| Course | NU144CL Medical-Surgical Nursing II Clinical |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Competency self-evaluation |
| Length | About 580 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BSN (prelicensure) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU144CL Unit 9
Rated From the Floor, Not From Memory: A Medical-Surgical Competency Self-Evaluation Across Six QSEN Areas, Each Rating Tied to One Dated Incident and Two Rated Lower With a Plan
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU144CL: Medical-Surgical Nursing II Clinical
Unit 9 Competency Self-Evaluation
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The student, incidents and rating scale are composite; competency wording is paraphrased from the QSEN framework rather than copied from any program's tool, and the instructor's column is left blank because it belongs to the instructor.
Scale Used
Rating scale as given in the composite course tool: 1 = needs direct guidance, 2 = needs frequent cues, 3 = meets expectations with occasional cues, 4 = meets expectations independently. Competency areas follow the six QSEN competencies for prelicensure nursing (Cronenwett et al., 2007).
Self-Evaluation
1. Patient-centered care. Self-rating: 4. Incident, [date, week 3]: a man with a new colostomy refused teaching; I asked what he was most worried about, which was smell at work, and started there. He emptied the pouch himself by day two. Instructor rating: ______
2. Teamwork and collaboration. Self-rating: 3. Incident, [date, week 6]: I delegated a walk to the nursing assistant with a pain limit to report; when no report came by the agreed time, I followed up rather than assuming it went well, and found the patient had refused and needed a different plan. Delegation includes the follow-up, not only the handover (National Council of State Boards of Nursing, 2016). Instructor rating: ______
3. Evidence-based practice. Self-rating: 3. Incident, [date, week 7]: I found and appraised two trials on abdominal binders for a patient after open colectomy and brought a summary to my nurse before suggesting it. Instructor rating: ______
4. Quality improvement. Self-rating: 2. Incident, [date, week 5]: I noticed three patients on my assignments had pain reassessments charted late after as-needed opioids, but I mentioned it only in passing and did not look at whether it was a unit pattern. Instructor rating: ______
5. Safety. Self-rating: 4. Incident, [date, week 4]: I paused a titrated diltiazem infusion check when the heart rate crossed [110] after a titration, reported to my nurse within two minutes and rechecked as ordered. Instructor rating: ______
6. Informatics. Self-rating: 2. Incident, [date, week 8]: I documented a wound under the wrong flowsheet section and only found it when my nurse could not locate it; I also rely on paper notes and chart in batches. Instructor rating: ______
A 4 with an incident is worth more than a 4 with an adjective, and a 2 with a plan is worth more than a 3 I cannot show.
Why Two Areas Are Rated Lower
Quality improvement: I can spot a problem in my own patients, but I have not yet treated a pattern as something to measure or raise with the unit. Informatics: my documentation is accurate but late and sometimes in the wrong place, which makes it harder for others to find, and charting at the bedside is a safety habit as much as a technical one (Potter et al., 2023).
Goals for the Next Rotation
Quality improvement: for one shift a week, track one process measure on my assignment, such as on-time pain reassessment, and bring the count to post-conference. Informatics: chart assessments in the room within thirty minutes, and ask my nurse to show me the flowsheet sections for wounds and lines on my first day.
Signatures
Student signature: ______ Date: ______ Instructor signature: ______ Date: ______ Instructor comments: ______
References
Cronenwett, L., Sherwood, G., Barnsteiner, J., Disch, J., Johnson, J., Mitchell, P., Sullivan, D. T., & Warren, J. (2007). Quality and safety education for nurses. Nursing Outlook, 55(3), 122-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2007.02.006
National Council of State Boards of Nursing. (2016). National guidelines for nursing delegation. Journal of Nursing Regulation, 7(1), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2155-8256(16)31035-3
Potter, P. A., Perry, A. G., Stockert, P. A., & Hall, A. M. (2023). Fundamentals of nursing (11th ed.). Elsevier.
