| Course | NU108 Health Professions Transitions |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Communication scenario |
| Length | About 850 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BSN (prelicensure) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU108 Unit 7
Did You Scan Her Band? A Communication Scenario Scripting a Composite Disagreement Between Two Nurses Over a Skipped Barcode Check, Analyzing Each Line Against an Assertive Model and Rewriting It From Start to Finish
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU108: Health Professions Transitions
Unit 7 Communication Scenario
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The nurses and patient are composite; the dialogue is written for analysis, and both versions are fictional.
The Situation
On a busy evening shift, [Kayla], a composite new graduate nurse in her third week on a medical unit, is walking past a patient room when she sees [Dana], a nurse with fifteen years of experience, hanging an IV antibiotic for [Mrs. L.] in bed 12. Unit policy requires a barcode scan of both the identification band and the drug before anything is given. Kayla notices Dana's scanner screen is dark. Mrs. L. is drowsy and was moved from bed 14 an hour ago.
Version One: The Exchange
1. Kayla, from the doorway: "Um, sorry, I don't know if it matters, but is your scanner working?"
2. Dana, without turning: "Battery died. I know her, I've had her all day."
3. Kayla: "Okay. I just thought, maybe, because she got moved?"
4. Dana: "Kayla, I've been doing this longer than you've been alive. It's the right patient."
5. Kayla: "Sorry. Never mind." She walks away.
6. Dana hangs the antibiotic.
Analysis of Version One
Assertive communication means stating a concern clearly and respectfully, with the facts that make it a concern, and asking for a specific action, without either backing down or attacking. Speaking up about safety is often hindered by hierarchy, fear of conflict and uncertainty about whether the concern is valid (Okuyama et al., 2014).
Line 1 opens with an apology and a disclaimer, "I don't know if it matters," which signals that the concern can be dismissed. It also asks about the scanner, not the real issue, which is patient identification.
Line 2 is a reasonable-sounding reason, but it substitutes familiarity for a required check. It also does not answer the concern about the room move, because Kayla has not yet stated it clearly.
Line 3 finally names the important fact, the move, but as a question trailing off with "maybe," so it carries little weight.
Line 4 shifts from the patient to seniority. This is the point where the conversation becomes about the two nurses rather than about Mrs. L.
Line 5 is the critical failure: Kayla withdraws, and the check never happens. Nothing in the exchange was rude enough to call a conflict, yet the outcome is the same as if Kayla had said nothing.
The conversation never became hostile; it simply ended before the patient was protected, which is how most failed speaking-up moments end.
The Model Used for the Rewrite
The rewrite uses a structure taught in team training programs for health care: state the concern, state why it is a concern, and say what you want to happen. Stepped phrases that start with voicing concern and end with calling it a safety issue signal that the speaker will not let the issue drop, and a concern raised twice and still not addressed is taken to the next level (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2023).
Version Two: The Same Conversation, Handled Professionally
1. Kayla steps into the room: "Dana, before you hang that, can I check something with you? Your scanner is dark, and Mrs. L. was moved from bed 14 an hour ago."
2. Dana: "Battery died. I know her, I've had her all day."
3. Kayla: "I believe you. I'm concerned because of the room move. Can we check her band against the label before it goes in? My scanner is charged; it will take thirty seconds."
4. Dana, pausing: "Fine. Go ahead."
5. Kayla scans the wristband and the medication; both match.
6. Dana: "See, it's her."
7. Kayla: "Thanks for letting me check. I'll put your scanner on the charger."
Analysis of Version Two
Line 1 addresses Dana by name, asks for a moment before the action rather than after, and states both facts that make the concern real. Line 3 acknowledges Dana's experience without accepting it as a substitute for the check, names the concern with the word "concerned," and offers a specific action that removes the practical obstacle. If Dana had refused, Kayla's next step would have been to say, "This is a safety issue; I need to involve the charge nurse," as the model directs. Line 7 closes the exchange on a cooperative note, which matters because the two nurses will work together for years.
What This Scenario Shows
Assertive communication protected the patient without damaging the working relationship. Kayla did not need to be right about the patient's identity; she needed the check to happen. Separating the concern from any judgment of Dana's competence is what made it easier for Dana to agree. The nursing code of ethics expects nurses to act when patient safety may be compromised, regardless of the seniority of the colleague involved (American Nurses Association, 2015).
