| Course | NU657 AGACNP Critical Care Management Clinical |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Discussion post and two peer replies |
| Length | About 610 words, 3 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 discussion post |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MSN |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU657 Unit 6
Silence at the Bedside, Contingencies in the Workroom: Comparing Two ICU Handoffs Element by Element
NU657 · Unit 6 Discussion Board Post
Posted by [Student Name]
The hospital and its units are composite; times and counts are bracketed.
Initial Post
At my clinical site I have now watched both kinds of ICU handoff many times, and they could hardly be more different.
In the surgical ICU, a patient arriving from the operating room is handed over in two phases. First, monitoring, lines and the ventilator are transferred while nobody speaks except to call out a change. Only when the patient is on the unit's monitors does the spoken report begin: anesthesia gives the airway, drugs, fluids and events, the surgeon gives the operation and the concerns, and the bedside nurse and receiving clinician listen at the bedside. There is a clear rule against side conversations. What is missing is anything written for later. At [03:00], a question about the drain output target depends on someone's memory of a conversation at [17:30].
In the medical ICU, the day team signs out at [19:00] in a workroom, from a printed list that includes an action list and if-then lines for each patient ("if the pressure falls below [65], start vasopressin"). It takes about [25] minutes for [14] patients. The contingencies are excellent. But nobody sees the patients, the receiving clinician does not repeat the plan back, and interruptions from pagers are constant.
Element by element: the surgical handoff is stronger on timing, presence of the whole team, the patient in the room and interruption control; the medical sign-out is stronger on written contingencies and action items; neither uses a read-back. A systematic review of postoperative handovers recommended completing urgent tasks before the information exchange, having all team members present, limiting interruptions and using a standard structure or checklist (Segall et al., 2012), and the surgical handoff does most of that. The medical sign-out resembles the I-PASS approach, whose "situation awareness and contingency planning" element it uses, but it skips the final step, synthesis by the receiver, and when I-PASS was rolled out across nine children's hospitals, overall error rates dropped by almost a quarter and preventable adverse events by close to a third (Starmer et al., 2014). Each unit already does half of a good handoff; the fix is to borrow the other half, not to invent a new tool.
My proposal for each: the surgical ICU adds a short written contingency line to its bedside report, and the medical ICU adds a read-back by the night clinician for any patient flagged as unstable.
Has anyone seen a unit that does both well? What made it stick?
Reply to a Classmate Who Wants One Standard Tool
You suggested that both units adopt the same tool. I see the appeal, but the two handoffs serve different moments: one receives a patient whose physiology is changing minute by minute after anesthesia, and the other passes on a stable census for the night. The postoperative review found that the equipment-first, then-talk sequence mattered in the transfer from the operating room (Segall et al., 2012), which a sign-out tool built for shift change does not include. I would keep the two formats and standardize only the elements they share.
Reply to a Classmate Who Worries About Time
You asked whether a read-back would make a [25]-minute sign-out even longer. For [14] patients it probably would, by a few minutes. That is why I would limit it to patients flagged as unstable, perhaps [three] or [four] a night. A read-back of those plans costs little and catches the misunderstanding before the night rather than at [03:00].
References
Segall, N., Bonifacio, A. S., Schroeder, R. A., Barbeito, A., Rogers, D., Thornlow, D. K., Emery, J., Kellum, S., Wright, M. C., & Mark, J. B. (2012). Can we make postoperative patient handovers safer? A systematic review of the literature. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 115(1), 102-115. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e318253af4b
Starmer, A. J., Spector, N. D., Srivastava, R., West, D. C., Rosenbluth, G., Allen, A. D., Noble, E. L., Tse, L. L., Dalal, A. K., Keohane, C. A., Lipsitz, S. R., Rothschild, J. M., Wien, M. F., Yoon, C. S., Zigmont, K. R., Wilson, K. M., O'Toole, J. K., Solan, L. G., Aylor, M., . . . Landrigan, C. P. (2014). Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program. New England Journal of Medicine, 371(19), 1803-1812. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1405556
The Purdue Global NU657 Unit 6 instructions
The Unit 6 discussion asks you to analyze a communication process you have observed in the ICU, most often a handoff, and to evaluate it against evidence. Prompts usually set the first post at roughly 450 words and ask it to describe what you saw, compares it with a recommended practice, and proposes an improvement, followed by at least two replies to classmates. Each post and reply should carry at least one citation. Graders look for specific observations rather than general statements about communication. Leave the hospital, unit and every person unnamed. A closing question for the group helps start the discussion, and replies should add evidence or a new angle rather than agreeing with the classmate.
