Video monitoring dominates current fall prevention, and a costlier option runs $18,255 per fall with injury avoided, in an NU513 Unit 8 economic evaluation memo. Searches like "nu 513 unit 8 assignment example", "nu513 unit 8 sample" and "nu513 unit 8 example" land here.
What a finished NU513 Unit 8 economic evaluation memo looks like
A four-page memo with one results table and a sensitivity box. The bottom line comes first: adopt video monitoring, which costs less than current practice and avoids more injuries under the base assumptions, and treat the more intensive option as a question of willingness to pay. The methods paragraph states the perspective, the hospital's, over one year, with falls with injury as the outcome and a bracketed $13,900 as the hospital's added cost per injury. In the table, each option carries its total annual cost and expected injuries: current practice $406,895 with 12.0; video monitoring $344,083 with 9.5; video plus scheduled toileting rounds $389,722 with 7.0. The ratio for the third option against the second is $18,255 per fall with injury avoided. Two sensitivity tests and a recommendation follow.
How a NU513 Unit 8 example is structured
The memo follows incremental logic, and that order is its main teaching. Options are ranked by cost before any ratio is computed. Video monitoring costs $62,812 less than current practice and prevents 2.5 more injuries, so it dominates, and no ratio is needed for it; the memo explains why a ratio against a dominated option would mislead. The combined option is then compared with video monitoring, the next best, not with current practice: $45,639 more for 2.5 more injuries avoided. That ratio exceeds the hospital's cost per injury, so the combined option does not pay for itself, and the memo frames the decision as how much the organization will pay to avoid harm its accounts undervalue. Sensitivity follows. Weaker video effects leave it cheaper than current practice; a smaller cut in sitter hours reverses that, the assumption a pilot must test.
Recommendation first
Adopt video monitoring; decide separately whether an avoided injury is worth $18,255 to the organization. The committee's two decisions are named.
Perspective, horizon, outcome
The hospital's costs over one year, falls with injury as the measure of harm, and a bracketed $13,900 added cost per injury from the finance office.
Three options, ranked by cost
Totals of $344,083, $389,722 and $406,895 with expected injuries of 9.5, 7.0 and 12.0, set in a single table before any ratio.
A dominated comparator
Current practice costs more and harms more than video monitoring, so video needs no ratio, and comparing the third option with current practice would mislead.
Eighteen thousand per injury avoided
$45,639 for 2.5 more avoided injuries, set beside the hospital's treatment cost and the harm to patients that cost omits.
The assumption a pilot must test
If sitter hours fall only 20 percent, video costs $45,231 more than current practice. A three-month pilot measures that figure first.
Where marks go in NU513 Unit 8
Economic evaluation memos are marked on method, and the incremental logic is where most papers lose ground. Computing each option's ratio against doing nothing, or ignoring dominance, produces figures that look precise and answer the wrong question. A strong memo ranks options by cost, removes dominated ones and compares each remaining option with the next best, as this one does. Stating perspective, time horizon and outcome measure early earns credit because every result depends on them. Treatment cost used as a threshold should be labeled for what it is, the hospital's accounting of harm rather than harm's full value. Sensitivity analysis is expected, and the most useful kind identifies the assumption that changes the decision. Memo format matters: a recommendation in the first lines, one clear table and language a safety committee can act on without an economist present.
Get a NU513 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Start from your Unit 8 program and its comparator, plus any cost and outcome figures supplied by your section, then attach the prompt and rubric. A model evaluation memo with the ratios computed and explained comes back inside 24-48h, and the first request is free. Choosing and defending your own program remains your part.
NU513 Unit 8 questions, answered
What is an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio?
It is the extra cost of one option compared with another, divided by the extra benefit it produces, such as injuries avoided or quality-adjusted life years gained. The comparison should be with the next best option that is not dominated. In the sample, the combined program costs $45,639 more than video monitoring alone and avoids 2.5 more injuries, giving $18,255 per injury avoided.
Do I need quality-adjusted life years?
Not usually in a nursing finance course. A natural outcome unit, such as falls with injury, infections or readmissions avoided, is easier to measure and easier for a committee to understand. Some sections ask for QALYs or cite studies that use them; if yours does, explain the measure briefly. The sample uses falls with injury because the unit already counts them.
Where do the cost figures come from?
Program costs come from vendor quotes and staffing rates; harm costs typically come from the hospital's finance office or published studies. The sample brackets its figures as composite. If you cite a published cost per fall or infection, give its source and year and adjust for inflation where your section expects it. Unsourced figures weaken every ratio built on them.