| Course | NURS 6321 Curriculum Development, Assessment, and Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Evaluation plan |
| Length | About 620 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NURS 6321 Week 9
Evaluation Plan for the Deterioration Thread of the Medical-Surgical Orientation
Student Name
College of Nursing, Walden University
NURS 6321: Curriculum Development, Assessment, and Evaluation
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Evaluation Plan for the Deterioration Thread of the Medical-Surgical Orientation
This plan gathers four levels of evidence about the redesigned deterioration thread, following the widely used sequence of reaction, learning, behavior and results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Each level costs more to collect than the one before it. Table 1 names the instrument, timing, responsible role and decision rule for each. Timing is counted in weeks from the end of orientation, so the plan can be rerun with each cohort.
Table 1
Four Levels of Evidence With Decision Rules
| Level | Instrument | When | Collected by | Decision rule |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Reaction | Six-item survey: relevance, pace, confidence to call for help | Week 0 (last day of orientation) | Clinical nurse educator | If fewer than 70% agree the sessions were relevant to their patients, revise case content before the next cohort |
| 2. Learning | End-of-orientation simulation scored on objectives 4 and 5 with the Week 7 rubric method | Week 0 | Two trained raters | If fewer than 80% escalate within 10 minutes of the calling threshold (baseline at hire: 38%), repeat week 6 practice before release |
| 3. Behavior | Structured chart audit of every rapid response call and every early warning score of 5 or more on patients of new nurses | Weeks 4 to 12 | Unit quality nurse | If the median time from first score of 5 to escalation exceeds 30 minutes, add a second simulation at week 8 of independent practice |
| 4. Results | Unplanned transfers to intensive care within 24 hours of a score of 5 or more, per 1,000 discharges, from the hospital's existing quality report | Quarterly, 2 quarters before and 4 after | Director of quality | If the rate does not fall below the pre-orientation median within 4 quarters, review with the rapid response committee whether the thread or the escalation system is the barrier |
Why Behavior Is Hardest
Level 3 asks whether new nurses escalate faster on the unit, and that is hardest to see. A simulation shows what a nurse can do when the scenario is the only task; the unit adds four other patients, a charge nurse who may discourage calls and a physician who may push back. Direct observation of real deterioration is impractical, because it cannot be scheduled. The plan therefore uses the chart as a stand-in: every score of 5 or more is time-stamped in the record, and so is every call, so the interval between them can be measured for each new nurse without anyone watching. The audit misses deterioration that was never scored, so it also samples five charts per nurse for missed scores.
Why Results Are Attributed Cautiously
Level 4 measures the outcome the design exists to move, late recognition that ends in an unplanned transfer to intensive care. That outcome depends on more than new nurses. Rapid response systems themselves have been associated with fewer cardiorespiratory arrests outside intensive care and lower mortality, and their effectiveness depends on how often staff activate them (Winters et al., 2013). Recognition also depends on staffing, monitoring equipment and how the unit knows its patients (Massey et al., 2017). A change in the rate is therefore evidence about the whole system, and the decision rule sends an unimproved rate to the rapid response committee rather than straight back to the orientation.
What Would Retire the Design
The design will be adjusted if any single threshold is missed. It will be withdrawn, and the orientation returned to its earlier form while a new approach is built, if two consecutive cohorts meet the level 2 threshold in simulation but show no shorter escalation time on the unit at level 3. That pattern would mean the thread teaches a performance that does not transfer to practice, and further adjustment of the same design would not fix it.
References
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation. ATD Press.
Massey, D., Chaboyer, W., & Anderson, V. (2017). What factors influence ward nurses' recognition of and response to patient deterioration? An integrative review of the literature. Nursing Open, 4(1), 6-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.53
Winters, B. D., Weaver, S. J., Pfoh, E. R., Yang, T., Pham, J. C., & Dy, S. M. (2013). Rapid-response systems as a patient safety strategy: A systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 158(5 Pt 2), 417-425. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-158-5-201303051-00009
What the NURS 6321 Week 9 instructions ask for
Week 9 of NURS 6321 has students plan how an educational design will be evaluated. Name the levels of evidence, the question and instrument for each, sources, timing and owners, and explain limits. Feasibility settles the grade, so instruments nobody has or timelines that require unfunded release time lose points. Cite evaluation models in APA 7. Kirkpatrick's four levels are common, though other models work. If practice change cannot be measured, explain what proxy you will use. Workplace data can appear if de-identified. State what result would retire the design. A table with level, question, instrument, source, timing and owner keeps the plan readable. Short sections follow on the hardest levels and on the result that would retire the design.
