| Course | NR 719 Topics in Advanced Practice Leadership II |
|---|---|
| Week | 4 |
| Paper type | Budget justification |
| Length | About 1,100 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 719 Week 4
Budget Justification for Spreading Kilogram-Only Pediatric Weighing to Two More Emergency Departments: $12,276 in Year One, $5,156 a Year After
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 719: Topics in Advanced Practice Leadership II
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Budget Justification for Spreading Kilogram-Only Pediatric Weighing to Two More Emergency Departments: $12,276 in Year One, $5,156 a Year After
The Total, Stated First
Spreading kilogram-only weighing to the system's 40-bed suburban emergency department and its 14-bed rural critical access emergency department will cost $12,276 in the first year: $7,120 in one-time costs and $5,156 in recurring costs. From the second year, the recurring cost of $5,156 a year continues. The record field change costs nothing further, because it was built once in the emergency department record all three departments share. No savings are claimed against these costs, for reasons given at the end.
Lines Grouped as Finance Groups Them
Table 1
Costs of Spreading Kilogram-Only Weighing to Two Emergency Departments
| Category | Line | Basis | One-time | Recurring per year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equipment | Suburban standing scales, 2 replaced | 2 at $980; third scale locks by menu | $1,960 | $0 |
| Equipment | Suburban chair scale, replaced | 1 at $1,150 | $1,150 | $0 |
| Equipment | Rural chair scale, replaced | 1 at $1,150 | $1,150 | $0 |
| Equipment | Rural infant scale, replaced | 1 at $640; model cannot lock | $640 | $0 |
| Personnel | Coordinator start-up, both sites | 40 hours at $52.50 | $2,100 | $0 |
| Personnel | Rural coordinator duties | 0.05 post, 104 hours at $49.00 | $0 | $5,096 |
| Personnel | Suburban coordinator duties | Absorbed by existing 0.2 coordinator post | $0 | $0 |
| Supplies | Cards and triage signs | First print $120; reprints $60 a year | $120 | $60 |
| Information technology | Kilogram-only field | Built in January in the shared record | $0 | $0 |
| Maintenance | Quarterly lock checks | Absorbed by biomedical engineering visits | $0 | $0 |
| Total | $7,120 | $5,156 |
Note. Note. Rates are each site's loaded hourly rate for a staff registered nurse. Zero lines show which department absorbs the work.
Every line carries a number, its basis and, where it is zero, the department that absorbs it. The equipment prices are from the system's purchasing catalog for June 2027. Personnel is shown as hours and fractions of a post at each site's rate, not by name, so the figures survive a change in who holds each role.
Why Each Line Is the Size It Is
The scale lines follow an inventory taken in June. The suburban department has three standing scales: one current model that locks through a menu and two older models that cannot be locked and are replaced. Its chair scale cannot be locked. The rural department's standing scale locks, but its chair and infant scales cannot. The start-up hours, 20 per site, cover a short readiness assessment, setting the scales, briefing the charge nurses and the first audit; they come from the original department's experience, where the same tasks took about 18 hours. The rural coordinator line is new because the rural department has no pediatric emergency care coordinator, even though the national pediatric readiness recommendations call for one in every department that sees children (Remick et al., 2018); two hours a week covers a monthly audit of 30 records and orientation of new staff. The suburban department already funds a 0.2 coordinator post, and its holder has agreed that the kilogram duties fit inside it.
Recurring Apart From One-Time
The one-time costs, $7,120, buy equipment and set-up and do not recur. The recurring costs, $5,156, are what the system commits to every year the practice continues, and they are almost entirely the rural coordinator's two hours a week. That is the figure that changes next year's base budget, and it is the one the reader should weigh most carefully. Keeping the two apart matters because a request presented only as a one-year total can win approval and then lose its recurring funding in the second budget cycle (Waxman, 2018).
The Source of Funds, Named
The scale replacements, $4,900 together, come from each department's minor equipment budget: $3,110 at the suburban site and $1,790 at the rural site. The start-up hours, $2,100, come from the system nursing quality budget, which funds cross-site improvement work. The rural coordinator's recurring $5,096 comes from the rural department's nursing operating budget, which its director has agreed to request in the next budget cycle. Printing comes from each department's supplies line.
What Moves if Volume Changes
Almost nothing in this budget scales with pediatric visits. The audit size is fixed at 30 records per site per month, so coordinator time does not grow with volume. Printing scales with new staff, not with children. If pediatric volume rose 20% at both sites, the recurring cost would change by less than $20. If the rural department's volume fell sharply, the coordinator hours would still be needed for orientation, so the recurring cost would not fall much either. The budget is therefore stable against volume and sensitive mainly to hourly rates, which rise about 3% a year. At that rate the recurring line would be about $5,310 in the second year and $5,470 in the third, still dominated by the rural coordinator's hours.
Alternatives, Priced
Three cheaper or different options were considered. Reversing the January field change across the shared record would cost nothing in equipment, but it would restore the pound option in all three departments, including the original one, where the measured rate has held above 90%; it would undo a working change to avoid finishing it. Posting laminated conversion charts at each triage desk in the two receiving departments would cost about $30, but it keeps hand conversion as the routine, and hand conversion is the step the suburban audit found wrong 4 times in 31. Replacing every pediatric scale at both sites with the newest model, rather than only those that cannot lock, would cost about $7,500 in equipment instead of $4,900 and buy nothing the cheaper plan does not. The recommended budget is the least expensive option that actually removes the conversion step.
