| Course | NU710 Advanced Health Information and Technologies |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Technology impact assessment |
| Length | About 1,110 words, 7 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 NU710 Unit 9
Six Months After the Banner Went Live: A Unit 9 Impact Assessment of an Insulin Readiness Flag and Dashboard
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU710: Advanced Health Information and Technologies
Unit 9 Technology Impact Assessment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The hospital, its data, staff comments and figures are composite and illustrative; the models and studies cited are real.
The Technology and the Comparison
The change has three parts: an automatic flag when a patient starts insulin, a short structured record of the observed first injection and a banner showing readiness on the patient's header, plus a monthly dashboard of completion and 30-day returns by unit. It went live on 5 West, 6 West, 4 West and 7 East in April. The assessment compares the six months before go-live with the six months after on those four units, and uses the six units that have not yet received the change as a rough comparison group.
The Framework
In the updated model of DeLone and McLean (2003), an information system succeeds or fails along linked dimensions that start with the qualities of the system, its information and its support, run through whether and how happily people use it and end with the benefits it delivers, which then shape further use. Applied to the readiness flag, the model keeps three questions apart: does the build work, do people use it and has anything improved.
System Quality
The entry takes a median of 48 seconds to complete, under the 60-second target set during testing. Informatics logged two defects in six months: the flag failed to fire for patients restarted on insulin after a gap of more than a year, and the banner did not appear on the hospitalist's mobile view. Both were fixed within three weeks.
Information Quality
An audit of 80 charts, 20 per unit, compared structured entries with the nurse's account and the patient's report at the 72-hour contact. In 74 of 80, the entry matched both. In four, the entry recorded the patient's own pen when the demonstration had used a teaching pen. In two, the entry recorded a correct injection that the patient later said a family member had given. The information is mostly accurate, but the "own pen" field is the weakest, which matters because it is the field the readiness rule depends on.
Service Quality
Champions and the informatics nurse provided at-the-elbow support during each go-live. Nurses gave the support a median rating of six out of seven. Requests for help fell from 31 in the first month to 4 in the sixth. A small team with clear ownership can sustain this kind of support, as a nurse informaticist-led alert redesign elsewhere showed (Thompson et al., 2024), but the hospital has not yet budgeted support for the next six units.
Use and Satisfaction
Use is high and rising. The share of insulin starters whose entry was finished before they left rose from 71 percent in the first month to 93 percent in the sixth across the four units. Hospitalists opened the banner in a median of 62 percent of discharges of patients on new insulin, measured from record access logs, and case managers used it in discharge planning rounds on all four units.
Satisfaction is mixed. On a one-question survey, nurses' rating of documentation burden for insulin teaching improved from a median of 5 to 3 on a 7-point scale, where 7 is most burdensome. But in free-text comments, several nurses described the banner as "a red light on my name" when teaching was incomplete, and two said they felt pressure to mark teaching complete.
A banner that tells everyone teaching is unfinished helps the patient and can also push a nurse to call it finished.
Net Benefits
For patients. On the four units, the number of insulin starters readmitted or seen within a month for a glucose emergency fell from 39 of 268 in the six months before go-live, about 14.6 percent, to 25 of 271 after, about 9.2 percent. On the six comparison units, returns fell from about 14.1 to 12.8 percent over the same period. The difference between the two groups suggests a real effect, but the numbers are small, the four units also had the full discharge bundle, not only the technology, and seasonal variation was not controlled. The technology cannot claim the whole improvement.
For managers. Unit managers said the dashboard changed how they spend huddle time: instead of hearing about returns from quality reports three months late, they see the month's completion and return figures and can discuss specific patients. Dahlia et al. (2025), in a survey of managers in five public hospitals, found that organizational change improved managerial performance mainly through better service quality, with information technology playing a smaller mediating role. That pattern fits here: managers credited the bundle and the people more than the dashboard, while saying the dashboard made the work visible.
For the organization. The bed meeting now receives a monthly line on returns among patients on new insulin, and holds under the readiness rule have been rare, 11 in six months on four units, with no overnight holds.
Where the Evidence Is Weak
The before-and-after design cannot separate the technology's effect from the bundle's, the champions' or the season's. The audit sample is small. Record access logs show that hospitalists opened the banner, not that it changed their decisions. And the pressure nurses described could inflate completion figures in a way the audit only partly detects. These limits argue against claiming that the technology caused the fall in returns, and for continuing to measure.
Recommendations
1. Strengthen the "own pen" field by adding the pen's lot number scanned at the demonstration, so the entry can be checked against the pen dispensed.
2. Change the banner's incomplete state from red to a neutral color and its wording from "not complete" to "teaching in progress," and say plainly to staff that an honest incomplete is better than a false complete.
3. Expand the chart audit to 20 charts per unit per quarter, including the 72-hour contact comparison.
4. Use the six comparison units as a staggered rollout, so that later waves provide a stronger test of the technology's effect.