What the NU144CL Unit 9 assignment asks for
Late in a clinical course, often at Unit 9, students rate their own performance against the program's competencies before the instructor's final evaluation. Prompts usually ask for a rating in each area, evidence from specific clinical experiences and goals for areas that need growth. Many programs organize competencies around the QSEN framework. Instructors look for ratings supported by incidents rather than adjectives, for honesty about weaker areas and for goals that could be observed on the next rotation. The instructor's portion of the form is not completed by the student. Self-evaluations are usually two to three pages, with any framework or standard cited in APA 7.
How the NU 144CL Unit 9 example is put together
The sample states the rating scale and the framework first, citing the original QSEN paper. Six numbered entries follow, each with a self-rating, an incident from a bracketed date and a blank instructor rating. The teamwork entry cites the delegation guidelines for following up a delegated task. A highlighted line explains why evidence matters more than a high number. A short section explains the two lower ratings, with a fundamentals text supporting bedside charting. Goals for the next rotation give one action for each lower area, and the signature block is left empty. Margin notes point out the incident pattern, the honest low ratings and the size of the goals.
Reading the NU144CL Unit 9 grading rubric
Self-evaluation rubrics in NU 144CL generally award points for completeness across competencies, quality of evidence, accuracy of self-assessment, goal setting and professional presentation. Completeness points require a rating and incident for every area. Evidence points go to specific, dated incidents an instructor could recall or verify. Accuracy points reward ratings that match the evidence, including lower ratings where the evidence is thin. Goal points depend on actions that are small, measurable and tied to the weaker areas. Presentation points cover the form left intact for the instructor and correct citation of the framework. An evaluation with only top ratings and no incidents usually scores poorly, because it gives the instructor nothing to agree or disagree with.
Common NU144CL Unit 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Self-evaluations often lose points with ratings supported only by adjectives, such as "very organized." Another common problem is rating every area at the top, which suggests poor self-awareness rather than strong performance. Some students describe incidents too vaguely to check, or fill in the instructor's column. Others set goals such as "improve documentation" with no action attached. For each area, pick one incident with a date, describe what you did, choose the rating it supports and be willing to rate an area lower. For each lower area, write a single goal your next instructor could watch you meet. Leave the instructor's side of the form untouched. If an incident involved a mistake, describe what you did next, since recovery is part of competence.
Get an NU144CL Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Send the self-evaluation form from your program, its rubric, and brief general notes on incidents that might serve as evidence. The model completes the writer's side for a composite student and leaves the instructor's side blank. Ratings and incidents on your own form come from you alone. First custom sample free; 24-48h. 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 NU144CL papers and BSN samples
- NU144CL Unit 1: Clinical Criteria Discussion Post
- NU144CL Unit 2: Four-Patient Shift Plan
- NU144CL Unit 3: Tracheostomy Patient Workup
- NU144CL Unit 4: Delegation Write-Up
- NU144CL Unit 5: Clinical Journal Reflection
- NU144CL Unit 6: Deterioration Write-Up
- NU144CL Unit 7: Abdominal Binder Evidence Case
- NU144CL Unit 8: Post-Conference Ethics Post
- NU144CL Unit 10: Transition to Practice Reflection
- NU144 Unit 9: Comfort Care Plan
- NU143CL Unit 9: Post-Conference Post
- NU143 Unit 9: Concept Map
- NU142CL Unit 9: Post-Conference Post
NU144CL Unit 9 questions, answered
Where can I find a free NU144CL Unit 9 sample paper?
The full NU144CL Unit 9 competency self-evaluation is on this page, rating six QSEN areas for a composite student with one dated incident each, two lower ratings explained, goals and three sources. We can help you match incidents from your rotation to each area.
What are the six QSEN competencies?
They cover care centered on the patient, working in teams, using evidence, improving quality, keeping patients safe and using information technology, each defined for prelicensure students.
Should I rate myself lower in some areas?
If your evidence supports it, yes. Honest lower ratings with reasons and plans show self-awareness, which instructors often value more than uniformly high scores.
What counts as evidence in the NU144CL Unit 9 self-evaluation?
A specific incident from a dated shift showing the competency in action, described briefly enough that the instructor could recall or confirm it.
Do I fill in the instructor's section?
No. The instructor's ratings, comments and signature belong to their evaluation, so the student leaves those parts blank.