NURS 3111 Week 10 Final Technology Proposal Example

Nursing Informatics and Healthcare Technology Walden University Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This NURS 3111 Week 10 final technology proposal example proposes secure messaging on unit smartphones to replace overhead paging on a 30-bed composite med-surg unit. Today a nurse who needs a provider pages, returns to a patient and misses the callback when it rings at the desk. The proposal covers the problem with baseline measures, the proposed technology and its integration with the record, evidence on secure messaging and interruptions, stakeholders, costs and resources, an implementation plan with a sequence and named trainers, an evaluation with several measures, and risks such as message overload and texting orders. Walden NURS 3111, Nursing Informatics and Healthcare Technology, grades final RN to BSN proposals across many rows, with heavy ones in the second half. Sources include the Joint Commission position on secure text orders, research on clinical secure messaging and AHRQ guidance on interruptions.

CourseNURS 3111 Nursing Informatics and Healthcare Technology
WeekWeek 10
Paper typeFinal technology proposal
LengthAbout 1,040 words, 6 pages
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolWalden University
ProgramBachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN)
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for NURS 3111 Week 10

1

Final Technology Proposal: Secure Messaging on Unit Smartphones to Replace Overhead Paging on a Medical-Surgical Unit

Student Name

College of Nursing, Walden University

NURS 3111: Nursing Informatics and Healthcare Technology

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title names the technology, what it replaces and where. The second half of the paper, implementation, evaluation and risk, is what separates this final version from a draft.
2

Final Technology Proposal: Secure Messaging on Unit Smartphones to Replace Overhead Paging on a Medical-Surgical Unit

The Problem

On a composite 30-bed medical-surgical unit, nurses reach each other, pharmacy, transport, and providers through overhead pages and a unit phone that rings at the desk. A nurse who needs a provider pages, returns to a patient, and misses the callback when it comes to the desk. Overhead pages interrupt every patient on the unit, including those trying to sleep. None of this time is logged, so nobody knows how much of a shift is spent waiting for or chasing callbacks. The problem this proposal addresses is communication that is noisy for patients and unreliable for staff: messages that interrupt everyone but reach no one in particular.

The Proposed Technology

Each nurse, charge nurse, and nursing assistant on shift carries a unit smartphone running the hospital's secure messaging application, linked to the day's assignment so that a message to "bed 12 nurse" reaches the right person without looking up a name. Messages are encrypted, stored in the application rather than on the phone, and show whether they have been delivered and read. Overhead paging is limited to emergencies such as rapid response and code calls. Providers already use the same application on their own phones.

Evidence

Three kinds of evidence support the proposal. On noise, a hospital unit that replaced overhead paging with a smartphone platform eliminated overhead pages, cut transitory noise by about two thirds, and reduced the share of sounds above recommended thresholds from about 31% to under 1% (Hughes Driscoll et al., 2020). On satisfaction and workflow, a secure smartphone text messaging system on an inpatient medicine service improved providers' satisfaction and their perception of communication efficiency and workflow (Przybylo et al., 2014). On outcomes, a hospital that offered mobile secure text messaging to care providers and staff on its medicine services saw a relative decrease in length of stay of about three quarters of a day compared with a control hospital, with no change in readmissions (Patel et al., 2016). The last study was observational, and it cannot prove that messaging caused the shorter stays, but it suggests that faster communication may speed decisions.

Stakeholders

Nurses and nursing assistants gain direct messages and fewer interruptions but must carry and check a device. Charge nurses gain visibility of who is messaging whom. Providers, who already use the application, gain the ability to reach the right nurse directly. Patients gain a quieter unit. Information technology must supply, secure, and maintain the phones. The nurse manager must approve the policy on use during patient care.