How the NU 657 Unit 6 example is put together
The post describes the surgical handoff first in one paragraph and the medical sign-out second in another, each ending on its gap. A paragraph then compares them element by element across timing, team presence, the patient in the room, interruptions, written contingencies and read-back. The Segall review supplies the postoperative recommendations and Starmer's I-PASS study supplies the sign-out structure and its results. The highlighted sentence states the argument, and a one-line proposal follows for each unit. The first reply answers a classmate who wants one standard tool by explaining why the two moments differ. The second answers a worry about time by limiting the read-back to unstable patients.
NU657 Unit 6 rubric: what earns full points
Discussion grading usually looks at the depth of analysis, use of evidence, the quality of the proposal, engagement with peers and writing mechanics. Analysis earns full points when observations are specific and compared on the same elements. Evidence counts when each source supports the exact practice it is cited for, not communication in general. The proposal row rewards changes that are small enough to adopt and tied to the gaps found. Engagement points go to replies that answer a classmate's argument with a reason or a source. Mechanics cover APA citations and staying within the word limits for both the post and the replies, and a reply that simply restates the original post will not earn the engagement credit either.
Common NU657 Unit 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A frequent weakness is describing one handoff as good and the other as bad, which misses what each does well. Another is recommending a named tool without saying which element of it addresses the gap you saw. Students often cite a handoff study for a claim it did not test, such as applying pediatric resident results to operating room transfers without comment. Some posts propose a large redesign that no unit would adopt. Replies that say only "great point" earn nothing. And naming the hospital, unit or staff members, even in passing, breaks the confidentiality most programs require, so keep every identifying detail out of the thread.
Get an NU657 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Describe the two teams or tools under comparison in NU657 Unit 6, leaving out the names of real sites; note the posting limits and attach the rubric. A model post comes back in 24-48h, the first at no charge, comparing the handoffs element by element and proposing one borrowed step for each. 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 NU657 papers and MSN samples
- NU657 Unit 1: Clinical Objectives for a Medical ICU
- NU657 Unit 2: ICU Admission Note, Pulmonary-Renal
- NU657 Unit 3: Rounds Script, Near-Fatal Asthma
- NU657 Unit 4: Progress Note, Myasthenic Crisis
- NU657 Unit 5: Central Line Preparation, Low Platelets
- NU657 Unit 7: Resuscitation Reflection
- NU657 Unit 8: Family Meeting Summary
- NU657 Unit 9: Case Conference Presentation
- NU657 Unit 10: Comprehensive Case Study
- NU656 Unit 6: Ventilator Plan for Moderate ARDS
- NU655 Unit 6: Family Meeting Summary, Perforation
- NU654 Unit 6: Integrated Plan, Endocarditis
- NU653 Unit 6: Family Update, Stroke Mimic
NU657 Unit 6 questions, answered
Can the post compare handoffs I observed at my site?
Most prompts expect observations from the rotation, described with the hospital, the unit and every person left unnamed. A composite hospital keeps the structure visible in the sample. Your own post rests on what you saw during your hours, and those observations are yours to report; the sample demonstrates what setting them beside published evidence looks like.
Is I-PASS the only acceptable handoff tool to discuss?
No. I-PASS is well studied, but postoperative handovers, nursing bedside reports and locally built tools are all fair subjects. The sample compares an operating room protocol with a printed sign-out and cites evidence suited to each. If your prompt names particular tools, the comparison is built on those, with sources that studied them directly.
What if one unit's handoff really is worse?
Then the post can say so, element by element, with the evidence. The sample finds each unit strong where the other is weak, which suits a proposal that borrows in both directions. A comparison that finds one tool deficient on most elements should still name what it does well, since reviewers read one-sided posts as less careful.
Where can I find a free NU657 Unit 6 sample paper?
You can read the NU657 Unit 6 initial post and its two replies in full above, including the element-by-element comparison, the proposals for each unit and two references. A post built on the handoffs you observed can be drafted on request.
What does the NU657 Unit 6 post propose?
The surgical ICU adds a short written contingency line to its bedside report, and the medical ICU adds a read-back by the night clinician for patients flagged as unstable. Each change borrows the element the other unit already does well.