NR 719 Week 7 Executive Summary Example

Topics in Advanced Practice Leadership II Chamberlain University Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

An executive summary that opens with the recommendation, its cost and the action requested, before any background, is this NR 719 Week 7 sample paper. Chamberlain NR 719 (NR-719), Topics in Advanced Practice Leadership II, has Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) students write the summary a decision maker would read instead of the full report. The sample asks for $12,276 to extend kilogram-only weighing to two emergency departments and for a field to be added to an urgent care record upgrade. It describes the situation as two routines for one task, gives three numbers, prices three options fairly, states the recommendation's risks and ends with dated next steps.

CourseNR 719 Topics in Advanced Practice Leadership II
Week7
Paper typeExecutive summary
LengthAbout 700 words, 5 pages
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolChamberlain University
ProgramDoctor of Nursing Practice (DNP)
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for NR 719 Week 7

1

Executive Summary: Extend Kilogram-Only Pediatric Weighing to the Suburban and Rural Emergency Departments for $12,276 in the First Year

Student Name

College of Nursing, Chamberlain University

NR 719: Topics in Advanced Practice Leadership II

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title carries the recommendation and its cost, so a reader who stops after one line still knows what is being asked.
2

Executive Summary: Extend Kilogram-Only Pediatric Weighing to the Suburban and Rural Emergency Departments for $12,276 in the First Year

Recommendation

Approve $12,276 to extend kilogram-only weighing of children to the system's suburban and rural emergency departments by October 2027, of which $7,120 is one-time and $5,156 a year is recurring, and direct the urgent care medical director to add a kilogram-only weight field to the ambulatory record upgrade requirements by 31 August 2027.

The Situation

Since January 2027, the shared emergency department record has accepted children's weights only in kilograms. At the original 26-bed department, the scales were locked to kilograms at the same time. At the other two departments they were not, so their nurses now weigh children in pounds and convert by hand into a field that refuses pounds. Hand conversion is the error the change was meant to remove: when pounds are entered as kilograms, a weight-based dose is more than twice what was intended. The system is currently running two routines for the same task, and its 31 float nurses move between them. No harm has been reported at the two receiving departments, but the conversion step behind the original department's near misses is now performed there on every child, every shift.

What this page is doingThe situation is written in the terms an executive already uses, exposure and inconsistency across sites, rather than as a clinical narrative.
3

Three Numbers

At the original department, 93.6% of audited pediatric triage records from February to June were weighed in kilograms, against 57.0% beforehand; weights given by parents dropped from 22.0% of records to 3.6%.

At the suburban department in May, hand conversion from pounds appeared in 31 of 50 audited records, with errors above 10% in 4 of them.

The recurring cost of sustaining the change is $5,156 a year, almost all of it two hours a week of coordinator time at the rural department.

Options

Option A, recommended: complete the change at both departments now. Replace the five scales that cannot be locked, fund a coordinator two hours a week at the rural site and use the suburban site's existing coordinator. First-year cost $12,276; after that, $5,156 annually. Removes hand conversion from all three departments within about eight weeks of approval.

Option B: reverse the January field change so all three departments accept pounds again. No equipment cost. Restores the pound option at the original department, where the change is working, and returns the system to the error mode behind the three near-miss reports filed during the twelve months before January.

Option C: wait a year for more data from the original department before deciding. No cost this year. Leaves two departments converting by hand for at least another twelve months, the riskiest of the three positions.

What this page is doingEach option is priced and given its real consequence, so the recommended one wins on comparison rather than by being the only one described.
4

Risks of the Recommendation

The receiving departments have not yet completed readiness assessments, and spread depends heavily on whether a receiving site sees the change as fitting its own needs (Greenhalgh et al., 2004); each will complete an assessment in August, and either may ask for a later start. The rural department's coordinator hours depend on its next operating budget. Results so far come from a single department compared with its own past, so they show practice changed after the locks rather than proving the locks caused it. And nurses at the original department still round weights to whole kilograms about a third of the time, which this recommendation does not fix.

What this page is doingStating the risks of the recommended option in the summary itself, rather than leaving them for the full report, is what lets an executive approve it with confidence.
5

Next Action

If approved at the 12 August 2027 council meeting, purchasing orders the five scales that week, each department's coordinator completes a readiness assessment by 31 August and both departments lock their scales by 1 October. The coordinator will report the first audit from each new site to the council in November 2027.