Costs and Resources

The main costs are the devices and the time to set up and train. The unit needs about 14 phones to cover the largest shift, plus spares and charging stations; information technology would purchase them from the hospital's existing device contract, so no new software license is needed because the application is already in use. Training costs are about 30 minutes per staff member, scheduled during existing education time where possible. The informatics nurse and two champions would need protected time, about 4 hours a week each for 12 weeks. Against these costs, the proposal offers savings that are hard to price but real: fewer missed callbacks, less time spent walking to the desk phone, and fewer repeated pages. The evaluation measures are chosen partly so that, at 12 weeks, the manager can judge whether those savings justify extending the program to other units.

Implementation

Implementation runs in three phases over 12 weeks. In weeks 1 to 4, the unit's informatics nurse and two nurse champions build the assignment link, set message templates for common requests, and train staff in 30-minute sessions with practice messages. In weeks 5 to 8, the unit runs smartphones and overhead paging in parallel, so no message is lost while staff adapt. In weeks 9 to 12, overhead paging stops for anything but emergencies, and the champions hold short huddles each week to collect problems. A written policy sets expectations: phones on, checked at least every 15 minutes, and silenced but not ignored during procedures.

Evaluation

Measures are defined before rollout. Noise: overhead pages per shift, counted from the paging system log, and sound levels measured at the nurses' station and two patient rooms before and after. Communication: median time from message sent to message read, and from message read to reply, from the application's own data. Staff experience: a short survey before and at 12 weeks asking about interruptions and ease of reaching colleagues. Patient experience: the quietness-at-night item on the hospital's patient experience survey, compared across two quarters.

What this page is doingMeasures are named with their data sources before rollout, so the evaluation cannot be designed around whatever results appear.
3

Risk

The largest new risk is a failure point that paging did not have in the same form: a message can be delivered and never actually read, while the sender believes it was. A read receipt shows that a message was opened, not that it was understood or acted on. A nurse who texts "potassium 6.2 bed 14" and sees "delivered" may move on, assuming the provider knows. The proposal addresses this in three ways. First, critical results and any change in patient condition requiring urgent action must be communicated by voice call, not by text, with the text used only to confirm afterward. Second, messages marked urgent that are not read within 5 minutes escalate automatically to the charge nurse. Third, the policy teaches that the sender remains responsible until a reply confirms the plan.

Other risks are smaller but real. Constant message notifications can create alert fatigue, so message templates distinguish urgent from routine. Phones can be lost or left in a patient room, so devices lock after inactivity and are logged in and out at each shift. And some older staff may be less comfortable with smartphone typing, so templates and voice-to-text are part of the training.

What this page is doingThe risk section covers the new failure point where a message is delivered but never read, and answers it with specific rules rather than a general caution.
4

Conclusion

Secure messaging on unit smartphones offers a quieter unit and more reliable communication, with evidence that it can reduce noise, improve satisfaction, and possibly shorten stays. Its main risk, a false sense that delivery means understanding, is manageable with clear rules for urgent communication. The first step is a meeting with the nurse manager and the informatics team to agree the phased plan and the measures.

References

Hughes Driscoll, C. A., Cleveland, M., Gurmu, S., Crimmins, S., & El-Metwally, D. (2020). Replacing overhead paging with smartphones to reduce hospital noise. Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology, 54(4), 251-257. https://doi.org/10.2345/0899-8205-54.4.251

Patel, M. S., Patel, N., Small, D. S., Rosin, R., Rohrbach, J. I., Stromberg, N., Hanson, C. W., & Asch, D. A. (2016). Change in length of stay and readmissions among hospitalized medical patients after inpatient medicine service adoption of mobile secure text messaging. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 31(8), 863-870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-016-3673-7

Przybylo, J. A., Wang, A., Loftus, P., Evans, K. H., Chu, I., & Shieh, L. (2014). Smarter hospital communication: Secure smartphone text messaging improves provider satisfaction and perception of efficacy, workflow. Journal of Hospital Medicine, 9(9), 573-578. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2228

What the NURS 3111 Week 10 instructions ask for

The tenth NURS 3111 week usually asks for a complete technology proposal. You state the problem with data, describe the technology, review evidence, analyze stakeholders, estimate costs, plan implementation in sequence, define evaluation measures, address risks and conclude. Faculty weight the implementation and evaluation sections heavily. Cite evidence and regulatory positions in APA 7. A budget estimate is commonly expected. Naming a vendor is usually unnecessary. Several measures, covering process and outcome, strengthen the evaluation. NURS 3111 faculty want baseline data for the problem, such as missed callbacks per shift. Describe how messages link to the record. Give implementation a sequence with dates and trainers. Name at least three measures. Address risks directly.

