NURS 4110 Week 6 Policy Stakeholder Map Example

Course	NURS 4110 Leadership and Health Policy
Week	Week 6
Paper type	Stakeholder map
Length	About 920 words, 6 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for NURS 4110 Week 6

Stakeholder Map for a State Nurse Staffing Committee Bill

Student Name

College of Nursing, Walden University

NURS 4110: Leadership and Health Policy

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe bill is composite, but every stakeholder is a kind of group that appears in real staffing debates, and each position is stated in the group's own terms.

Stakeholder Map for a State Nurse Staffing Committee Bill

The bill under analysis would require every acute care hospital in a composite state to establish a nurse staffing committee, with at least half of its members being direct-care registered nurses chosen by their peers. Each committee would write an annual unit-by-unit staffing plan, and hospitals would file the plans with the state health department, which would enforce the requirement. The bill does not set fixed nurse-to-patient ratios.

Stakeholder analysis, as Brugha and Varvasovszky (2000) describe it, is a way of assessing the interests, positions and influence of the actors around a policy so that its supporters can decide whom to engage and how. This map applies that approach in three steps: a table of the seven main stakeholders, a grid placing them by power and interest, and a short reading of the context the bill must pass through.

Stakeholders, Positions and Interests

Table 1 states each group's likely position in terms the group itself would use, rather than in the terms of the bill's supporters.

Table 1

Stakeholders in the Nurse Staffing Committee Bill

Stakeholder	Likely position	Core interest	Source of influence	What it needs to hear
State hospital association	Opposed as written; open to amendment	Management flexibility; avoiding costs and a path toward mandated ratios	Member hospitals in every district; lobbyists; data on finances	That the bill sets a process, not ratios, and that plans stay the hospital's to adopt
State nurses association	Supports	Nurses' voice in staffing decisions; safe practice conditions	Membership across districts; credibility on patient safety; testimony	That the committee's plans will be enforceable enough to matter
Nurses' union	Supports, but prefers fixed ratios	Enforceable staffing standards; a floor under workloads	Organized members; election activity; bargaining experience	That committees are a first step and do not foreclose later ratio proposals
Chair of the legislature's health committee	Undecided	Passing workable legislation; constituents' safety; relations with both hospitals and nurses	Controls whether the bill gets a hearing and a vote	Evidence that staffing affects outcomes, and a version both sides can live with
State health department	Neutral; concerned about workload	Clear rules it can enforce with current staff	Writes the implementing rules; testifies on fiscal notes	That filing requirements are simple and funding for review is included
Patient advocacy coalition	Supports	Safe care and transparency for patients and families	Public testimony; media attention; personal stories	That staffing plans will be public
Hospital chief nursing officers	Mixed	Retention of staff nurses; budget accountability to their executives	Credibility with both legislators and hospital boards	That shared staffing decisions can reduce turnover and agency spending

Power and Interest Grid

Table 2 places the same stakeholders on a two-by-two grid. Power means the ability to change the bill's chances; interest means how closely the group follows it and how much it cares about the result.

Table 2

Stakeholders by Power and Interest

	High interest	Low interest
High power	Health committee chair; state hospital association	State health department (power through rulemaking and fiscal notes; follows the bill only as far as it affects enforcement)
Low power	State nurses association; nurses' union; patient advocacy coalition; chief nursing officers	Individual hospital boards not yet engaged

The grid shows the core difficulty. The groups most eager for the bill sit in the low-power quadrant, while the hospital association, which holds real influence, is the group most likely to oppose it. Supporters therefore have to move the chair, and they have to either neutralize or partly win over the hospital association.

What this page is doingPower and interest are defined before stakeholders are placed, so the grid can be argued with rather than simply accepted.

Context

The political calendar is short. The composite legislature meets for ninety days, and bills that do not clear committee by the midpoint rarely survive. A staffing bill that needs amendments must be negotiated before the hearing, not after it. In the language of Kingdon (2011), the problem and proposal streams are already present; what supporters lack is certainty in the political stream, and a short session means that window may open and close within weeks.

Hospital finances shape the hospital association's position. Many hospitals report thin operating margins, and administrators worry that committee plans will translate into more nurses on every shift without the revenue to pay for them. Supporters should not dismiss this concern. They can answer it with evidence that staffing is linked to outcomes that carry their own costs. In the comparison by Aiken et al. (2010) of hospitals in California, which mandates ratios, with hospitals in two states that do not, lower patient loads were associated with lower mortality, less nurse burnout and better nurse-reported quality in all three states.

Public trust in nurses is a political resource. Legislators are more likely to listen to a bedside nurse describing an unsafe night than to an association lobbyist making the same point. That gives the low-power, high-interest groups a way to raise their influence: testimony from direct-care nurses in the chair's own district.

