NURS 6223 Week 6 Risk Assessment Example

Course	NURS 6223 Healthcare Quality Assurance and Risk Management in Healthcare Organizations
Week	Week 6
Paper type	Risk assessment
Length	About 550 words, 4 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	Master of Science in Nursing (MSN)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for NURS 6223 Week 6

Risk Assessment: Incidental Imaging Findings Without Documented Follow-Up

Student Name

College of Nursing, Walden University

NURS 6223: Healthcare Quality Assurance and Risk Management in Healthcare Organizations

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingOne exposure, rated three times, because the same missed nodule is a clinical, financial and reputational problem at once.

Risk Assessment: Incidental Imaging Findings Without Documented Follow-Up

The Exposure

At a composite regional hospital, findings flagged for follow-up in radiology reports, most often on scans ordered in the emergency department, frequently have no documented communication to a clinician who will act on them. The typical case is an incidental lung nodule noted on a trauma or chest CT, recommended for repeat imaging in a set number of months, and never followed up after the patient leaves.

Existing Controls

Three controls exist, and each performs poorly. The radiologist's report includes recommendation text, but on emergency scans the ordering clinician's attention is on the acute problem, and the recommendation may sit in the findings rather than the impression. The discharge summary has a field for pending follow-up items, which is often left blank. There is no tracking list: no one is responsible for confirming that a recommended follow-up has been ordered or scheduled. Published data suggest the gap is real: in a review of 1,000 emergency CT pulmonary angiograms, only 29% of incidental nodules needing follow-up received it, and none did when the nodule appeared only in the findings section (Blagev et al., 2014).

Likelihood

A small composite audit of 40 emergency department CT reports from one month, pulling those with a follow-up recommendation and checking the record six months later, found documented follow-up in fewer than half. Given the volume of emergency imaging, the likelihood that a flagged finding will be lost is judged high.

Consequence, Rated Three Ways

Table 1

Consequence Ratings by Dimension

Dimension	Rating	Reasoning
Clinical harm	Major	A delayed cancer diagnosis can change stage and survival; most findings are benign, but the rare malignant one causes serious harm
Financial	Major	Missed and delayed diagnoses are a leading source of malpractice claims, and failure to create a proper follow-up plan was one of the most common process breakdowns in a study of such claims (Gandhi et al., 2006); remediation of a backlog also costs staff time
Reputational	Moderate to major	A single public case of a patient told years later that a nodule had been seen and ignored would damage trust in the hospital's emergency and imaging services

With high likelihood and major consequence on two of three dimensions, the exposure is rated high overall.

What this page is doingConsequence is scored separately on each face of the exposure, which prevents a low reputational rating from averaging away a high clinical one.

Treatment Options

Risk treatment options, following the general approach of the ISO 31000 guidelines (International Organization for Standardization, 2018), were weighed as follows. Avoid: not possible, since incidental findings cannot be avoided without stopping imaging. Transfer: insurance transfers part of the financial exposure but none of the clinical harm. Accept: not acceptable given the rating. Reduce: the recommended option.

Recommendation: a tracked follow-up workflow run by a nurse navigator. Radiologists will use a standard follow-up code in the impression section, which places the case on an electronic worklist. The navigator will confirm within two weeks that the patient and a responsible clinician have been notified and a follow-up order exists, and will close each case only when the follow-up is scheduled or the clinician documents a decision not to pursue it. The cost is roughly one nurse navigator position plus modest informatics work, which the organization could fund from its patient safety budget, and the workflow can be audited monthly by the share of coded findings closed within 90 days.

References

Blagev, D. P., Lloyd, J. F., Conner, K., Dickerson, J., Adams, D., Stevens, S. M., Woller, S. C., Evans, R. S., & Elliott, C. G. (2014). Follow-up of incidental pulmonary nodules and the radiology report. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 11(4), 378-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2013.08.003

Gandhi, T. K., Kachalia, A., Thomas, E. J., Puopolo, A. L., Yoon, C., Brennan, T. A., & Studdert, D. M. (2006). Missed and delayed diagnoses in the ambulatory setting: A study of closed malpractice claims. Annals of Internal Medicine, 145(7), 488-496. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-145-7-200610030-00006

International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Risk management: Guidelines (ISO Standard No. 31000:2018).

