| Course | NU706 Ethics, Policy, and Advocacy in Population Health |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Seminar reflection |
| Length | About 840 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU706 Unit 5
Teaching the Device a Patient Can Buy: A Unit 5 Seminar Reflection on Pens, Vials and a Two-Tier Standard
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU706: Ethics, Policy, and Advocacy in Population Health
Unit 5 Seminar Reflection
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The seminar, classmates and hospital are composite; the studies cited are real.
The Question We Debated
The prompt asked us to take a side on a question from practice. Mine came from the insulin discharge bundle on 5 West. The bundle's teaching materials are written for pens because pens are easier to learn. But since we added a price check for cash-paying patients in Unit 4, about one patient in ten on new insulin now chooses a vial and syringe because the pen would cost several hundred dollars a month. One classmate put the question bluntly: are we running a two-tier standard of care, with the better device for those who can pay?
The Case for Pens Only
Three classmates argued that the unit should teach only pens and make the hospital find a way to pay for them. They had evidence on their side. In a survey of 74 patients at community pharmacies, 95.2 percent of pen users found their device easy to use, against 46.7 percent of vial users, and far more pen users reported no pain with injection (Ramadan et al., 2015). In a matched claims analysis of adults starting rapid-acting insulin, pen users covered more of their days with insulin, a proportion of days covered of 54.6 percent against 45.2 percent for vial users, and their total diabetes-related costs fell rather than rose (Lee et al., 2011). The pen group's argument was that offering a harder device to poorer patients builds inequity into the bundle, and that justice requires the hospital to remove the price barrier, not to adapt to it.
Their strongest point was that a choice made under a price barrier is not fully a free choice.
The Case for Teaching What the Patient Will Use
The other side, which I joined at the start of the debate, argued that teaching a device the patient will not buy is worse than teaching the one they will. A patient sent home with pen teaching and a vial in the bag faces a new skill, measuring a dose with a syringe, with no practice at all. National emergency data add a warning that cuts both ways: insulin-related lows and dosing errors account for roughly 97,000 American emergency visits annually, and product mix-ups and dosing mistakes are among the causes (Geller et al., 2014). A poorly taught device of either kind is dangerous. Both device studies above were observational, and neither compared patients who had been taught well on vials with patients taught on pens. The Lebanon survey's authors themselves concluded that education matters for both devices (Ramadan et al., 2015).
Where My Position Moved
I began the seminar thinking the answer was "pens for everyone," as an ideal the unit could not meet. By the end I thought that position let the unit off too easily, because an ideal nobody pays for changes nothing on a Friday afternoon. One classmate, Dana, pointed out that the price barrier is not fixed: the hospital outpatient pharmacy could stock a lower-cost pen, the case manager could apply to a manufacturer program and a bridge supply could cover the first month. My new position has two parts. First, teach the device the patient will actually use, fully, with a return demonstration. Second, record every case where the device was chosen for price, and treat those cases as evidence for the changes that would make the choice unnecessary.
That second part is what made the debate useful to me. Before the seminar I had treated the vial patients as an exception to report quietly in a footnote of my project. Afterward I saw them as the clearest measure of whether the bundle is fair. A two-tier standard is unjust when it is hidden and accepted. It is less unjust when it is counted, explained to the patient and pushed against.
What I Will Do Differently
On the unit, I will add vial-and-syringe teaching cards to the bundle, written to the same standard as the pen materials, and ask staff to practice syringe teaching at the next skills day. I will add a field to the discharge checklist, "device chosen for cost: yes or no," so the project's monthly report can show how often price decides. For my DNP project, those numbers will go into the business case I am preparing for a subsidized supply at discharge.
Closing Thought
The seminar did not settle whether a two-tier standard is ever acceptable. It did show me that the worst version of it is the silent one, where patients who cannot pay get the harder device and less teaching and nobody writes it down. Teaching each patient well on the device they will use, while counting and contesting the reason, is the version I can defend.
