Scored with an inventory from Clark's civility work, the NURS 6053 Week 7 workplace civility assessment reads one invented unit's results against published findings and one candid encounter. Searches like "nurs 6053 week 7 assignment example", "nurs6053 week 7 sample" and "nurs 6053 week 7 example" land here.
The NURS 6053 Week 7 example, in full
Assessing My Unit's Work Environment: Civility Results, Published Patterns, and One Item to Address First
Student Name
College of Nursing, Walden University
NURS 6053: Interprofessional Organizational and Systems Leadership
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Assessing My Unit's Work Environment: Civility Results, Published Patterns, and One Item to Address First
Results
I completed the Clark Healthy Workplace Inventory, a 20-item instrument in which each item describes a feature of a healthy work environment and respondents rate how true it is of their workplace (Clark et al., 2016). The scores reported in this sample are illustrative placeholders; an author using this template would substitute her own. My illustrative total was 68, which falls in the range the inventory describes as barely healthy, below moderately healthy and above unhealthy.
The three lowest-scoring items concerned whether staff can disagree openly without fear of retaliation, whether assignments and workload are distributed fairly, and whether concerns raised by staff are followed up by leaders. Items concerning shared mission and respect for patients scored highest. I report these results without softening them, because a work environment described as healthier than it is would give me nothing to work on.
Interpreting the Results Against Published Patterns
My unit's pattern matches the literature in some ways and departs from it in one. Studies of incivility in nursing describe it coming from multiple directions, including coworkers, supervisors, physicians, and patients, and link it to stress and reduced job satisfaction (Layne et al., 2019). The low item on open disagreement fits that pattern: when disagreement risks a dismissive or hostile response, staff stop voicing it, and the resulting silence looks like calm on the surface. The low item on fair assignments also fits, since perceived unfairness in workload is a common trigger for resentment and lateral hostility among nurses.
The low item on follow-through is where my unit may depart from published patterns. Much of the literature focuses on behavior between colleagues. On my unit, the frustration I hear most is not about how colleagues treat each other but about concerns that go up and never come back down: a staffing concern raised at a meeting, an equipment problem reported twice. That suggests the civility problem here has a leadership dimension, not only a peer dimension. A systematic review of interventions for managing workplace incivility found that most studies were of lower quality but that education about incivility, training in effective responses, and active practice of communication skills together helped nurses manage uncivil encounters (Armstrong, 2018); none of those interventions, on their own, would address a follow-through problem.
One Encounter, Told as Behavior
During an evening handoff at the nurses' station, I asked the offgoing nurse, a senior colleague, why a patient's pain medication had been changed from scheduled to as-needed. He answered, in front of two other nurses and a nursing assistant, that I should read the orders myself instead of wasting his time, and turned to the next patient. I did read the orders, and the change was documented; my question was reasonable, and his answer was not about the question. I felt embarrassed and, for the rest of that week, I checked the record before asking him anything, even when a quick question would have been safer. I describe the behavior rather than the person because the point is the effect: a public dismissal taught me, and the colleagues who watched, that questions at handoff carry a cost.
My Own Contribution
An honest assessment has to include my own behavior. Looking back over the past month, I can name two moments when I contributed to the pattern the inventory describes. In one, a newer nurse questioned how I had divided admissions, and I answered quickly that it was already decided, which closed the conversation the same way my colleague closed mine at handoff. In the other, I heard two nurses complaining about an assignment in the break room and said nothing to either of them or to the charge nurse, which let an unfairness concern stay underground. Neither moment would appear in an incident report, and that is the point: the low items on this inventory are built from small, ordinary choices. If open disagreement is the item to address first, my own responses to disagreement are the first place to practice.
The encounter at handoff also shows what a better response would have looked like from either side. My colleague could have answered in a sentence and suggested we talk after report if he felt pressed for time. I could have said, calmly and in the moment, that I was asking because the change affected my plan for the night, which names the purpose of the question instead of letting it be read as a challenge. Scripts like these are exactly what the next week's strategies are designed to build.
What the Results Suggest
Together, the results suggest a unit that shares a mission and respects patients but has learned to stay quiet. Civility is shared work: every nurse contributes to it, and every leader shapes whether it is safe to speak. The item I would address first is open disagreement. It sits upstream of the other two: staff who feel safe disagreeing will raise unfair assignments and will press for follow-through, while staff who do not will leave both problems unspoken. It is also the item a unit leader can influence directly, through how huddles and meetings are run and how the first person who disagrees is received. The next assignment in this course develops strategies for that item.
