Three of seven NASSS domains rate complex in NU425's Unit 5 analysis of a wearable monitoring pilot that faded on two medical-surgical units without anyone deciding to stop. Searches like "nu 425 unit 5 assignment example", "nu425 unit 5 sample" and "nu425 unit 5 example" land here.
From 88 Percent to 51: A NASSS Analysis of Why a Continuous Monitoring Pilot Faded Without Anyone Stopping It
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU425: Transforming Leadership and Management in Nursing
Unit 5 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Composite hospital and pilot written as a model document. Figures are illustrative.
The Pilot
Adhesive sensors transmitting heart rate, respiratory rate and position every few minutes were placed on patients across 64 medical-surgical beds, funded by a one-year innovation grant. Wear fell from 88 percent of eligible patients in month one to 51 percent in month five. Alerts averaged about 14 per nurse per shift, most triggered by movement. The grant manager who launched the pilot left in month three, and no one was named to replace her.
Why NASSS
The NASSS framework was built to explain nonadoption, abandonment and failure to scale, not only uptake (Greenhalgh et al., 2017). It rates seven domains as simple, complicated or complex, and the more domains that are complex, the less likely a technology is to last.
The Seven Domains
1. Condition: simple. Detecting deterioration on a general ward is well understood.
2. Technology: complicated. The patch worked, but patches removed for showers were often not replaced because spares were stored off the unit.
3. Value proposition: complex. The vendor promised fewer rapid response calls; the hospital had no payment for monitoring and no agreed measure of value.
4. Adopters: complicated. Nurses received about 14 alerts per shift, mostly false; frequent false alarms lead clinicians to tune out alarms, a safety concern of its own (Sendelbach & Funk, 2013). Nurses' removal of patches is treated here as information about the design, not as resistance.
5. Organization: complex. Nobody owned the pilot once the grant manager left: nursing, informatics and the rapid response committee each assumed another did.
6. Wider system: complicated. No external payment or regulation supported continuous monitoring on general wards.
7. Embedding over time: complex. No plan existed for funding after the grant, retraining new staff or adjusting alert thresholds.
What Would Have to Change
The three complex domains come first. Organization: name one owner, likely the nursing director for medical-surgical care, with informatics and the rapid response committee as partners. Value: agree on one measure, such as unplanned transfers to intensive care, and track it. Embedding: before the grant ends, decide whether to fund the patches, and change alert thresholds to cut false alarms. Without an owner, no other change is likely to hold. The simple and complicated domains can wait: moving spare patches onto the unit and adding a shower-replacement step to the care plan are small fixes, but they will not matter if the pilot has no one to decide whether it continues.
References
Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Papoutsi, C., Lynch, J., Hughes, G., A'Court, C., Hinder, S., Fahy, N., Procter, R., & Shaw, S. (2017). Beyond adoption: A new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(11), e367. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8775
Sendelbach, S., & Funk, M. (2013). Alarm fatigue: A patient safety concern. AACN Advanced Critical Care, 24(4), 378-386. https://doi.org/10.4037/NCI.0b013e3182a903f9
How this NU425 Unit 5 example is structured
Outcome comes before device, which is how NASSS is meant to be used: explaining why a technology did or did not stick. Domains are taken in the framework's own order so a reader who knows it can check each rating. Ratings are justified in a sentence and supported with pilot evidence, such as patches removed for showers and never replaced because spares were stored off the unit. Nurses' behavior is treated as information about the design, not as resistance. The organization domain carries the central finding: nobody owned the pilot once the grant ended, since nursing, informatics and the rapid response committee each assumed another did. The value proposition is examined from both sides, the vendor's promise of fewer rapid response calls and the hospital's lack of any payment for monitoring. Recommendations address the complex domains first.
Get an NU425 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Name the technology behind your Unit 5 analysis and say how far adoption has gone; the instructions and rubric complete the request. Applying whichever framework the course assigns, the model analysis locates where adoption breaks down, and it lands within 24-48h. First samples are complimentary. The evidence in your paper remains your own. 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.
NU425 Unit 5 questions, answered
Which adoption framework fits this analysis?
Whichever one the section assigns, if any. Common choices include diffusion of innovations, the technology acceptance model and UTAUT, which explain individual uptake well. The sample uses NASSS because its question was why a pilot faded, and NASSS was built to explain abandonment across organizational and system levels. Whatever the choice, a few sentences on fit belong in the paper.
Does the technology have to be one my hospital actually uses?
Not necessarily. Many sections allow a technology that has been observed, read about or proposed for adoption. The sample's pilot is a composite, built from patterns common in wearable monitoring projects. A real example gives richer evidence, but a well-researched hypothetical can meet the rubric if it stays specific about workflow, ownership and cost.
How technical should the device description be?
Only as technical as the analysis needs. The sample describes what the patch measures, how often it transmits and how long its battery lasts, because those facts explain the alert burden and the replacement problem. Engineering detail beyond that adds length without earning marks. The rubric rewards analysis of adoption, not a product review.