Reading the NURS 6223 Week 6 instructions

The sixth NURS 6223 week usually asks for a risk assessment of an organizational exposure. You define the exposure precisely, review current controls, estimate likelihood and consequence, and compare treatment options. Faculty grade specificity first, because a broad topic such as diagnostic error cannot be rated. Cite risk standards and research in APA 7. Financial consequence can be described in ranges if claims data are not available. Transferring risk through insurance can be right, but it does not protect patients by itself. A risk matrix helps but must be explained. A clear structure follows the exposure, controls, likelihood, consequence and options in that order.

Inside the NURS 6223 Week 6 example

Four pages, more or less. The exposure is defined in one sentence: findings flagged in radiology reports for follow-up, most often on scans ordered in the emergency department, with no documented communication to a clinician who will act on them. A controls inventory follows, describing what exists and how well it performs: the recommendation text in the report, a discharge summary field often left blank, and no tracking list at all. Likelihood is judged from a small composite audit described in words. The rating section then scores consequence three times, clinical harm from a delayed diagnosis, financial exposure through claims and remediation cost, and reputational damage if a case became public. Treatment options are weighed, avoid, reduce, transfer and accept, and the recommendation is a tracked follow-up workflow run by a nurse navigator.

Where the marks sit in the NURS 6223 Week 6 rubric

Everything in this assignment rests on how specifically the exposure is stated. An assessment of diagnostic error in general has nothing precise enough to rate, and criteria asking for likelihood and consequence then receive numbers without a referent. Rating the three dimensions separately is often what the analysis item is looking for, since the week's premise is that exposure is not only clinical. Treatment options earn credit when they are genuinely weighed; a paragraph listing avoid, reduce, transfer and accept before recommending the obvious one reads as ritual. Evidence of likelihood counts, and a described audit or a published pattern supports a rating better than assertion. Assessments predicting a specific settlement value lose credibility quickly, because nothing inside a course assignment can support that figure.

NURS 6223 Week 6 help from the desk

Risk assessments lose the most when the exposure is too broad to rate. Name the process, the place and the gap. Another common gap is ignoring existing controls. List them and their weaknesses. Writers also rate consequence only for patients. Add legal and reputational views. Avoid recommending transfer alone. Pair it with reduction. Explain likelihood with evidence, such as audit findings. A treatment option with an owner and a measure, such as tracking follow-up for every flagged report, reads as ready to act on. Close with the option you recommend.

Get a NURS 6223 Week 6 example written to your instructions

Name the exposure your section asks you to assess, or let the desk supply one, and forward the Week 6 instructions with the rubric. The risk assessment comes back in 24-48h, the first free, consequence rated on every dimension your template lists, inside a hospital that exists only for the exercise.

More NURS 6223 papers and MSN samples

NURS 6223 Week 6 questions, answered

What makes an exposure specific enough to assess?

A description naming the condition, where it arises and what goes missing. Incidental findings is a topic; findings recommended for follow-up with no documented handoff to an acting clinician is an exposure, because it can be audited, rated and reduced. The sample spends its first paragraph on that sentence. If two reviewers would disagree about whether a case falls inside the definition, the wording needs tightening.

Should financial exposure include a dollar estimate?

Only when a source supports one. The sample describes financial consequence by category, claims defense, settlement and the cost of remediation, and rates it on the same scale as the other dimensions without inventing an amount. When figures are requested, a cited range from published claims analysis is defensible and a guess dressed as a number is not. The reasoning behind the rating carries more weight than any amount.

Is transferring risk through insurance ever the right recommendation?

For some exposures it is part of the answer, particularly rare and severe events an organization cannot fully prevent. For this one it falls short, because insurance pays after harm while the exposure is a preventable gap in a process. The sample gives transfer a fair paragraph and then explains why reduction serves patients and the organization better. Rejecting an option with a reason is stronger than leaving it out.

Where can I find a free NURS 6223 Week 6 sample paper?

The incidental imaging follow-up risk assessment is on this page with the exposure, controls, likelihood, consequence rated three ways and the options.

What is the typical case in NURS 6223 Week 6?

An incidental lung nodule on a scan ordered for chest pain in the emergency department, with no documented follow-up.