| Course | NU804 DNP Project II |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Barriers and adaptations memo |
| Length | About 870 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 NU804 Unit 4
Five Barriers, Five Adaptations, Two Decisions Needed: A Unit 4 Barriers and Adaptations Memo for an Insulin Discharge Bundle
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU804: DNP Project II
Unit 4 Barriers and Adaptations Memo
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The hospital, people, barriers and figures are composite and illustrative; the frameworks and studies cited are real.
Memo
To: Director of Nursing Quality (practice mentor); members of the nursing quality committee From: DNP student, project lead Re: Barriers and adaptations, weeks 1 to 10, and two decisions needed
Summary
The bundle is running on 4 West, 3 West, cardiac step-down and the surgical unit. Twenty-four patients have gone home on new insulin, and 16 received all five parts. Five barriers explain most of the misses. Three adaptations are already in place and logged; two need the committee's approval because they change who does the work or what the bundle costs.
The Barriers and the Adaptations
1. Weekend starters had no pen. The outpatient pharmacy closes from Friday at 1700 to Monday at 0800, so patients starting insulin over a weekend were taught on a trainer pen. Adaptation, in place since week four: the inpatient pharmacy dispenses and labels a take-home pen on weekends. Since then, all three weekend starters left with their pen. This is a change of form, keeping the pen-in-hand function. Decision needed: the trial was approved for six weeks; pharmacy asks the committee to make it permanent, which adds about two hours of inpatient pharmacist time a week across all ten units.
2. Medicaid prior authorization arrived late. Four of the first six Medicaid patients waited for approval past their first insulin day. Adaptation, in place since week nine: a daily 0900 list of new insulin starters goes to the pharmacist, who starts prior authorization that morning. It is too soon to show an effect.
3. Plans did not always match final doses. Three of the first 19 plans listed a dose different from the final order. Adaptation, in place since week nine: plans are generated from the final discharge reconciliation and read aloud with the patient. No mismatches have been found since, in seven plans.
4. Marshallese messages were not ready. The translated texts were delayed when the community reviewer became ill, and two Marshallese-speaking patients received phone calls through an interpreter instead. Adaptation: phone follow-up continues for Marshallese speakers until the reviewed messages are ready, expected in three weeks. Function kept; form changed.
5. The steroid plan needs a safety check before oncology starts. The approved proposal requires a review after the first ten oncology patients. The oncology medical director now asks for one more step before go-live: a daily glucose call from the educator for the first five days after discharge for patients whose steroid dose will fall by half or more within a week. Decision needed: this adds about three hours a week of educator time on oncology for the first months, and the educator's time is already fully allocated.
None of these barriers came from staff resisting the bundle; all five came from systems the bundle had not yet reached.
How the Changes Are Recorded
Each adaptation is recorded in the change log using the elements Wiltsey Stirman et al. (2019) suggest reporting for any modification, among them its timing, whether it was foreseen, the person or group that chose it, its target and its effect on fidelity, alongside the reason behind it. All five are reactive, and all five keep the core functions. Recording them this way lets the evaluation separate the period before and after each change.
Why These Decisions Matter
Proctor et al. (2011) distinguish implementation outcomes such as feasibility and cost from clinical outcomes, and note that a practice can be effective and still fail because it is not feasible in a setting. The weekend pen and the oncology calls are feasibility questions. Without the weekend pen, about two in seven patients who start insulin will be taught on the wrong device, since roughly that share start on a Friday evening, Saturday or Sunday. Without the oncology calls, the unit with the most rapidly changing doses will start with the least protection. Stedge et al. (2023) found that delivering medicines before discharge reduced readmission most when the cost barrier was also addressed, which supports keeping the pen in hand whatever day the patient starts.
Options for the Educator Time
The memo proposes, in order of preference:
1. Ask the cardiac step-down resource nurse, who completed the educator's course and has two years of diabetes education experience, to take the oncology daily calls for three hours a week, funded from the unit's education hours for three months.
2. Delay the oncology go-live by four weeks while the outpatient diabetes service lends a nurse.
3. Start oncology without the daily calls and rely on the stopping rule. This option is not recommended.
The first option keeps the oncology start on schedule and uses a nurse who already knows the bundle, which is why it is recommended.
Requested Action
Please approve the permanent weekend take-home pen and choose an option for the oncology calls at the committee meeting on the 14th, so oncology and renal-transplant can start as scheduled in week 13.