Conclusion
Six months in, the readiness flag and dashboard are working, used and accurate in most charts, and they have made insulin teaching visible to hospitalists, case managers and managers. Returns fell on the four units more than elsewhere, but the technology shares that credit with the bundle it supports. The clearest risks are a field that can be filled inaccurately and a banner that can pressure nurses, both of which can be fixed.
References
Dahlia, D., Nurkholis, N., Andayani, W., & Prihatiningtias, Y. W. (2025). Transforming healthcare management: The role of organizational change, service quality, and information technology in improving managerial performance. Cogent Business & Management, 12(1), 2482017. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2025.2482017
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748
Thompson, S. A., Kandaswamy, S., & Orenstein, E. (2024). A discount approach to reducing nursing alert burden. Applied Clinical Informatics, 15(4), 727-732. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2345-6475
NU710 Unit 9 instructions, in plain terms
Unit 9 asks students to assess what a technology has actually done to an organization, often one introduced as part of their own project. Prompts typically expect a framework for judging success, measures before and after, attention to how people use the technology and how they feel about it, net benefits for patients and the organization and a candid account of what the evidence can and cannot show. A comparison group, even a rough one, strengthens claims. Instructors reward assessments that pull the technology's share of an improvement apart from everything else launched that quarter, since a dashboard rarely works alone and usually arrives with a bundle, champions or new staffing. Staff comments often reveal effects that numbers miss. The recommendations should respond to the weaknesses found, which means an assessment of the writer's own project has to be willing to find some.
Inside the NU710 Unit 9 example
The assessment describes the three-part technology and the before-and-after comparison with six units as a rough control. DeLone and McLean's model is summarized in the case's terms. System quality covers entry time and defects; information quality reports the chart audit and the weak own-pen field; service quality covers support and falling help requests, with Thompson's small-team approach noted. Use and satisfaction report completion, banner access logs and survey scores, then nurses' comments about a red light on their name, under a highlighted line with a margin note. Net benefits are split by patients, managers and organization, with Dahlia's finding and a second note. A section on weak evidence names four limits, and four recommendations close the paper.
Where the points sit in the NU710 Unit 9 rubric
The assessment is graded mainly on the quality of its evidence and the honesty of its interpretation. Use of a recognized success framework earns credit when each dimension is filled with data from the case. Graders look for before-and-after measures, ideally with a comparison group, and for limits stated plainly. Attention to unintended effects, such as pressure to document falsely, is rewarded. Net benefits should be shown for more than one group. Recommendations are scored on whether they address weaknesses the assessment found. Writers who overclaim, crediting the technology for every improvement, lose marks under interpretation. Organization, scholarly sources on information systems success and APA 7 complete the rubric for NU710.
NU710 Unit 9 help: mistakes that cost points
Impact assessments lose points most often by reporting adoption as if it were benefit: high completion shows use, not improvement. Another frequent problem is attributing an outcome change entirely to the technology when a bundle, new champions or a staffing change arrived in the same months. Some papers include only positive findings, which reads as advocacy. Others skip information quality, never checking whether the data entered are accurate. Leaving out staff experience misses effects like pressure or workarounds. Begin by pulling a small audit of entries and comparing them with what actually happened, then gather three staff comments before you write. A custom assessment can examine the technology your own project introduced, with your organization's figures.
Get an NU710 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Send the technology, what has changed since it was introduced and the assessment instructions with the rubric. A custom assessment measures its effects on quality, workflow and decisions. It comes back within 24-48h, and the first 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.
More NU710 papers and DNP samples
- NU710 Unit 1: Health IT Safety Event Post
- NU710 Unit 2: Clinical Decision Support Analysis
- NU710 Unit 3: Readmission Risk Model Evaluation
- NU710 Unit 4: AI Documentation Ethics Analysis
- NU710 Unit 5: Data Confidentiality Analysis
- NU710 Unit 6: Cyberattack Downtime Plan
- NU710 Unit 7: Lewin Implementation Plan
- NU710 Unit 8: Glucose Meter Integration Evaluation
- NU710 Unit 10: E-health Tool Proposal
- NU713 Unit 9: Structural Framework Application, WHO
- NU708 Unit 9: Conflict and Negotiation Analysis
- NU733 Unit 9: Advocacy Letter to the Health Officer
- NU706 Unit 9: Program Ethics Analysis
NU710 Unit 9 questions, answered
How do you assess a technology's impact?
By comparing measures before and after, such as quality outcomes, time, errors and how decisions are made, while considering other changes that happened at the same time.
Should the assessment include staff views?
Yes. Surveys or interviews show how a technology changed work in ways numbers miss.
What if a technology had no measurable effect?
Say so, and explain whether it was not used, not used well or simply not effective.
Where can I find a free NU710 Unit 9 sample paper?
This page carries a complete NU710 Unit 9 technology impact assessment of an insulin readiness flag and dashboard six months after go-live, using the DeLone and McLean model with an honest section on weak evidence.
Why does the NU710 Unit 9 sample change the banner's color?
Nurses described the red incomplete banner as pressure to mark teaching complete, so the assessment recommends a neutral color and the wording "teaching in progress" to protect honest documentation.