitter savings by twelve months.
Why Last Year's Request Lost, and What Changed
The same request lost last cycle to eight ICU infusion pumps whose manufacturer support ended on a fixed date. The committee was right, and its reason was not only the date. The unit could not show that its sitter patients could be covered by cameras, so the savings that were supposed to cover the recurring cost were a projection with nothing under it. Since then the unit has audited every sitter order for three months. Of 15,476 sitter hours used last fiscal year, 56% were ordered for patients whose reason for one-to-one observation was confusion or fall risk without any risk of self-harm, the group that video monitoring is designed to cover. Patients at risk of harming themselves, about a third of sitter hours, stay with an in-person sitter under any version of this plan.
Converting the Benefit Into Money
The unit expects cameras to replace 80% of the eligible hours, leaving room for patients or families who decline a camera and for days when all twelve are in use. That is about 6,930 hours a year. At the loaded sitter rate, which rises 3% a year from $26.27 in FY2028, the hours are worth $182,051 in FY2028, $187,457 in FY2029 and $193,139 in FY2030, a total of $562,647. Published programs have reported sitter reductions of this order and larger after moving to remote monitoring (Burtson & Vento, 2015; Sosa et al., 2024), but this case rests on the unit's own audit rather than on their results.
Falls are not counted in the return. The unit had 11 falls with injury last year, and a fall with injury adds substantial cost to a hospital stay (Spetz et al., 2015), but the unit has no way yet to say how many of those falls cameras would have prevented. Leaving them out keeps the case conservative. If cameras prevent even one injurious fall a year, the return is understated.
The Exhibit
Table 2
Cost and Return of Video Monitoring on 4 West, FY2028 to FY2030
| Line | Three years | FY2028 | FY2029 | FY2030 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capital, cameras and station | $96,000 | $96,000 | $0 | $0 |
| One-time operating, training and parallel running | $15,110 | $15,110 | $0 | $0 |
| Recurring operating | $384,507 | $119,520 | $131,650 | $133,337 |
| All costs | $495,617 | $230,630 | $131,650 | $133,337 |
| Sitter hours avoided, valued | $562,647 | $182,051 | $187,457 | $193,139 |
| Net | +$67,030 | -$48,579 | +$55,807 | +$59,802 |
Note. Note. Costs from the unit's three-year costing sheet; returns from the sitter audit at 6,930 hours a year.
First Year Is Not the Commitment
The first year loses $48,579, because the purchase and the training land in it while savings build. A reader who sees only the first-year column would refuse this request, and a reader who sees only the recurring savings would overstate it. The commitment is the three-year column: $495,617 spent and $562,647 returned, a net gain of $67,030. The cumulative balance turns positive in the 23rd month, in May 2029. After FY2030 the purchase is behind the hospital, and the program either keeps returning about $60,000 a year or should be stopped.
What Could Change the Figures
Two dependencies are named so that the committee can weigh them. The monitor technician is shared with 5 West; if 5 West withdrew, the technician line would double to about $210,000 a year and the net would turn negative. And the savings depend on nurses using the eligibility protocol every day, which the morning sitter review has shown they can do but which needs a named owner after go-live (Waxman, 2018).
What the Committee Gets for Saying Yes
Saying yes to this request rather than to the scanners buys a program that pays for itself within two years, on figures the unit has measured, and delays a replacement that can safely wait one cycle. Saying yes to the scanners instead buys devices a year early and leaves $84,600 unallocated. The ask sits inside the pool: with video monitoring, the lifts and the safe room funded, $18,000 remains.
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
Sosa, M. A., Soares, M., Patel, S., Trujillo, K., Ashley, D., Smith, E., Shukla, B., Parekh, D., Ferreira, T., & Gershengorn, H. B. (2024). The impact of adding a 2-way video monitoring system on falls and costs for high-risk inpatients. Journal of Patient Safety, 20(3), 186-191. https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001197
Spetz, J., Brown, D. S., & Aydin, C. (2015). The economics of preventing hospital falls: Demonstrating ROI through a simple model. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 45(1), 50-57. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000154
Waxman, K. T. (2018). Financial and business management for the doctor of nursing practice (2nd ed.). Springer Publishing.