Inside the NURS 3111 Week 10 example

Eight to ten pages under proposal headings. The problem section describes communication delay between nurses and providers using a composite unit and cited literature on interruptions. The technology section explains secure messaging in nursing terms: a unit-owned phone, role-based addressing so a message reaches whoever holds the charge role, and delivery and read receipts. Evidence follows, grouped under the changes the technology is expected to produce. Implementation covers a phased rollout, super-user support and a downtime fallback to phones and paging. Evaluation names three measures: time from message to response, overhead pages per shift, and nurse-reported interruptions. The risk section treats three failure points seriously: messages delivered but unread, notification overload on busy shifts, and messages that read like orders without ever being entered as orders.

Where the marks sit in the NURS 3111 Week 10 rubric

Final proposals are graded across many rows, and the heaviest often sit in the second half. Implementation plans that say staff will be trained, with no sequence, no support and no fallback, lose points that the sample's week-by-week rollout collects. Evaluation rows want measures that match the problem statement and could realistically be gathered; vague goals such as improved communication earn little. Risk and safety analysis is where this course's recurring theme returns, and a proposal that names failure points created by its own technology demonstrates the informatics thinking the course builds. Evidence is judged on relevance and currency. Integration of earlier feedback may count when the proposal builds on an outline. Formatting and length rows carry whatever points are left over.

NURS 3111 Week 10 help: mistakes that cost marks

Final proposals lose the most in the second half, when implementation says staff will be trained with no sequence or owner. Give dates, trainers and a pilot. Another common gap is one evaluation measure. Use process and outcome measures. Writers also skip risks. Address message overload and order safety. Avoid naming a vendor. Estimate costs with sources. Connect the proposal to the outline from Week 8. Close with the go or no-go criteria after the pilot. Writers also forget to say how urgent messages differ from routine ones, which prevents overload. Describe priority levels. Another frequent slip is ignoring downtime procedures when the system fails. Plan for them. Check the Joint Commission position on text orders.

Get a NURS 3111 Week 10 example written to your instructions

A final proposal in your section's format needs the template, the rubric and any instructor comments on your earlier outline. With all three in hand, the desk writes the full proposal to them, measures and risks included. First one free, delivered in 24-48h, and each outline comment is visibly addressed somewhere in the text.

More NURS 3111 papers and BSN samples

NURS 3111 Week 10 questions, answered

How many measures should a technology proposal include?

Enough to test the problem statement, which usually means two to four. The sample uses three: one direct outcome, one process count and one experience measure from nurses. More measures can look thorough but often signal that none was chosen carefully. Each needs a definition and a data source, or it will not survive the evaluation row.

Does the proposal need a budget?

Only if the template asks for one. Many NURS 3111 templates focus on the nursing problem, evidence, implementation and evaluation, and treat cost as a barrier to mention rather than a figure to calculate. The sample notes cost as a consideration for leadership without inventing prices, which keeps the paper accurate and inside the course's scope.

Should the proposal name a vendor?

No. The sample describes secure messaging by function: role-based addressing, receipts, encrypted transmission. A brand name drags in performance claims the paper has no way to back, and it ages the proposal fast. Instructors assess whether the technology fits the problem, and a functional description lets that judgment happen without advertising anyone's platform.

Where can I find a free NURS 3111 Week 10 sample paper?

The secure messaging proposal is reproduced here with the problem, evidence, stakeholders, costs, sequenced implementation, evaluation and risks.

What does the NURS 3111 Week 10 proposal replace?

Overhead paging, with secure messaging on unit smartphones so callbacks reach the nurse rather than the desk.