| Course | NU803 Change Management and Clinical Data Analysis |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Readiness assessment |
| Length | About 860 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU803 Unit 2
Nine Conditions, Two Missing and Three Partial: A Readiness Assessment for a Steroid Hyperglycemia Bundle on Two Composite Medical Units, Including the Order Routes That Bypass the Trigger
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU803: Change Management and Clinical Data Analysis
Unit 2 Readiness Assessment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The units, systems and figures are composite; percentages and counts are bracketed.
The Framework
Weiner described organizational readiness for change as a shared state in which members share both a commitment to a change and confidence that together they can deliver it, shaped by how much they value the change and how they judge what it will demand of them (Weiner, 2009). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research adds that characteristics of the inner setting, including structure, networks, culture and available resources, shape whether a change is implemented (Damschroder et al., 2009). This assessment combines the two: it checks commitment and efficacy among staff, and it checks the concrete conditions in the inner setting without which commitment cannot turn into practice.
Commitment and Efficacy
A short survey of [52] nurses and technicians, and interviews with [six], found strong commitment among nurses, most of whom agreed that checking glucose in the afternoon for patients on steroids was worth doing. Technicians were less sure: fewer than half agreed, and several said the checks would be added to their lunch-hour work without anything being taken away. Efficacy, the belief that the team could do it, was high for pre-dinner checks and low for pre-lunch checks, which matches the capacity problem found in the change model analysis.
The Nine Conditions
Condition 1, the order-set trigger is built and tested. In place: informatics built it, and a test on [20] mock orders fired correctly in every case.
Condition 2, the trigger covers every route by which a qualifying steroid can be ordered. Partly in place. The trigger lives in the general medicine order set, but a review of [four] weeks of steroid orders showed that about [18] percent of qualifying doses were entered through the oncology order set or the emergency department's admission orders, neither of which contains the trigger. Those patients would receive no checks unless someone noticed.
The quietest gap is the one nobody would see on the unit: patients whose steroid came through a different order set would simply never be checked, and no alarm would say so.
Condition 3, glucometers are available at the times checks are due. In place: each unit has [six] meters, and a check of availability at [1100] and [1600] over one week found at least [four] free each time.
Condition 4, staff are trained. Partly in place: [94] percent of nurses and [70] percent of technicians completed the huddle session by the end of the education weeks, with night-shift technicians least covered.
Condition 5, break coverage includes scheduled checks. Missing: break coverage covers call bells only, and pre-lunch checks fall in the first break wave.
Condition 6, a pharmacy-approved NPH suggestion exists for escalations. In place: approved by the pharmacy and therapeutics committee.
Condition 7, prescribers will respond to pages about steroid hyperglycemia with a scheduled insulin order. Partly in place: hospitalists agreed at their meeting, but night coverage is provided by a separate group that has not yet been briefed.
Condition 8, the data needed to evaluate the bundle can be extracted. Missing: the glucometer export and the pharmacy's steroid orders sit in separate systems, and the link that would identify eligible patient-days has not been built.
Condition 9, the nurse managers sponsor the change. In place: both have attended huddles and agreed to review break timing.
What the Pattern Shows
The two missing conditions are of different kinds. Break coverage is a social and scheduling problem that only the nurse managers can solve. The data link is a technical problem that only informatics can solve, and without it the project cannot show whether the bundle works. The three partial conditions share a theme: each concerns people or routes at the edges of the units, oncology and emergency orders, night technicians and night prescribers. Readiness is strongest at the center of the day-shift routine and weakest at its edges.
Recommended Actions Before Go-Live
Add the trigger to the oncology and emergency admission order sets, or, if that cannot be done before go-live, ask the unit pharmacist to review new steroid orders daily for patients admitted by those routes. Hold [two] additional huddle sessions timed for night technicians. Brief the night prescriber group at its next meeting. Ask the nurse managers to move the first lunch wave to begin at [1130], after pre-lunch checks, for a two-week trial. And ask informatics to build the data link as a condition of go-live, since a change that cannot be evaluated cannot be sustained. Behavior change frameworks treat opportunity, both physical and social, as a condition of behavior separate from motivation (Michie et al., 2011), and three of these actions address opportunity rather than willingness.
Decision
Go-live should be delayed by [one] week, until the data link is built and break timing is agreed. The other gaps can be closed in the first weeks of implementation.