References
Armstrong, N. (2018). Management of nursing workplace incivility in the health care settings: A systematic review. Workplace Health & Safety, 66(8), 403-410. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165079918771106
Clark, C. M., Sattler, V. P., & Barbosa-Leiker, C. (2016). Development and testing of the Healthy Work Environment Inventory: A reliable tool for assessing work environment health and satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Education, 55(10), 555-562. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20160914-03
Layne, D. M., Anderson, E., & Henderson, S. (2019). Examining the presence and sources of incivility within nursing. Journal of Nursing Management, 27(7), 1505-1511. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12836
What a finished NURS 6053 Week 7 workplace civility assessment looks like
Between a title page and a reference list, three pages of body carry APA headings. The results section reports the inventory's total score and the range it falls within, then names the three lowest-scoring items, which in the sample concern open disagreement, fairness in assignments and follow-through on reported concerns. A second section interprets those results against two peer-reviewed articles on incivility in nursing work environments, noting where the unit matches and departs from published patterns. The third section is personal: one encounter, a senior colleague dismissing a question at handoff in front of others, told in neutral terms with nothing identifying. The final section says what the results suggest about the unit's culture and which low item a leader could address first. Every score in the sample is labeled illustrative, a placeholder for the author's own.
How a NURS 6053 Week 7 example is structured
Results come before interpretation, and the personal story comes after both, which is the order that keeps the assessment honest. Reporting scores first, without commentary, lets a reader see the unit before the author explains it. Interpretation against published articles follows so that the unit's pattern is judged against something outside the author's impressions; a low score on open disagreement means more once published work on team candor sits beside it. Placing the encounter third prevents a single bad moment from coloring how the scores are read. It is narrated as behavior, with no adjectives about character, which reflects Clark's view of civility as a shared responsibility rather than one person's flaw. The closing section chooses one item rather than all three, since a leader's first move needs a target, and the next week's work picks it up.
Scores without commentary
The total, its range and the three lowest items appear first, uninterpreted. Readers meet the unit before any interpretation of it.
Published patterns as the yardstick
Two peer-reviewed articles supply the comparison. The unit's results are weighed against those findings, not against an insider's feel for the place.
One encounter, told as behavior
A dismissed question at handoff is narrated without character adjectives or identifying details. The scene illustrates the scores; it does not replace them.
Civility as shared work
Clark's framing of civility as everyone's responsibility shapes the tone throughout. No colleague is cast as the problem.
A single item chosen
The closing picks the one low item most open to early leadership action, which hands the following week a defined target.
Where marks go in NURS 6053 Week 7
Honesty and interpretation carry most of the weight here. An assessment that reports a flattering score and moves on offers little to analyze, and graders reading dozens of these recognize a suspiciously healthy workplace quickly. The sample's willingness to name three low items is what the results criterion is built to reward. Interpretation earns credit when the literature explains the scores rather than merely sitting beside them. The personal encounter is usually a required element, and its credit depends on neutral narration; an account that vents about a colleague reads as grievance and undercuts the assessment's credibility. Connection to organizational culture earns the closing share, especially when the author identifies an actionable item rather than a general wish for respect. Placeholder scores must give way to the author's real results, since the assessment describes the author's own workplace.
Get a NURS 6053 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Your inventory, your own scores if you have them, and the assessment instructions with the rubric are what the desk needs. A custom civility assessment arrives within 24-48h, the first free, built on a unit that exists only on paper, with every score marked for replacement by your real results.
NURS 6053 Week 7 questions, answered
Why does the sample label its scores illustrative?
Because this assessment is personal by design: the prompt asks about your workplace and your results. A sample can show how results are reported and interpreted, but its numbers belong to no real unit. The labels make that explicit and mark exactly where your own scores go. Submitting a sample's figures as your own would misrepresent your environment, and instructors often compare the encounter with the scores for consistency.
What if my workplace scores as very healthy?
Then report it and interpret it, including what the instrument might miss. A high total can coexist with a low item or two, and those items still deserve analysis. The sample's structure works either way: results, published comparison, one encounter, one actionable item. A healthy score with an honest discussion of its limits reads far better than an unhealthy score exaggerated to give the assignment drama.
How detailed should the uncivil encounter be?
Detailed enough to show the behavior and its effect, and no more. The sample describes what was said and done at a handoff and how the team responded, with no names, shifts or unit details that could identify anyone. Motive and character are left out, since the author can observe behavior but not intent. Most prompts want a paragraph, and length beyond that tends to drift toward grievance.