| Course | NR 716 Analytic Methods |
|---|---|
| Week | 1 |
| Paper type | Discussion post with two replies |
| Length | About 570 words |
| Format | Discussion post with APA 7 citations |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 716 Week 1
Week 1 Discussion: Initial Post
Nerve Blocks for Older Adults With Hip Fracture in Our Emergency Department: Where My Question Sits in the Iowa Model, and Who Has to Say Yes
Initial Post
My question. For adults 65 and older who arrive in our emergency department with a hip fracture, does an ultrasound-guided fascia iliaca block placed soon after the X-ray, added to our usual analgesia, reduce delirium before surgery and the amount of intravenous opioid given, compared with our current practice of intravenous opioid as needed and scheduled acetaminophen?
Why it matters here. Our department sees about 58,000 visits a year. In fiscal year 2026 we admitted 214 adults aged 65 or older with a hip fracture, and 61 of them, 28.5%, screened positive for delirium on the orthopedic unit before surgery. None received a block in the emergency department; about a third received one from anesthesia just before the operation, often a day later.
The model and the step. I am using the Iowa Model, revised in 2017, because it starts from a trigger in the organization and builds in a decision about whether the topic is a priority before any evidence work begins (Iowa Model Collaborative, 2017). Our trigger was a problem-focused one: a cluster of three delirium-related falls on the orthopedic unit last spring, all in patients admitted through our department. The priority question has been answered: the emergency department practice council put the hip fracture pathway on its agenda for revision in March 2027. So I am standing on the step after that, forming a team and then assembling, appraising and synthesizing the body of evidence.
Who Approves, and What Is Pending
Three bodies have to agree. The practice council owns the pathway. The pharmacy and therapeutics committee must approve a local anesthetic order set for the department. And the credentialing committee grants the privilege to place the block; at our hospital that is open to emergency physicians and advanced practice nurses who complete supervised placements, not to staff nurses. I chose Iowa over the Johns Hopkins model, which organizes the work around a practice question, evidence and translation (Dang et al., 2021), partly for this reason: Iowa's pilot step fits a change that needs three committees to agree to a trial before anyone commits to the whole department.
The council meets on 9 March 2027. If the evidence supports it, the decision on the table will be whether to add the block to the pathway for a six-month pilot. If it does not, the pathway will be revised without it.
My question for the group: in your setting, does one body own the change, or do several have to agree? I am finding the credentialing step slower than the evidence work.
Reply to Hannah
Hannah, your question about bedside shift report reaches a decision only if someone can change the handoff policy. Who owns that policy on your unit? If it is the unit council, you can probably skip straight to piloting; if it is a hospital-wide nursing policy, you are a step further back than your post suggests.
Reply to Andre
Andre, you placed your sepsis screening question at the evidence synthesis step, but your post does not say what decision is waiting. If the electronic alert is already being installed next quarter regardless, the evidence is not deciding anything, and your question may be better framed around how the alert is tuned.
References
Dang, D., Dearholt, S. L., Bissett, K., Ascenzi, J., & Whalen, M. (2021). Johns Hopkins evidence-based practice for nurses and healthcare professionals: Model and guidelines (4th ed.). Sigma Theta Tau International.
Iowa Model Collaborative. (2017). Iowa model of evidence-based practice: Revisions and validation. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 14(3), 175-182. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12223
The Chamberlain NR 716 Week 1 instructions
Write one practice question tightly enough that a reader knows the population, the change and the outcome. Then place it: name the model you are using and the specific step your question has reached this week, and explain why you chose that model for a reason about your site, such as how changes get approved there, rather than for the model's reputation. Say who has to approve a change in your setting and what decision is already waiting on the answer, with a date if there is one; a question with nothing pending cannot be located in any model. Avoid touring several frameworks in the abstract. Keep the site description short. End with a question for classmates. In replies, test a classmate's placement claim by asking who owns the decision or what would change if the answer came back either way.
Inside the NR 716 Week 1 example
The sample's first paragraph states the question with its population, block, timing, comparison and two outcomes. A short paragraph gives the local figures: about 58,000 visits a year, 214 older hip fracture admissions and 61 positive delirium screens, with no blocks placed in the department. The model paragraph names the revised Iowa Model, describes the trigger as a cluster of three delirium-related falls and explains that the practice council has already made the topic a priority, so the question stands at the evidence step. The approvals section names the practice council, the pharmacy and therapeutics committee and the credentialing committee, and explains why Iowa's pilot step suits a change needing three approvals. A meeting date and the two possible outcomes follow. Replies question who owns a handoff policy and whether an alert is already being installed.
Reading the NR 716 Week 1 grading rubric
The costliest post is the framework tour: Iowa summarized, Johns Hopkins summarized, a preference announced at the end and no question of the writer's own. Next is a question with no decision attached, which sounds doctoral until someone asks what would change if the answer came back either way. Marks are also lost when a model is named but no step is identified, when the site description runs so long that the post becomes narrative and when the model is chosen for its popularity rather than for how decisions are made at the site. Graders reward posts that say who approves a change and what is pending, and replies that test a classmate's placement instead of agreeing with it.
NR 716 Week 1 help from the desk
Placing a question in a model is harder than describing the model, because it depends on knowing how decisions are actually made where you work. Tell us your question, your setting and who usually approves practice changes there, and we can help you choose a model for a reason about your site, identify the step you have genuinely reached and state the decision that is waiting on the answer. Replies are part of the grade too, so we can show you how to press a classmate on who owns the change. The question and the facts about your setting stay yours throughout.
Get a NR 716 Week 1 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 1 prompt from your classroom and a line on the question you are carrying, and a custom example is written to that prompt and returned inside 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free. Which model your site runs on stays yours to report.
More NR 716 papers and DNP samples
- NR 716 Week 2: PICOT Question Write-up
- NR 716 Week 3: Search Strategy Write-up
- NR 716 Week 4: Evidence Appraisal Table
- NR 716 Week 5: Literature Matrix
- NR 716 Week 6: Critical Appraisal Write-up
- NR 716 Week 7: Evidence Synthesis Paper
- NR 716 Week 8: Practice Recommendation Presentation
- NR 715 Week 1: Testable Belief Post
- NR 714 Week 1: Practice Question Post
- NR 709A Week 1: First Week Post
- NR 702A Week 1: DNP Trouble Post
NR 716 Week 1 questions, answered
Does it matter which model I name?
Yes, though not the way students expect. Marks turn on the fit between the model and the way decisions actually get made where you work, not on the model's reputation. A site with a shared governance council and a monthly agenda suits a different framework than one where a director alters a protocol by email. Say which yours is and the placement argument nearly writes itself.
How much of my own setting belongs in a first post?
Only what bears on the decision. Unit type, who approves a practice change, and how a concern reaches that person are usually enough. Longer descriptions turn an analytic post into a story and push the argument out of it. Keep the employer, the individuals and anything that could identify a patient out of the thread entirely.
Is a doctoral post a longer version of an undergraduate one?
No, and the difference is what gets claimed. A pre-licensure post argues that evidence should guide practice. This one treats that as settled and argues about placement, so the contestable sentence is where a question sits in a model and what decision is waiting on it. Extra length by itself earns very little here.
Where can I find a free NR 716 Week 1 sample paper?
This page holds the full Week 1 post placing a nerve block question for hip fracture at the Iowa Model's evidence step, with two replies.
Why does the NR 716 Week 1 sample name three committees?
The pathway, the anesthetic order set and the privilege to place the block each belong to a different body, so all three decide whether the change can happen.