References
Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4, Article 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6, Article 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4, Article 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-67
What the NU803 Unit 2 assignment asks for
For Unit 2 you assess whether your setting is ready for the change you plan. Most versions ask for a framework, an assessment of staff commitment and confidence, a list of concrete conditions rated from evidence, a discussion of the pattern, and recommendations, sometimes including whether to delay. A length near 1,500 words suits the task, and graders favor assessments that check conditions directly rather than relying on attitudes alone, identify gaps that nobody on the unit would notice, and draw practical consequences, including a delay when the evidence supports one. Instruments measure attitudes well but rarely show whether an order fires or a schedule allows a task, so pair any survey with direct checks of the systems involved.
Inside the NU803 Unit 2 example
The assessment opens with Weiner's theory of readiness and the inner-setting domain of an implementation framework. A survey and interviews show strong commitment among nurses and weaker confidence among technicians, especially for pre-lunch checks. Nine conditions are then rated in turn, from the order-set trigger and meters to training, break coverage, the NPH protocol, prescriber response, a data link and managerial sponsorship. The highlighted sentence identifies the quietest gap, steroid orders from other order sets. A section finds readiness weakest at the edges of the day-shift routine. Recommended actions address each gap, citing behavior change theory on opportunity, and a decision delays go-live by one week.
Where the points sit in the NU803 Unit 2 rubric
Readiness assessments are generally scored on the framework, assessment of people, assessment of conditions, analysis and recommendations. The framework earns credit when it is described accurately and applied. People are assessed on commitment and confidence, with differences between groups noted. Conditions are judged on whether each is rated from direct evidence. Analysis is credited when the pattern of gaps is interpreted, not only listed. Recommendations score well when they are specific, assigned and linked to a go or delay decision. Assessments that find a gap invisible from the unit, such as an order route, often earn credit for rigor because they show the assessor looked beyond staff opinion.
NU803 Unit 2 help from the desk
A common weakness is relying entirely on a staff survey, which shows willingness but not whether systems work. Another is rating conditions as in place because someone said so. Some assessments list gaps without saying who can close them. Others recommend going ahead regardless of what they found, which makes the assessment pointless. Many miss edge cases such as night staff or other order routes. And delays are often avoided even when justified. Check each condition directly, look at the edges of the routine, assign each gap to the person who can close it, and let the findings decide whether to launch. Finally, repeat the assessment a month after launch, since readiness changes once people see what the work actually involves.
Get an NU803 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
List what you think must be in place before your change starts, even roughly, and describe any staff input you already have; include the Unit 2 prompt and rubric. Returned as a free first custom sample in 24-48h: a register of conditions with status and owner, a short survey summary and a go-live rule. 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 NU803 papers and DNP samples
- NU803 Unit 1: Change Model Application, Lippitt
- NU803 Unit 3: Discussion Board Post
- NU803 Unit 4: Stakeholder Interest Analysis
- NU803 Unit 5: Measurement Plan
- NU803 Unit 6: Baseline Data Summary
- NU803 Unit 7: Run Chart Interpretation
- NU803 Unit 8: Statistical Analysis Write-up
- NU803 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
- NU803 Unit 10: Sustainability Plan
- NU800 Unit 2: PICOT Worksheet, Steroid Hyperglycemia
- NU753 Unit 2: Structure Analysis, Approval Path
- NU703 Unit 2: DNP and PhD Role Comparison
- NU743 Unit 2: Differential Workup, High ALP
NU803 Unit 2 questions, answered
Should a readiness assessment use a validated instrument?
Some sections insist on one; others accept a well-reasoned alternative. Instruments measure attitudes well; they rarely check whether a card prints or a schedule allows a task. The sample leads with a register of verified conditions and adds four survey questions of its own, labeled as unvalidated. Where your section requires a published instrument, it can sit alongside the register rather than replace it.
Where can I find a free NU803 Unit 2 sample paper?
This page holds the full NU803 Unit 2 readiness assessment, with its framework, commitment and efficacy findings, nine conditions rated from evidence, the pattern of gaps, recommended actions and a go-live decision, with three references. We can help you assess readiness for a change you are planning.
What is the quietest gap in NU803 Unit 2?
About 18 percent of qualifying steroid doses are ordered through oncology and emergency admission order sets that do not contain the glucose-check trigger, so those patients would never be checked and no alarm would say so.
Why delay go-live in NU803 Unit 2?
Because the data link needed to evaluate the bundle had not been built and break timing had not been agreed. A change that cannot be evaluated cannot be sustained, and a one-week delay was enough to close both gaps.
Does readiness mean staff agree in NU803 Unit 2?
Only in part. Weiner's theory treats readiness as both commitment and shared confidence in the team's ability, and the assessment adds concrete conditions, such as whether the trigger fires and whether break coverage includes checks.