References
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2023). TeamSTEPPS 3.0 pocket guide. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
American Nurses Association. (2015). Code of ethics for nurses with interpretive statements. American Nurses Association.
Okuyama, A., Wagner, C., & Bijnen, B. (2014). Speaking up for patient safety by hospital-based health care professionals: A literature review. BMC Health Services Research, 14, Article 61. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-61
Reading the NU 108 Unit 7 instructions
Unit 7 asks you to write out a tense professional exchange as dialogue, analyze it, and then rewrite it handled well. Prompts usually want a realistic scenario, numbered lines of dialogue, analysis of each speaker's choices against a named communication model, and a revised version from start to finish. Three to four pages is common. Instructors look for a scenario where the stakes involve patient safety or teamwork, analysis that points to specific lines rather than general impressions, and a rewrite that follows the model faithfully while sounding like real people. The rewrite should protect the patient without humiliating the colleague. Supporting the analysis with evidence on speaking up strengthens the paper.
How this NU108 Unit 7 example is built
The scenario sets the unit, the policy on scanning and the room move that makes identification uncertain. Version one gives six numbered lines in which the new nurse apologizes, asks about the scanner rather than the patient, and withdraws after a remark about seniority. The analysis takes the lines one at a time, citing a review of barriers to speaking up, with the highlighted line on how failed speaking-up moments usually end. The model section describes the concern-reason-request structure and stepped phrases for escalation. Version two rewrites the exchange in seven lines, and its analysis explains each change. A closing section links the outcome to the nursing code of ethics.
Where the points sit in the NU108 Unit 7 rubric
Communication scenarios in this course are usually marked on realism, quality of analysis, fidelity to the model, and the professionalism of the rewrite. Realism earns credit when the dialogue sounds like real colleagues under pressure. Analysis is weighted heavily and rewards pointing to specific lines and naming what each choice does to the conversation. Model fidelity points go to rewrites that apply the named structure accurately, including what would happen if the concern were refused. Professionalism is judged on a rewrite that protects the patient and preserves the relationship. Evidence on why people stay silent, cited in APA 7, gives the analysis weight, and numbered dialogue lets a grader point to the exact turn being discussed.
NU108 Unit 7 help from the desk
Scenarios often lose points when the first version is a caricature, with one speaker openly rude, which makes the analysis too easy and the lesson less useful. Another common problem is analysis that summarizes the conversation instead of examining particular lines. Some rewrites are so polished they no longer sound real, or they protect the patient by attacking the colleague. Write a first version where nobody is a villain and the outcome still fails, number every line, explain what each key line does, apply the model step by step in the rewrite, include the next step if the concern is dismissed, and close the conversation on a cooperative note.
Get an NU108 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Is your Unit 7 conflict assigned, or chosen by you? Either way, send the prompt and rubric along with whichever model your section names, such as DESC or CUS. The free first communication scenario scripts, analyzes and revises that exchange to your instructions, and arrives in 24-48h. Its colleagues are all composites. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More NU108 papers and BSN samples
- NU108 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- NU108 Unit 2: Role Profile
- NU108 Unit 3: Study Plan
- NU108 Unit 4: Case Analysis
- NU108 Unit 5: Team Analysis
- NU108 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- NU108 Unit 8: Goal Plan
- NU108 Unit 9: Scope of Practice Brief
- NU108 Unit 10: Final Reflection Paper
- NU104 Unit 7: Lab Value Interpretation
NU108 Unit 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free NU108 Unit 7 sample paper?
You can read the complete NU108 Unit 7 communication scenario here: the situation, the failed exchange, line-by-line analysis, the speaking-up model, the rewritten conversation and its analysis, with three references. Send a scenario from your course and we can script and analyze it.
What model does the NU108 Unit 7 rewrite use?
A team training structure for speaking up: state the concern, explain why it is a concern and ask for a specific action, with stepped phrases that escalate to calling it a safety issue if the concern is not addressed.
Where did the first conversation go wrong?
The new nurse opened with an apology and a disclaimer, asked about the scanner instead of patient identification, and withdrew after the colleague cited her experience, so the check never happened.
What if the colleague had refused in the rewrite?
The new nurse's next step would be to say it is a safety issue and involve the charge nurse, as the model directs. The rewrite notes this even though the colleague agrees.
Why does the rewrite offer a charged scanner?
Offering a quick practical solution removes the obstacle that tempted the colleague to skip the check, making it easier to agree without feeling corrected.