Stakeholders Who Would Change the Outcome

Two stakeholders matter most. The first is the health committee chair, because without a hearing the bill cannot advance, and the chair's undecided position means it can still be won. The second is the group of chief nursing officers. They sit inside the hospitals that the association represents, but their interest in retaining nurses aligns in part with the bill's purpose. If several chief nursing officers testified that shared staffing decisions had helped them keep staff, the hospital association's opposition would be harder to sustain, and the chair would have the evidence of a workable compromise that the table suggests the chair needs.

What this page is doingThe conclusion names two stakeholders and explains why moving them would change the bill's chances, which is what a map is for.

References

Aiken, L. H., Sloane, D. M., Cimiotti, J. P., Clarke, S. P., Flynn, L., Seago, J. A., Spetz, J., & Smith, H. L. (2010). Implications of the California nurse staffing mandate for other states. Health Services Research, 45(4), 904-921. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01114.x

Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: A review. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), 239-246. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/15.3.239

Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (Updated 2nd ed.). Longman.

NURS 4110 Week 6 instructions, in plain terms

Week 6 of NURS 4110 typically asks for a stakeholder map for your policy issue. You identify stakeholders, state their positions and interests, plot them by power and interest, describe context and name those who would decide the outcome. Faculty mark accuracy and fairness first, so missing the enforcing agency or caricaturing opponents costs points. Cite a mapping tool and policy sources in APA 7. Six to ten stakeholders is common. Opponents should be presented sympathetically. Context from other states strengthens the analysis. NURS 4110 faculty want each stakeholder's position and interest stated, the grid placements justified and the deciding stakeholders named. Describe related laws elsewhere.

How this NURS 4110 Week 6 example is built

Roughly four pages, organized around a stakeholder table and a two-by-two grid. The table lists seven stakeholders: the state hospital association, the state nurses association, a nurses' union, the legislature's health committee chair, the state health department that would enforce the law, a patient advocacy coalition and hospital chief nursing officers. Each row states the group's likely position, its core interest, its source of influence and what it would need to hear. The grid places them by power and interest, putting the committee chair and hospital association in the high-high quadrant. A context section covers the political calendar, hospital finances and public trust in nurses, each in a short paragraph. A closing section names the two stakeholders whose movement would most change the bill's chances and explains why.

Where the marks sit in the NURS 4110 Week 6 rubric

Stakeholder maps are marked on accuracy and fairness before insight. A map missing an obvious party, the agency that would enforce the law, loses completeness credit that no amount of analysis recovers. Many rubrics then examine whether positions are plausible and specific; labeling every opponent as resistant to change looks like lobbying rather than analysis, and a policy course is quick to notice. The grid is often scored for consistency with the table, so a group described as indifferent but placed high on interest undermines the whole figure. Context sections lose points when they list political, economic and social factors without tying any to a placement. Sources count here as well, since a stakeholder's position should be traceable to a public statement or published analysis rather than assumed.

NURS 4110 Week 6 help from the desk

Stakeholder maps lose completeness credit when an obvious party, such as the agency that would enforce the law, is missing. Check every role. Another common gap is presenting opponents as obstacles without interests. Explain what they want. Writers also place stakeholders on the grid without reasons. Justify each placement. Avoid long background sections. Describe similar laws in other states. Name the stakeholders who would change the outcome. Close with whom you would approach first. Writers also forget patients as stakeholders in a staffing bill. Include patient advocates. Another frequent slip is a grid with no explanation. Add a line for each placement. Keep it to one page if possible.

Get a NURS 4110 Week 6 example written to your instructions

Hand the desk your Week 6 template and rubric along with the issue you selected in Week 5, and it builds a NURS 4110 policy stakeholder map with the table, the grid and the context section. First one free, 24 to 48 hours. Organizational issues get the same treatment, with departments and executives in place of legislators.

More NURS 4110 papers and BSN samples

NURS 4110 Week 6 questions, answered

How many stakeholders should a policy map include?

Every party with real power or real interest in the outcome, which for a state staffing bill often runs to six or eight. The example has seven, including the enforcement agency that weaker maps forget. Adding groups with no stake pads the table without improving the analysis, while leaving out an enforcer or a funder produces a map that misreads how the bill would actually be decided.

What is a power and interest grid?

A two-by-two figure associated with Mendelow that places stakeholders by how much influence they hold over a decision and how much they care about it. High-power, high-interest groups are the ones a policy argument must engage directly. The example uses the grid to show that the health committee chair and the hospital association sit in that quadrant, which shapes who the eventual brief addresses.

Should opponents' positions be presented sympathetically?

Accurately, which often reads as sympathetically. The example states the hospital association's position as a concern about flexibility and cost rather than opposition to safe staffing, because that is how the association would put it. A map that describes opponents unfairly misleads its own author, and a nurse arguing to a legislator needs to answer the real objection, not a weaker one.

Where can I find a free NURS 4110 Week 6 sample paper?

The staffing committee bill stakeholder map is reproduced here with positions and interests, the power and interest grid, context and the decisive stakeholders.

What would the NURS 4110 Week 6 bill require?

Staffing committees in every acute care hospital, at least half direct-care nurses, writing an annual staffing plan.