| Course | NR 721 Topics in Healthcare Systems Leadership II |
|---|---|
| Week | 4 |
| Paper type | Unintended consequence memo |
| Length | About 870 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo with APA 7 citations |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN, Nurse Executive |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 721 Week 4
Memorandum
To: Director of Clinical Engineering; Director of Nursing, Medical Services
From: Nurse Manager, 5 West Medical Unit
Date: 18 October 2027
Re: Telemetry transmitters lost since the discontinuation protocol began: 19 in 14 months, about $44,650, and what I will do by 1 November
The Effect, and How Long I Have Known
Since the nurse-driven telemetry discontinuation protocol began on 5 West on 12 August 2026, telemetry transmitters have gone missing far more often than before. Clinical engineering's asset log records 19 transmitters lost from the unit in the 14 months since, against 2 in the 12 months before. Clinical engineering first raised this with me in February 2027, eight months ago, when the count reached six. I acknowledged it then and did not act, because I expected the rate to settle once staff were used to the protocol. It has not settled, and I should have brought it to you sooner.
The Evidence Already Recorded
The figures come from records that other departments already keep. The asset log shows each transmitter's last scan at a charging station and its status. The 19 lost units were last scanned on 5 West and never returned; 4 were later mailed back by patients' families with a note saying the device had been found in a discharge bag. The purchasing record shows 15 replacement transmitters ordered for the unit since March 2027, at $2,350 each. The central monitoring station's log shows 23 leads-off alarms in September alone for transmitters assigned to patients who had already been discharged, which is how the technicians first noticed boxes leaving with patients.
How the Protocol Produced It
The mechanism is a change in who removes the transmitter and where. Before August 2026, telemetry was stopped by a provider's order, and the monitor technician called the unit to have the box returned, so removal usually happened in one place, with the box going straight back to the charging station. Under the protocol, the bedside nurse removes the box mid-shift, often during a medication pass, and all six charging stations stand in the supply room past the final patient room. In September's removals, the box was scanned back onto a station within an hour in only 23 of 40 cases. A box left on a bedside table is easily packed with a patient's belongings at discharge. The protocol did what it was meant to do, moving the decision to the nurse, and in doing so it moved the box's last stop from the station to the room.
Why It Was Not Foreseen
The protocol was designed around the clinical decision, which criteria justify stopping monitoring, and those criteria came directly from the national monitoring standards (Sandau et al., 2017). The design never treated the transmitter as an object with a route back to its station, because under the old process someone else handled that route. Removing a practice often shifts small, unwritten tasks onto people who were never told they now own them, and those tasks are where unintended effects tend to appear (Norton & Chambers, 2020). Nurses did not create a workaround here; they simply had no step for the box, and the box went where the patient went (Debono et al., 2013).
The Accounting
Table 1
Telemetry Transmitter Losses, 5 West
| Item | Before the protocol, 12 months | Since the protocol, 14 months |
|---|---|---|
| Transmitters lost | 2 | 19 |
| Replacement cost at $2,350 each | $4,700 | $44,650 |
| Transmitters returned by families | 0 | 4 |
| Net cost after returns | $4,700 | $35,250 |
Note. Note. From clinical engineering's asset log and purchasing records. Returned units were cleaned and put back into service.
This is the cost side only. The protocol's benefit, about eight fewer telemetry days per 100 patient-days than before it began, is real and is weighed separately; this memo does not argue that the losses outweigh it. It argues that the losses are a side effect the unit created and can largely remove.
What I Will Do, and By When
I will make three changes, all within the unit's own authority, by 1 November 2027. First, a box return bin will be mounted at the nurses' station, midway along the corridor, so a removed transmitter can be dropped within a few steps of most rooms; clinical engineering has agreed to empty and scan it twice a day. Second, the removal documentation will gain a required line, "transmitter returned to bin or station," which the record team has agreed to add as a single checkbox. Third, the unit's discharge checklist will gain the line "telemetry transmitter removed and returned," checked by the discharging nurse.
What I Need From You
From clinical engineering, I need the twice-daily bin collection and a monthly count of transmitters lost from 5 West. From the Director of Nursing, I need agreement that the discharge checklist change can apply to the whole medical service if it works on 5 West, since float nurses will otherwise learn two checklists.
When I Will Report Back
I will report the November and December loss counts to both of you on 15 January 2028. If losses have not fallen to two or fewer a month by then, I will propose moving the charging stations themselves, which would cost about $1,800 in electrical work.