References
Geller, A. I., Shehab, N., Lovegrove, M. C., Kegler, S. R., Weidenbach, K. N., Ryan, G. J., & Budnitz, D. S. (2014). National estimates of insulin-related hypoglycemia and errors leading to emergency department visits and hospitalizations. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(5), 678-686. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.136
Lee, L. J., Li, Q., Reynolds, M. W., Pawaskar, M. D., & Corrigan, S. M. (2011). Comparison of utilization, cost, adherence, and hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating rapid-acting insulin analog with prefilled pen versus vial/syringe. Journal of Medical Economics, 14(1), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2010.546466
Ramadan, W. H., Khreis, N. A., & Kabbara, W. K. (2015). Simplicity, safety, and acceptability of insulin pen use versus the conventional vial/syringe device in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Lebanon. Patient Preference and Adherence, 9, 517-528. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S78225
NU706 Unit 5 instructions, in plain terms
The Unit 5 seminar in NU706 centers on a live ethics question, and the written reflection asks students to record the debate and their own reasoning. Prompts usually want the question stated, the strongest arguments on each side, the evidence each side used, the writer's position and how it changed or held, and what the writer will do in practice. A reflection is not a summary of who spoke; it is an account of one person's thinking tested against others'. Missing the live session normally means writing an alternative assignment with the same parts. The studies the debate relied on can serve as the reflection's sources. The best reflections end with a concrete change, because the instructor wants to see that the seminar produced something the student will carry back to practice.
How this NU706 Unit 5 example is built
The question comes first, drawn from the bundle and the Unit 4 price check, with a classmate's blunt phrasing about a two-tier standard. The case for pens only follows, with Ramadan's ease and pain findings and Lee's adherence and cost results, and a highlighted sentence granting that a choice made under a price barrier is not fully free. The opposing case argues for teaching the device the patient will buy, cites Geller on insulin errors and notes, in a margin note, that both device studies were observational. The turning point is a classmate's reminder that the price barrier can be moved. The writer's new two-part position follows, then two practice changes: vial teaching cards written to the pen materials' standard and a checklist field recording when cost chose the device. A short closing thought names the silent version of a two-tier standard as the one to refuse.
Where the points sit in the NU706 Unit 5 rubric
Depth of reasoning counts for more than coverage of the session when an NU706 seminar reflection is graded. Points go to stating both sides fairly and with their evidence, since a reflection that caricatures the opposing view loses credit. The writer's own position must be clear, and graders reward an honest account of what changed and why. Use of sources is checked for accuracy, so numbers quoted from a study should match it, and study design should be noted where it limits a claim. Application to practice is often its own criterion and is met by specific, checkable changes. Organization, APA 7 citations and a length within the stated range account for the remaining points. A reflection that names a classmate's argument and shows how it changed the writer's mind tends to score higher than one that reports agreement.
NU706 Unit 5 help from the desk
Weak seminar reflections usually read as minutes of the meeting, listing what each person said without the writer's own reasoning. Another frequent problem is a position that does not move or explain why it held, which leaves the instructor nothing to assess. Some students cite a study for more than it shows, treating an observational comparison as proof. Others end with a vague resolve to be more aware, which earns little under an application criterion. Writing in the first person is expected here, but every claim about evidence still needs a citation. Before drafting, write the position you held when the seminar began and the sentence that made you doubt it. Your own seminar notes can become a custom reflection, shaped around your unit's own version of the question.
Get an NU706 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Share what the seminar covered, your position and the reflection prompt with its rubric. A custom reflection traces your reasoning and applies it to practice. The first one costs nothing, back within 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 NU706 papers and DNP samples
- NU706 Unit 1: Informed Refusal Ethics Post
- NU706 Unit 2: Distributive Justice Analysis
- NU706 Unit 3: Insulin Cap Policy Analysis
- NU706 Unit 4: Culturally Proficient Policy Revision
- NU706 Unit 6: Moral Distress Analysis
- NU706 Unit 7: Advocacy Testimony
- NU706 Unit 8: Global Health Policy Analysis
- NU706 Unit 9: Program Ethics Analysis
- NU706 Unit 10: Position Paper
- NU713 Unit 5: Seminar Reflection, Reference Groups
- NU704 Unit 5: Causal Inference Paper
- NU733 Unit 5: Statute Analysis, Public Camping Act
- NU703 Unit 5: Literature Synthesis, DNP Role Use
NU706 Unit 5 questions, answered
What if I missed the NU706 seminar?
Most sections offer a written alternative. Check its instructions.
Should a reflection on an ethics debate cite sources?
Yes, usually two or three, including any study the debate relied on.
Does the reflection need to show a change of mind?
Not necessarily, but it should show how the debate tested your position and what you will do differently.
Where can I find a free NU706 Unit 5 sample paper?
This page contains a complete NU706 Unit 5 seminar reflection on teaching insulin pens or vials when cost decides, with both sides of the debate, the evidence and the writer's changed position.
What practice changes does the NU706 Unit 5 sample propose?
Two: vial and syringe teaching cards written to the same standard as the pen materials, and a discharge checklist field that records whether the device was chosen because of cost.