Basis

The recommendation follows national guidance that emergency departments weigh children in kilograms and record weights in kilograms (Remick et al., 2018), and published evidence that weight errors in emergency departments frequently lead to dosing errors (Hirata et al., 2019). The full outcomes report, the budget justification and the sustainability plan are attached for reference.

References

Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581-629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x

Hirata, K. M., Kang, A. H., Ramirez, G. V., Kimata, C., & Yamamoto, L. G. (2019). Pediatric weight errors and resultant medication dosing errors in the emergency department. Pediatric Emergency Care, 35(9), 637-642. https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0000000000001277

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

Reading the NR 719 Week 7 instructions

Open with the recommendation in one sentence: what is recommended, what it costs and what the reader is being asked to do, before any context. Then describe the situation in terms an executive already uses, such as the problem, its size and the exposure of leaving it alone. Give two or three numbers chosen because they bear on this decision, not every figure you collected. Present options, usually three, with the recommended one marked and the others priced and described fairly, including their real consequences. State the risks of your recommendation in the summary itself. End with the next action, dated, and what the reader will see next. Make the summary stand on its own without the full report, and avoid clinical shorthand or abbreviations an executive would not know.

How the NR 719 Week 7 example is put together

The sample's first sentence asks the council to approve $12,276, split into one-time and recurring costs, and to direct the urgent care medical director to add a field by 31 August. The situation section explains that the shared record refuses pounds while two departments' scales still show them, and that 31 float nurses move between routines. Three numbers follow: 93.6% measured in kilograms at the original site, 31 of 50 hand conversions at the suburban site and $5,156 a year in recurring cost. Options A to C are priced: finish the change, reverse the field or wait a year. Risks include missing readiness assessments, the rural budget and a single-site design. Dated next steps run from the August council meeting to a November report.

Reading the NR 719 Week 7 grading rubric

Burying the recommendation costs the most, and it happens whenever the writer opens with background out of academic habit. Next is submitting an abstract by mistake, a paragraph describing what the paper contains instead of telling the reader what to do. Marks are also lost for a summary that makes no sense without the full report open beside it and for clinical shorthand and abbreviations that mean nothing to an executive. Graders take points for options described unfairly so the recommendation wins by default and for missing dates. Summaries score well when the ask comes first, when the numbers are few and relevant, when every option is priced honestly and when the next action has a date.

NR 719 Week 7 help: mistakes that cost points

Executive summaries reverse the order nurses are trained to write in, putting the conclusion first and the background last. Share your recommendation, its cost, your strongest figures and the alternatives you considered. With those, the summary can open on the ask, set out the situation in executive terms, choose two or three numbers that bear on the decision, price the options fairly and end with a dated next step. Stating the risks of your own recommendation in the summary usually makes approval easier. The recommendation and figures are yours.

Get a NR 719 Week 7 example written to your instructions

Send the assignment page, the page limit your section set, and the report or project material the summary needs to stand on. A writer produces a custom example that leads with the recommendation and holds the limit, back inside 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free.

More NR 719 papers and DNP samples

NR 719 Week 7 questions, answered

Is an executive summary the same as an abstract?

No, and confusing them is the common failure. An abstract describes a document to a reader deciding whether to read it. A summary of this kind carries a recommendation to a reader deciding whether to act. One reports that outcomes were examined; the other states that a program should be funded for another year at a named cost.

How much can go in an appendix?

Anything the decision does not require. Full tables, methods, instruments and detailed costings all belong behind the summary, referenced by a single line. The test is whether the reader could approve or decline having read only the front page. If an appendix is load bearing, something that belonged in the summary was left out.

Who is the imagined reader for this document?

Somebody senior, short of time, and not clinical, which is why the finished example avoids unexpanded abbreviations and explains a clinical term at first use in half a clause. Writing for a chief nursing officer, a finance director and a service line leader at once forces the plain register the assignment rewards.

Where can I find a free NR 719 Week 7 sample paper?

This page holds the full executive summary recommending a $12,276 spread of kilogram-only weighing, with priced options.

What options does the NR 719 Week 7 sample compare?

Finishing the change at both departments, reversing the January field change so pounds return everywhere, or waiting a year for more data.