How this NURS 6321 Week 9 example is built
The plan runs to about three pages and is organized as a table with prose around it. Four rows correspond to four kinds of evidence: what learners thought, what they can now do, what changed in their practice afterward, and what happened to the outcome the design was built to move. Each row names an instrument, a collection point in weeks, a role responsible and a rule that says what the design does if the result falls below a stated threshold. The prose around the table explains why the third row is the hardest to collect and what stands in for it when release time is unavailable. A short final paragraph names the finding that would end the design rather than refine it.
NURS 6321 Week 9 rubric: what earns full marks
What settles the grade is whether the plan could actually be run, and it is lost to instruments nobody has, timelines requiring release time that was never negotiated, and responsibilities assigned to a role that has no authority to collect anything. Levels are scored next, and a plan stopping at satisfaction surveys has evaluated the experience rather than the design. Points also go when thresholds are missing, since a rule reading results will be reviewed commits to nothing a reader can check, and when the evaluation measures teaching quality while claiming to measure the curriculum. Where a rubric names a model, applying it the same way throughout counts for more than the choice itself, and switching frameworks midway is visible immediately.
NURS 6321 Week 9 help from the desk
Evaluation plans score poorly when they cannot be run. Check every instrument exists. A second weakness is claiming results proves the course worked. Attribute cautiously. Writers also skip behavior. Plan how you will observe it. Avoid satisfaction surveys as the only measure. Add learning and behavior. Name owners. A behavior measure such as chart audits of escalation timing after orientation shows how practice change can be checked. Close with what would make you retire the design. Check that each instrument is one your setting already has or could build quickly.
Get a NURS 6321 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Send the design being evaluated, the prompt and the rubric, along with anything your setting genuinely cannot collect. The plan returns with four levels populated, thresholds set at defensible places and the withdrawal condition drafted, so what comes back is executable rather than aspirational. No charge for the first one, back inside 24-48 hours in an editable table.
More NURS 6321 papers and MSN samples
- NURS 6321 Week 1: Discussion Post
- NURS 6321 Week 2: Needs Assessment
- NURS 6321 Week 3: Learning Objectives
- NURS 6321 Week 4: Curriculum Map
- NURS 6321 Week 5: Lesson Plan
- NURS 6321 Week 6: Assessment Blueprint
- NURS 6321 Week 7: Rubric Draft
- NURS 6321 Week 8: Discussion Post
- NURS 6321 Week 10: Curriculum design
- NURS 6321 Week 11: Peer critique
- NURS 6331 Week 9: Discussion post
- NURS 6241 Week 9: Discussion Post
- NURS 6341 Week 9: Practice recommendation
- NURS 6231 Week 9: Outcomes Dashboard Critique
NURS 6321 Week 9 questions, answered
Which evaluation model should the plan use?
Whichever your prompt names. Where the choice is open, a four level structure is what most nursing education programs reach for, and this example follows it, cited to a primary source rather than to a training summary. Some programs prefer a context and process framework instead, which changes the row labels and leaves the columns alone, since instrument, timing, ownership and decision rule are needed under any model.
What if my setting cannot measure practice change?
Then the plan says so and puts a proxy in the row rather than leaving it empty or promising something undeliverable. The example uses a preceptor rated observation where direct practice data is unavailable and states the limitation in the prose beside it. Naming a constraint honestly reads as design judgment, while a plan quietly assuming access to data nobody has loses the feasibility row outright.
Does evaluation data from my workplace belong in the sample?
It does not, and none is requested. Outcome data, simulation scores and anything already collected where you work sit with the people accountable for it, and a sample built here uses plausible placeholder figures instead. Tell us the setting and the outcome of interest, and every threshold in the returned plan arrives marked so you can reset it against numbers you are actually permitted to use.
Where can I find a free NURS 6321 Week 9 sample paper?
The four-level evaluation plan is printed here with the table of questions, instruments, sources, timing and owners and the sections on limits.
Why is behavior hardest to measure in NURS 6321 Week 9?
Because it happens on the unit, away from the classroom, so it needs observation or chart audits that take time and staff to collect.