| Course | NURS 3021 Professional Nurses as Change Agents |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 7 |
| Paper type | Stakeholder analysis |
| Length | About 790 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NURS 3021 Week 7
Stakeholder Buy-In Analysis: Inviting Families Onto Daily Rounds in a Medical Intensive Care Unit
Student Name
College of Nursing, Walden University
NURS 3021: Professional Nurses as Change Agents
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Stakeholder Buy-In Analysis: Inviting Families Onto Daily Rounds in a Medical Intensive Care Unit
The Change in Brief
The proposal from Week 6, restated in two sentences: families of patients in our 20-bed medical intensive care unit would be invited to join the daily interdisciplinary rounds at their family member's bedside, for the part of rounds that concerns their patient. The bedside nurse would tell the family the expected time and invite them to listen, ask questions, and add what they know about the patient.
The proposal grew out of a pattern the bedside nurses see daily. Families wait in the lounge during rounds, then ask the nurse what was decided, and the nurse relays a plan she heard secondhand while also caring for two patients. Physicians then hold separate family meetings later in the day, often after the family has already heard a partial version. Bringing families to the one daily discussion where the whole team is present would replace several fragmented conversations with one, but it changes the routine of every group in the table below, which is why the analysis has to start with them.
Table 1 lists everyone whose routine the change touches, what each group is likely to worry about, the evidence that speaks to that worry, and what the proposal offers in return.
Table 1
Stakeholders in Family Presence on Rounds
| Group | Current role on rounds | Likely concern | Evidence that addresses it | What the proposal offers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attending physicians | Lead the discussion and set the plan | Rounds will slow; frank discussion will be harder | Guideline suggests offering families participation (Davidson et al., 2017); no evidence found on time | Families join only for their patient's portion; sensitive topics can be moved to a separate meeting |
| Residents | Present patients; are taught at the bedside | Less teaching; being corrected in front of families | None found in the sources reviewed | A short teaching segment held away from the bedside after family portions |
| Bedside nurses | Present overnight events and nursing concerns | Extra work coordinating family timing | Families value consistent timing and information (Cody et al., 2018) | A posted rounds order so families can be given a time window |
| Respiratory therapists | Report ventilator settings and weaning | Technical talk may alarm families | Families valued honest, easy-to-understand information (Cody et al., 2018) | A one-line plain-language summary at the end of each patient's discussion |
| Pharmacists | Review medications and dosing | Little direct effect | None needed | No change to their role |
| Families | Currently not present; updated separately | Feeling unwelcome or overwhelmed; missing rounds | Participation was associated with higher satisfaction with communication and decision support (Jacobowski et al., 2010) | An invitation, a time window, and permission to decline |
Grading the Evidence
Each source is rated with the Johns Hopkins evidence levels, which run from Level I for randomized trials and their reviews down to Level V for expert opinion and nonresearch evidence (Dang et al., 2022). The family-centered care guideline for the ICU is a clinical practice guideline based on a systematic review, and its authors state that all its recommendations were weak, reflecting a young evidence base (Davidson et al., 2017). The study of family rounds in a medical ICU used a quasi-experimental before-and-after design without randomization, Level II, and found that participation was associated with higher satisfaction with the frequency of communication and with support during decision making, but not with overall satisfaction, and with lower satisfaction about the time available for decisions (Jacobowski et al., 2010). The qualitative study of family experiences with bedside rounds is Level III and describes what families valued: consistency in information and timing, and being prepared for what comes next (Cody et al., 2018).
Read against the table, the grading shows a pattern. The families' concerns meet the strongest evidence available, though still modest. The physicians' concern about time and the residents' concern about teaching meet no evidence at all in the sources reviewed. The proposal is on firmest ground where the families are, and weakest where the most powerful stakeholders are.
The Objection the Proposal Cannot Yet Answer
The residents' concern about teaching is the one objection this proposal cannot answer. Bedside rounds are where residents are questioned and taught, and some of that teaching involves uncertainty, mistakes, and debate that residents and attendings may not want to hold in front of families. The offer of a separate teaching segment is a guess, not a solution. The information that would settle it is local: a 2-week pilot on one team in which rounds are timed with and without families present and residents are asked, in a short anonymous survey, whether teaching changed. Until that information exists, the proposal should present the teaching concern honestly as unresolved rather than claim that family presence has no cost to education.
References
Cody, S. E., Sullivan-Bolyai, S., & Reid-Ponte, P. (2018). Making a connection: Family experiences with bedside rounds in the intensive care unit. Critical Care Nurse, 38(3), 18-26. https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2018128
Dang, D., Dearholt, S. L., Bissett, K., Ascenzi, J., & Whalen, M. (2022). Johns Hopkins evidence-based practice for nurses and healthcare professionals: Model and guidelines (4th ed.). Sigma Theta Tau International.