References
Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., & Hensley, M. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
Stedge, B., Xu, J., Kubes, J. N., Han, E., Russie, C., Woods, L., & O'Donnell, C. (2023). Meds to beds at hospital discharge improves medication adherence and readmission rates in select populations. Southern Medical Journal, 116(3), 247-254. https://doi.org/10.14423/SMJ.0000000000001532
Wiltsey Stirman, S., Baumann, A. A., & Miller, C. J. (2019). The FRAME: An expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions. Implementation Science, 14, 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0898-y
What the NU804 Unit 4 assignment asks for
The Unit 4 memo usually goes to the practice mentor or project committee and reports barriers met during implementation with the adaptations made or proposed. Expect a memo format with a clear subject, a short summary first and each barrier set out with its adaptation. Instructors look for adaptations classified by whether they change a core part of the intervention, and for any decisions the reader must make stated plainly. Approvals needed for changes to staffing, cost or core components should be requested explicitly. A framework for recording adaptations is often expected. Options with a recommendation help the reader decide. Length matters: a memo that a busy committee member can read in a few minutes serves its purpose best. The requested action and its deadline belong at the end, in one or two sentences.
How the NU 804 Unit 4 example is put together
The memo opens with headers, then a summary giving the four live units, 24 patients and 16 receiving every part. Each of five barriers is described with its cause, the adaptation and whether it keeps the bundle's function, and the two requiring decisions are flagged in bold. A highlighted line observes that none of the barriers came from staff resistance; all came from systems the bundle had not yet reached. A section explains how changes are recorded using the FRAME's elements. Another explains why the decisions matter, drawing on Proctor and colleagues' distinction between feasibility and clinical outcomes and on Stedge and colleagues' finding about cost. Three ranked options for the oncology calls follow, with the first recommended, and the memo ends with a dated request.
Where the points sit in the NU804 Unit 4 rubric
Memos in this unit are generally graded on clarity, decision focus and accuracy. The summary should let a reader grasp the status and the decisions needed in a few sentences. Each barrier earns credit when its cause is clear and its adaptation is specific. Labeling changes by whether they affect a core function shows understanding of fidelity. Decisions should be stated with their cost or staffing implications, since approvers need both. Options with a recommendation score better than a problem left for the reader to solve. Use of a framework for recording adaptations shows preparation for the evaluation. Professional tone and a format suited to busy leaders are expected. Sources should be cited briefly and correctly in APA 7, without turning the memo into a paper.
Common NU804 Unit 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Memos lose credit when they read like papers, with long background and the request buried at the end. Another frequent weakness is listing problems without adaptations, or adaptations without saying whether they need approval. Some students ask for a decision without stating its cost, which forces the reader to come back with questions. Others present a single option, leaving no room for the committee's judgment. Vague labels such as staff issues hide the system causes that a committee can fix. Changes made without being logged will cause trouble in the final analysis. Begin by writing the decision you need in one sentence, then build the memo around the evidence for it. A custom memo can be written from your own barriers and adaptations.
Get an NU804 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Share the barriers, your responses and the memo instructions with the rubric. A custom memo sets out each barrier, the adaptation and whether it needs approval. It arrives within 24-48h; first requests are 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 NU804 papers and DNP samples
- NU804 Unit 1: DNP Go-Live Discussion Post
- NU804 Unit 2: DNP Staff Training Report
- NU804 Unit 3: Implementation Fidelity Report
- NU804 Unit 5: Seminar Reflection
- NU804 Unit 6: Interim Data Report
- NU804 Unit 7: Stakeholder Update
- NU804 Unit 8: Unexpected Finding Discussion
- NU804 Unit 9: Leadership Reflection
- NU804 Unit 10: Implementation Summary
- NU803 Unit 4: Stakeholder Analysis, Who Pays
- NU813 Unit 4: Barrier Analysis
- NU802 Unit 4: DNP Project Design and Methods
- NU823 Unit 4: Manuscript Draft
NU804 Unit 4 questions, answered
Who is the memo for?
Usually the practice mentor or project committee, so it should be short and decision-focused.
Should adaptations be approved?
Changes to core components or measures usually need the mentor's and sometimes the site's agreement.
How do I document an adaptation?
Record what changed, when, why, who approved it and how it affects the data.
Where can I find a free NU804 Unit 4 sample paper?
The complete NU804 Unit 4 barriers and adaptations memo is printed on this page, setting out five barriers to an insulin bundle, their adaptations and two decisions for the committee.
What two decisions does the NU804 Unit 4 sample memo request?
Making weekend take-home pens from the inpatient pharmacy permanent, and choosing how to staff daily calls for oncology patients on rapidly falling steroid doses, with three ranked options.