Four questions, one from the project and three from site leaders, organize NU603's Unit 2 evaluation plan, each tied to outcome, process or balancing measures defined in advance. Searches like "nu 603 unit 2 assignment example", "nu603 unit 2 sample" and "nu603 unit 2 example" land here.
Four Questions, Four Rows: An Evaluation Plan for the New Pre-Admission Fasting Call, Fixed Before the Data Arrive
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU603: Evaluating and Disseminating Principles of Advanced Nursing Practice - Clinical
Unit 2 Evaluation Plan
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The site, volumes and thresholds are composite and bracketed; the quality improvement determination line is left for the writer and site.
Purpose
This plan evaluates the change built during the applying course, which combined new wording for pre-admission calls, a stop-time calculator card and a new check-in question, which together tell adult elective surgery patients clear drinks are allowed until the two-hour mark before they arrive. The evaluation runs for [eight] weeks after launch and compares them with the baseline quarter. Its purpose is local: to tell the site whether the fasting times moved as intended and whether the change should become standard work.
The Measures Table
Question 1, from the project: did fasting shorten? Primary outcome measure: median hours from last clear liquid to arrival, from the new check-in form. Numerator and denominator do not apply; the measure is a distribution, reported as median and interquartile range by week and by arrival band. Collector: pre-op nurses at check-in. Success threshold: post-launch median for arrivals after 07:00 at or below [six] hours.
Secondary outcome measure: median hours since last intake of anything, from the old check-in field. This is kept only because it holds the one baseline that exists, [12.6] hours. Success threshold: a drop of at least [three] hours overall.
Question 2, from the anesthesia chair: is it safe? Balancing measure: fasting-related delays and cancellations per [1,000] cases, from the operating room delay log, with each event's free-text note read and coded as drank on time, drank late or ate. Collector: writer, weekly. Success threshold: no more than the baseline rate of about [5.6] per [1,000] cases. Aspiration events reported by anesthesia are listed individually and reviewed by the chair, never summarized as a rate, because at the known frequency a zero proves nothing.
Question 3, from the perioperative director: did nurses deliver it? Process measure: share of [20] randomly sampled weekly call notes containing the new script line and a documented stop time. Numerator: notes with both. Denominator: notes sampled, minus patients correctly routed to anesthesia on the exception line. Collector: writer. Success threshold: at least [80] percent by week [four].
Question 4, from the pre-admission lead: does it cost time? Balancing measure: median call length from the phone system's report, compared with the baseline quarter. Collector: pre-admission charge nurse. Success threshold: an increase of no more than [two] minutes.
Data Dictionary
Clear liquid: water, sparkling water, pulp-free fruit juice, black coffee or tea with no milk or creamer, clear sports drinks. Milk, creamer and anything with pulp count as food. Arrival time: the time stamped at check-in, not the scheduled time. Last clear liquid: the time the patient reports finishing the last clear drink, recorded to the nearest [fifteen] minutes. Crossing midnight: a time later than arrival is treated as the previous calendar day; a duration over [24] hours is flagged for review rather than dropped. Arrival band: before 07:00, 07:00 to 11:00, after 11:00, matching the baseline. Fasting-related delay: any delay or cancellation the charge nurse codes to fasting in the operating room log.
Design
The evaluation is a single-site pre-post comparison. The writer will chart weekly medians in time order with a vertical line at launch, so that a shift or trend can be seen and judged by simple run rules rather than by eye (Perla et al., 2011). A run chart cannot establish that the script caused a change, but it can show whether a change happened when the script began and whether it held. This is the right tool for a local improvement question, where the site needs a timely answer rather than a generalizable one (Langley et al., 2009).
The design has a clear weakness. Without a concurrent comparison group, anything else that changed during the same weeks, such as the case mix or staff awareness of the project, could produce the same pattern. The primary outcome also has no baseline of its own, since the new check-in form begins at launch. The old field is kept alongside for that reason, and its before and after comparison is the one direct test the design allows.
Reporting
Results will be reported using the headings of the quality improvement reporting standard, so that local problem, intervention, measures and limitations are each addressed in their expected place (Ogrinc et al., 2016). Every success threshold above is fixed now. If a result falls short, the report will say so against the original threshold rather than redefine success afterward.
Roles and Timeline
The writer collects the audit and delay data weekly and builds the run chart. Pre-op nurses complete the check-in form. The pre-admission charge nurse pulls call-length reports monthly. The anesthesia chair reviews any aspiration and any week that crosses the Unit 5 review threshold from the applying course. Data collection runs from [launch date] to [launch date plus eight weeks]; the descriptive analysis follows in Unit 4.
Ethics and Data Handling
Check-in forms carry a study number, not a name, and the key that links numbers to patients is held on a restricted site drive. Only de-identified extracts leave the department.
Quality improvement determination: [to be completed by the writer with the site's review office].
References
Langley, G. J., Moen, R. D., Nolan, K. M., Nolan, T. W., Norman, C. L., & Provost, L. P. (2009). The improvement guide: A practical approach to enhancing organizational performance (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Ogrinc, G., Davies, L., Goodman, D., Batalden, P., Davidoff, F., & Stevens, D. (2016). SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Quality & Safety, 25(12), 986-992. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411
Perla, R. J., Provost, L. P., & Murray, S. K. (2011). The run chart: A simple analytical tool for learning from variation in healthcare processes. BMJ Quality & Safety, 20(1), 46-51. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs.2009.037895
How this NU603 Unit 2 example is structured
Questions come before measures, so every row answers something a person at the site actually asked. That choice ties the plan to the stakeholder analysis and tells readers why each measure exists. The outcome row is written twice on purpose: a new clear-liquid measure that shows the change directly, and the old intake field kept only because it holds the one baseline that exists. Process and balancing rows follow, each with a numerator, a denominator, a source and a collector. Safety is handled with care, since reporting zero aspirations as a result would mislead; the plan states that any event will be reviewed individually and never summarized as a rate. The design section concedes that a single-site pre-post comparison cannot establish cause. Success criteria for each row are fixed now, so the interpretation later cannot move the goalposts.
Get an NU603 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
An evaluation plan builds on objectives already set, so share yours along with the questions your preceptor or site leaders have asked about the change. The Unit 2 instructions and rubric complete the set. What comes back in 24-48h ties each measure to a question, a source and a collector; the first custom sample is free. 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.
NU603 Unit 2 questions, answered
What separates an outcome measure from a process or balancing measure?
Outcome measures show whether the result you wanted changed, such as hours without fluids. A process measure asks whether the change reached patients as designed, such as the share of calls using the new script. Balancing measures look for damage elsewhere, such as delays. Together they let a reader interpret any result, including a flat one.
Do I need a quality improvement determination before collecting data?
Many organizations require one, and many programs do too, so check both policies early. A determination confirms the project counts as quality improvement, not research, which affects consent and review. The sample leaves a line for the writer to record the determination, because obtaining it belongs to your practicum and cannot come from a sample.
How do I set success criteria for a small project?
Base them on the baseline and on what the change could plausibly achieve in the time available. A target for the outcome, a minimum level of delivery for the process measure and a threshold for balancing measures give interpretation a fixed reference. The sample sets each before data arrive, so the later results paper cannot adjust them to fit.