Two legitimate authorities over one diet order, and the ethics consult that settled them, anchor this interprofessional conflict analysis written for NU743 Unit 7. Searches like "nu 743 unit 7 assignment example", "nu743 unit 7 sample" and "nu743 unit 7 example" land here.
What a finished NU743 Unit 7 interprofessional conflict analysis looks like
Around [1,600] words in five sections, opening with a dated sequence of what happened on hospital day [four]. A videofluoroscopic study at [1000] showed silent aspiration with thin and nectar-thick liquids; a family meeting at [1330] chose comfort-focused care; the practitioner ordered pureed solids with acknowledged risk at [1410]; the speech-language pathologist, acting under the hospital's dysphagia protocol, reverted the order at [1640]. Quoted exchanges follow, attributed by role only, including the line each clinician later said they regretted. An authority table then sets the two professions side by side across four sources: state practice act, hospital protocol, medical staff rules and the surrogate's decision. The analysis names where those sources overlapped, describes two escalations, the first of which failed, and ends with the policy change an ethics committee recommended.
How a NU743 Unit 7 example is structured
Events are laid out before any interpretation, so a reader forms a view of the disagreement before learning which side the author was on. The author was the practitioner, and the analysis says so in its second paragraph instead of concealing it behind the passive voice. Authority is then treated as a question with answers: what each license permits, what the protocol delegated, what the bylaws reserve to prescribers, and what weight the surrogate's choice carries. Positions and interests are separated using Fisher and Ury's distinction, which shows both clinicians wanted the patient not to suffer and disagreed about which suffering counted. Escalation is reported as it happened, including a charge nurse call that produced no decision and an ethics consult that produced one within [a day]. A final section concerns the gap in policy rather than the people.
Hospital day four, by the clock
Times come from the record: the swallow study, the family meeting, the order, the reversal. Laying them out first shows that each step followed from the one before it and that no one acted carelessly, which is what makes the conflict worth analyzing.
What each said, by role
Two quoted lines carry the section. The pathologist's statement that she could not sign off on a diet she had watched fail sits beside the practitioner's reply about what the daughter had decided mattered, and both appear without softening.
Four sources of authority
A table maps the practice act, the dysphagia protocol, the medical staff rules and the surrogate's decision against each profession. The overlap sits in one cell: the protocol let the pathologist set texture on any diet order, including one written for comfort.
Same interest, different suffering
Both clinicians wanted to spare the patient harm. One weighed the pneumonia aspiration risked; the other weighed the distress of being denied food. Fisher and Ury's split between positions and interests makes that common ground visible without pretending it resolved anything.
An escalation that failed first
The charge nurse had no authority over either profession and said so. An ethics consultation the next morning recommended honoring the surrogate's choice, and the committee later amended the protocol to exempt orders written under a documented comfort-focused plan.
Where marks go in NU743 Unit 7
An analysis that dissolves the disagreement into poor communication is the most frequent disappointment in this unit, since the prompt commonly selects a case where both parties were right about something. Credit depends on authority stated precisely; phrases such as 'within her role' without the protocol, act or bylaw behind them leave the central question unanswered. Quotation matters as well, and paraphrased exchanges that make both clinicians sound reasonable at every moment read as edited. The author's own part is examined closely: papers that describe the other profession's behavior in detail and the author's in a sentence rarely score well. Escalation should be traced to an outcome, including routes that went nowhere. Recommendations aimed at people rather than policy undercut an otherwise careful analysis, as does a model cited but never applied.
Get a NU743 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Describe the disagreement in your prompt's terms, which professions, which decision, and what your section expects the analysis to include, then attach the rubric. Your free first custom sample, returned in 24-48h, will name the authority each side drew on and trace the escalation through to whatever it produced, the failures included.
NU743 Unit 7 questions, answered
Should I write the analysis if I was one of the people in the conflict?
Usually yes, and many prompts expect it. Say which party you were early, since readers will work it out anyway, and examine your own conduct at least as closely as the other clinician's. Alter whatever would let a colleague or patient be recognized, but leave each person's profession unchanged; an argument about who held authority collapses once the roles are disguised.
Where does scope of practice information come from?
From the state practice acts for each profession, the hospital's own protocols and medical staff rules, and, for diet orders, federal hospital regulations that let facilities grant ordering privileges to dietitians. The sample cites each source by name. Your own analysis needs your state and your employer's documents, since the answer differs from one setting to the next.
What if the conflict was never resolved?
Then the analysis reports that honestly and asks why. An unresolved disagreement often reveals more about authority than a settled one, because it shows where the organization has no route for deciding. The sample's case happened to reach an ethics consult; a paper whose case stalled would spend its last section on the missing route instead.