Reading the NR 711 Week 4 instructions
Open with a request someone could approve as written: the amount, the pool it comes from, the start date and who signs. Within the first page, list the other requests competing for the same money, each with its capital and recurring cost, and say honestly which are strong. Identify the one request yours would actually displace. Convert the main benefit into dollars using your organization's own data, and leave out any benefit you cannot measure, saying that you have done so. Put the financial figures in one exhibit with first-year and later-year columns kept separate, and check that every number in your prose appears identically in the exhibit. Name the dependencies that would change the result. Close by telling the reader what saying yes to your request gains compared with saying yes to its rival, and confirm that the ask fits inside the pool.
How this NR 711 Week 4 example is built
The sample's first section states the $96,000 capital ask, the $15,110 of one-time operating funds and three years of recurring cost, totaling $495,617. A rival table follows: lifts at $58,000, a behavioral health safe room at $88,000 and scanners at $29,400 against a $260,000 pool, so one must wait. The paper concedes the lifts and safe room should not lose, and shows the scanners' support runs until March 2029. It then explains why last year's request failed and reports a three-month audit finding 56% of sitter hours were camera-eligible. Avoided sitter hours are valued year by year with a 3% wage rise, and falls are named but left out of the return. The exhibit, the payback month, two dependencies and a closing comparison of the two possible yeses follow.
NR 711 Week 4 rubric: what full points look like
Graders take the most for a case argued against nobody. A proposal with a total and no competing claim cannot be ranked, and the reader has a limited pool to rank before deciding. Next comes the figure that differs between the narrative and the exhibit, which is marked as an error because anyone can settle it with a subtraction. A benefit left in minutes or satisfaction, never turned into money, makes the comparison one-sided and costs heavily. Points also go for a first-year view presented as the whole commitment, for an ask larger than the pool it names and for dependencies left unspoken. Cases score well when the rivals are priced fairly, the measured benefit stands apart from the hopeful one and the closing compares two specific choices.
NR 711 Week 4 help from the desk
The rival section is where most business cases stall, because writers rarely know what else is queued for the money. Tell us your request, the pool and whatever you know about competing asks, and we can help you price the rivals fairly, convert your main benefit into dollars from your unit's data and build an exhibit that matches your narrative line for line. The closing can then be shaped to set two real decisions against each other. The request, the audit figures and the recommendation are yours; we help the case show its arithmetic.
Get a NR 711 Week 4 example written to your instructions
Send the rubric, any required exhibit list, and the proposal you want argued. A custom business case is returned inside 24-48h with a priced comparison set already built into it, and the first one is free. If the idea is still vague, send the problem instead and the ask comes back shaped and costed, with the rivals it has to beat named beside it.
More NR 711 papers and MSN samples
- NR 711 Week 1: Competing Requests Post
- NR 711 Week 2: Three-Year Cost Analysis
- NR 711 Week 3: Operating Budget Draft
- 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 4: Power and Politics Memo
- NR 670 Week 4: Evidence Portfolio Piece
- NR 529 Week 4: Coaching Conversation Plan
- NR 632 Week 4: Process Measure Summary
NR 711 Week 4 questions, answered
Where do I find rival proposals if I do not sit on the committee?
Construct plausible ones and label them as constructed. Two other things the same fund could buy, each with a figure and a stated benefit, do everything the assignment needs, and nobody expects a student to hold a real ranked list. What sections mark is whether your recommendation still reads as the better answer once something credible was standing next to it.
Should the case include doing nothing?
Mention it in a line and move on, because this course puts its weight elsewhere. Carrying on unchanged is one option among several, and the marks here sit in the comparison between things that would actually be bought with the money. A case spending a page on inaction and none on the competing request has weighted its argument backwards.
Does the exhibit go in an appendix?
Put it where the reader hits it early, usually inside the first page or two. An exhibit parked at the back means the argument has to be believed before it can be checked, and a reader deciding between three requests will not turn to the back of all three. Keep the supporting working behind, and the comparison in front.
Where can I find a free NR 711 Week 4 sample paper?
This page shows a complete capital business case for video monitoring, with its rival requests, benefit conversion and three-year exhibit.
Why does the NR 711 Week 4 business case leave falls out of the return?
The unit could not yet say how many falls cameras would prevent, so counting them would have inflated a case that already pays back on sitter hours alone.