Why No Savings Are Claimed
It would be easy to offset these costs with avoided harm, but the numbers do not support it. The original department filed three weight-related safety reports in the year before the change, all intercepted before harm, and none since; that count cannot be turned into dollars honestly. Any reduction in length of stay or adverse drug events would also be claimed by the system's medication safety program, which already books those savings, so counting them here would count them twice. The case for this spending rests on removing a known error step from two departments, not on a return (Finkler et al., 2013).
References
Finkler, S. A., Jones, C. B., & Kovner, C. T. (2013). Financial management for nurse managers and executives (4th ed.). Elsevier Saunders.
Remick, K., Gausche-Hill, M., Joseph, M. M., Brown, K., Snow, S. K., Wright, J. L., American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Pediatric Emergency Medicine and Section on Surgery, American College of Emergency Physicians Pediatric Emergency Medicine Committee, & Emergency Nurses Association Pediatric Committee. (2018). Pediatric readiness in the emergency department. Pediatrics, 142(5), Article e20182459. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-2459
Waxman, K. T. (2018). Financial and business management for the doctor of nursing practice (2nd ed.). Springer Publishing.
Reading the NR 719 Week 4 instructions
State the total first, with the one-time and recurring parts. Group the lines the way your finance office groups them, such as equipment, personnel, supplies and information technology, and give each line a number, the source of the number and a sentence saying why it is that size. Show personnel as hours or a fraction of a post at a stated rate, not by name, and supplies as unit cost times a volume a reader can check. Where a department absorbs work, show the line at zero and name the department. Keep recurring costs apart from one-time costs, since the reader is deciding next year's base. Name the source of funds for every line. Show what moves if volume changes. Price the alternatives, and say plainly whether you are claiming savings and why.
How the NR 719 Week 4 example is put together
The sample opens with $12,276, split into $7,120 and $5,156, and notes the record change costs nothing further. A table lists ten lines, from two suburban standing scales at $980 each to quarterly lock checks absorbed by biomedical engineering, with a basis for each. A section explains the June scale inventory, the 20 set-up hours per site drawn from the original department's experience and why only the rural site needs new coordinator hours. The recurring section warns that the $5,156 is what changes next year's base. Each cost is assigned to a minor equipment, nursing quality, operating or supplies budget. Three alternatives are priced, including reversing the field change. A volume section and an explanation of why no savings are claimed close the paper.
Reading the NR 719 Week 4 grading rubric
Arithmetic that does not reconcile costs everything else, most often a total that disagrees with the sum of its own lines. Next is a cost described as minimal or absorbed with no numbers underneath, which invites exactly the question you did not prepare for. Marks are also lost for double counting a benefit the organization already books elsewhere and for staff time buried in a narrative with no rate or hours. Graders take points when recurring and one-time costs are mixed together and when no source of funds is named. Justifications score well when every line reconciles, when zero lines name who absorbs the work, when alternatives are priced and when the paper is candid about savings it cannot claim.
NR 719 Week 4 help from the desk
A budget justification is judged line by line, so every figure needs a source and a reason. Share your change, the equipment and staff time it needs, your organization's rates and its budget categories. From those, the justification can lead with the total, group lines the way finance does, separate recurring from one-time costs, name the funding source for each and price the alternatives you considered. Being honest about savings you cannot defend usually strengthens the request rather than weakening it. The figures and the choices behind them come from your own organization.
Get a NR 719 Week 4 example written to your instructions
Send the budget template, workbook or required elements your section posted, plus the resources your change actually consumes. A writer prices it out into a custom example, justification by line, and returns it inside 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free and written against your own instructions.
More NR 719 papers and DNP samples
- NR 719 Week 1: Handover Status Post
- NR 719 Week 2: Spread Position Paper
- NR 719 Week 3: Sustainability Plan
- NR 719 Week 5: Outcomes Evaluation Write-up
- NR 719 Week 6: Dissemination Plan
- NR 719 Week 7: Executive Summary
- NR 719 Week 8: Project Dissemination Presentation
- NR 718 Week 4: Organizational Readiness Assessment
- NR 702A Week 4: Site Agreement Summary
- NR 717 Week 1: Outcome and Cost Post
- NR 705A Week 4: Baseline Description
NR 719 Week 4 questions, answered
Where do I get salary rates if my organization will not share them?
Published wage data by role and region is acceptable when you say that is what you used. The finished example states the source and the assumption in the same sentence, then applies one rate consistently. A defensible public figure carries more weight with a reviewer than an unsourced internal number nobody outside the department can verify.
Should I include a return on investment calculation?
Only if you can show the arithmetic and the assumption behind every input. A conservative avoided cost, clearly labeled and claimed once, strengthens the request. An optimistic return built on a benefit another department already counts weakens it badly, because the first reader who recognizes the double count stops trusting the rest of the numbers.
How much clinical detail belongs in a budget justification?
Enough to explain why a line exists and no more. A reviewer needs to know that the education hours cover forty staff on three shifts, not the pathophysiology behind the protocol. Clinical reasoning belongs in the documents written for clinical readers, and pushing it into a financial document is the surest way to lose a finance audience.
Where can I find a free NR 719 Week 4 sample paper?
This page holds the complete budget justification, line by line, for the two-department spread.
Why does the NR 719 Week 4 sample claim no savings?
Three near misses a year cannot be turned into dollars honestly, and any drug-safety savings are already booked by another program, so counting them would double count.