References
Debono, D. S., Greenfield, D., Travaglia, J. F., Long, J. C., Black, D., Johnson, J., & Braithwaite, J. (2013). Nurses' workarounds in acute healthcare settings: A scoping review. BMC Health Services Research, 13, Article 175. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-175
Norton, W. E., & Chambers, D. A. (2020). Unpacking the complexities of de-implementing inappropriate health interventions. Implementation Science, 15, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0960-9
Sandau, K. E., Funk, M., Auerbach, A., Barsness, G. W., Blum, K., Cvach, M., Lampert, R., May, J. L., McDaniel, G. M., Perez, M. V., Sendelbach, S., Sommargren, C. E., & Wang, P. J. (2017). Update to practice standards for electrocardiographic monitoring in hospital settings: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 136(19), e273-e344. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000527
What the NR 721 Week 4 assignment asks for
Address the memo to a named role and keep it to about a page. Open by identifying the effect in one line and say how long it has been visible to you, including whether you acted on it. Establish that the effect is real by pointing at something already recorded, such as a log, a rota or a queue, rather than at what people say. Explain how your change produced the effect, in terms of a task or step that moved. Give the accounting, the counts and the cost, rather than an extended analysis, and keep the change's benefits in view without arguing they outweigh the cost. Say what you will do, within your own authority, and by when; what you need from the recipients; and the date you will report back with the next figures.
How the NR 721 Week 4 example is put together
The memo header names two directors, the date and a subject line with 19 transmitters, about $44,650 and a 1 November deadline. The opening admits that clinical engineering raised the problem in February and nothing was done. Evidence comes from the asset log, 15 replacement orders and 23 leads-off alarms for discharged patients in September. A section explains that nurses now remove boxes mid-shift far from the charging stations, so boxes stay in rooms and leave with patients. A second section explains that the design never gave the box a route back. A table shows losses, cost, returns and net cost before and after. Three fixes follow: a return bin, a required checkbox and a discharge checklist line, with requests to each director and a report date in January.
Where the points sit in the NR 721 Week 4 rubric
The heaviest loss is a memo written as a discovery, in which an effect visible for months is presented as news and the intervening time goes unmentioned. Costly in a different way is a memo that never says what the writer will do, ending on continued attention, which reads as a report rather than a memo. Marks also go on claims supported only by what people say instead of by something already recorded. Graders take points for an accounting buried in narrative and for no date to report back. Memos score well when they admit how long the writer has known, cite records other departments keep, explain the mechanism, list actions within the writer's authority with dates and commit to a report-back date.
NR 721 Week 4 help: mistakes that cost points
Admitting that you knew about a problem for months before acting is the hardest sentence in this memo, and graders look for it. Share the effect, how long you have known, the records that show it and what you can change yourself, and the memo can open honestly, cite existing records, explain how the change produced the effect and commit to dated actions and a report-back. Keeping the change's benefits in view without using them as an excuse is part of the tone. The effect, the figures and the commitments are yours.
Get a NR 721 Week 4 example written to your instructions
Send the memo template your section publishes and the rubric, plus one effect you have been living with. A custom Week 4 memo comes back inside 24-48h, written from the author's position with the accounting and the return date in place. Nothing is charged for a first example, and we can build the scenario where you would rather not use a real one.
More NR 721 papers and MSN samples
- NR 721 Week 1: Change Aftermath Post
- NR 721 Week 2: Post-Implementation Review
- NR 721 Week 3: Drift Analysis
- NR 721 Week 5: Workaround Case Study
- NR 721 Week 6: Tradeoff Analysis
- NR 721 Week 7: Continue or Stop Recommendation
- NR 721 Week 8: Decision Communication
- NR 529 Week 4: Coaching Conversation Plan
- NR 720 Week 4: Bottleneck Analysis
- NR 531 Week 4: Policy Approval Brief
- NR 711 Week 4: Capital Business Case
NR 721 Week 4 questions, answered
What if the effect is a small one?
Write it anyway and say it is small, with the evidence for the size. A memo reporting a modest effect and a proportionate response demonstrates the judgment being marked, where an inflated one invites the reader to go and check. What weakens the paper is not a minor finding. It is a minor finding written as a crisis.
Do I have to say the change caused it?
You have to take a position, which is not quite the same thing. Say whether the connection is established, likely or possible, and give the reason for whichever you chose. Memos hedging across all three read as unwilling, and memos asserting cause from a single coincidence in timing read as careless.
Who is this memo written to?
Whoever your prompt names, and where it leaves that open, choose the person who could act on the outstanding items. Addressing it upward to an executive when the remaining work sits with a unit manager produces a document nobody can use. Name the role at the top and write to what that role can decide.
Where can I find a free NR 721 Week 4 sample paper?
The complete memo reporting lost telemetry transmitters after a discontinuation protocol, with its fixes, is shown on this page.
How did the protocol in the NR 721 Week 4 sample cause transmitter losses?
Nurses now remove boxes mid-shift far from the charging stations, so boxes are left in rooms and packed with patients' belongings at discharge.