Davidson, J. E., Aslakson, R. A., Long, A. C., Puntillo, K. A., Kross, E. K., Hart, J., Cox, C. E., Wunsch, H., Wickline, M. A., Nunnally, M. E., Netzer, G., Kentish-Barnes, N., Sprung, C. L., Hartog, C. S., Coombs, M., Gerritsen, R. T., Hopkins, R. O., Franck, L. S., Skrobik, Y., . . . Curtis, J. R. (2017). Guidelines for family-centered care in the neonatal, pediatric, and adult ICU. Critical Care Medicine, 45(1), 103-128. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000002169
Jacobowski, N. L., Girard, T. D., Mulder, J. A., & Ely, E. W. (2010). Communication in critical care: Family rounds in the intensive care unit. American Journal of Critical Care, 19(5), 421-430. https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2010656
The Walden NURS 3021 Week 7 instructions
The seventh NURS 3021 week commonly asks for a stakeholder analysis for a proposed change. You list every group affected, describe each group's interests and likely concerns, weigh the evidence they will care about and identify the objections you cannot yet answer. Faculty grade completeness and candor over persuasion, so missing an obvious group costs marks. Cite the evidence and an evidence-grading tool in APA 7. The analysis need not resolve every objection. Patients and families count as stakeholders. A table of groups, interests and actions is a common format. NURS 3021 faculty want each group's interests and concerns in its own row, with the evidence it will weigh. Name the open objection plainly. Say which group you will approach first and why.
Inside the NURS 3021 Week 7 example
Three to four pages extending the Week 6 proposal rather than restating it. A short opening paragraph summarizes the change in two sentences and points back to the earlier document. The core is a stakeholder table with five columns: group, current role on rounds, likely concern, evidence that addresses it, and what the proposal offers in return. Rows cover attending physicians, residents, bedside nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists and families. Beneath the table, an evidence section rates each source using the Johns Hopkins evidence levels, making visible which concerns meet strong evidence and which rest on thinner support. A final paragraph names the one group whose objection the proposal cannot yet answer and names the information that would settle it.
Reading the NURS 3021 Week 7 rubric
Stakeholder weeks are graded on completeness and candor more than on persuasion. Rubrics commonly credit identification of relevant groups, and missing an obvious one, residents on a teaching unit, costs more than any weak sentence. The next weighting usually goes to whether each concern is plausible and specific; a column filled with resistance to change for every row shows the table was completed without being thought through. Evidence is often scored on level and fit, and grading the sources explicitly makes that assessment easy for a reader. Integration with the earlier proposal matters in many sections, so a document that ignores Week 6 or contradicts it loses coherence credit. Admitting an unresolved objection tends to help rather than hurt, since it shows the analysis tested the proposal instead of decorating it.
NURS 3021 Week 7 help from the desk
Stakeholder analyses lose credit when an obvious group is missing, such as respiratory therapists in an ICU. Check every role on rounds. Another common gap is describing each group's support without its concerns. Name what each fears. Writers also present weak evidence as strong. Grade it honestly. Avoid pretending every objection is solved. Name the one you cannot yet answer. Include families as stakeholders, not just beneficiaries. Keep the proposal restatement brief. Close with the group whose support you will seek first. Writers also forget patient privacy on open rounds, which families and staff may raise. Address it. Another frequent slip is grading evidence without naming the tool. Name it.
Get a NURS 3021 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Forward the Week 7 prompt and rubric with a copy of your Week 6 proposal; the stakeholder buy-in analysis for NURS 3021 is then built to extend it, table and graded evidence included. The first one free arrives in 24 to 48 hours. Colleague names and patient details in your proposal are dropped; only the change itself carries over.
More NURS 3021 papers and BSN samples
- NURS 3021 Week 1: Professional Stance Post
- NURS 3021 Week 2: Change Agency Post
- NURS 3021 Week 3: Change Agent Goal Statement
- NURS 3021 Week 4: Change Theory Discussion
- NURS 3021 Week 5: Practice Problem Analysis
- NURS 3021 Week 6: Unit Change Proposal
- NURS 3021 Week 8: Barrier rebuttal thread
- NURS 3021 Week 9: Sustaining change reflection
- NURS 3021 Week 10: Integrated change synthesis
- NURS 3021 Week 11: Professional growth reflection
- NURS 3025 Week 7: Abdominal and musculoskeletal write-up
- NURS 4300 Week 7: BSN capstone implementation plan
- NURS 3030 Week 7: Advocacy plan draft
- NURS 4212 Week 7: Assembled community assessment
NURS 3021 Week 7 questions, answered
Which stakeholders belong in the analysis?
Every group whose daily work or decisions the change would alter, plus whoever approves it. For family presence on ICU rounds that means physicians, residents, bedside nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists and families, with the nurse manager and medical director approving jointly. The example leaves out groups the change barely touches, such as environmental services, because padding the table dilutes the rows that matter.
What is the Johns Hopkins evidence rating doing in a stakeholder week?
It lets the reader see how strong the answer to each concern is. The example rates every source on the Johns Hopkins scale, which runs from experimental studies down to expert opinion, and places it beside the objection it addresses. A concern met only by opinion is flagged as weaker, which keeps the analysis honest about where the proposal is exposed.
Should the analysis resolve every objection?
No, and trying to can weaken it. The example leaves the pharmacists' concern open and identifies what evidence would be needed to answer it. Reviewers of real proposals expect some unresolved questions, and a document claiming every group will agree reads as advocacy. One honest gap, clearly named, usually earns more credibility than a table in which every row ends in consent.
Where can I find a free NURS 3021 Week 7 sample paper?
The family-on-rounds stakeholder analysis is on this page with each group's gains and fears, the graded evidence and the objection still open.
Why grade evidence in a NURS 3021 Week 7 stakeholder analysis?
Because physicians and managers judge proposals by evidence strength. The Johns Hopkins levels show them how strong the support for family rounds is.