| Course | NURS 6441 Project Management: Healthcare Information Technology |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 3 |
| Paper type | Scope statement |
| Length | About 800 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NURS 6441 Week 3
Scope Statement: Electronic Procedural Consent, Seven Deliverables With Testable Acceptance Criteria and Eleven Exclusions
Student Name
College of Nursing, Walden University
NURS 6441: Project Management: Healthcare Information Technology
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Scope Statement: Electronic Procedural Consent, Seven Deliverables With Testable Acceptance Criteria and Eleven Exclusions
Purpose of This Statement
The charter authorized an electronic procedural consent project at the health system's three hospitals and set its outer boundary. This scope statement makes that boundary testable. It lists what the project will deliver, how each deliverable will be accepted, where the project's edges fall and what it will not do. Project management practice treats a clear definition of deliverables and acceptance as the basis for controlling scope later (Project Management Institute [PMI], 2021).
Deliverables and Acceptance Criteria
Table 1
Deliverables, Acceptance Criteria and Accepting Role
| Deliverable | Accepted when | Accepted by |
|---|---|---|
| D1. Fourteen approved consent forms configured for tablet use | Each form shows every required element on the tablet, and one test consent per form passes the required-elements check in the test environment | Consent committee chair |
| D2. Integration with procedure scheduling and the clinical record | In 20 test cases, the signed consent appears in the patient's record and on the procedure checklist within one minute of signature | Clinical applications manager |
| D3. Tablets deployed and secured | Each of 64 tablets is enrolled in device management and passes a test of login, signature capture and interpreter video call | Technical lead |
| D4. Interpreter workflow | A video interpreter can be joined from the consent screen, the interpreter's identification number is stored with the consent, and the workflow is tested in five languages | Language services manager |
| D5. Training program | At each hospital, at least 95% of staff who obtain or witness consent in scope areas complete training and a return demonstration before that hospital's go-live | Site lead at each hospital |
| D6. Downtime and fallback procedure | Each procedural area holds a paper fallback kit, and a fallback drill is completed at each hospital before go-live | Site lead at each hospital |
| D7. Required-elements report | A daily report shows, by area, the share of consents complete before the time-out, and its results match 30 manual audits | Perioperative quality manager |
Boundary Conditions
Facilities: Hospitals A, B and C of the health system. Areas: perioperative pre-procedure bays, interventional radiology, endoscopy and the cardiac catheterization laboratory at each hospital. Shifts: every shift on which scheduled procedures are consented, including scheduled weekend cases. Interfaces: procedure scheduling, the clinical record, video interpreter services and tablet device management. Patient populations: adults consenting for themselves, minors with a parent or guardian present, and adults whose legally authorized representative is present in person. Procedures: scheduled procedures only, as defined by a case booked at least one hour before consent.
Out of Scope
The project will not deliver: (1) emergency consent; (2) consent for bedside procedures on inpatient units; (3) blood transfusion consent; (4) research consent; (5) changes to the legal wording of any consent form; (6) consent in ambulatory clinics or physician offices; (7) remote signature through the patient portal before the day of procedure; (8) anesthesia consent, which the anesthesia department has chosen to keep on paper in this phase; (9) signature by a legally authorized representative by telephone; (10) scanning of historical paper consents into the new format; (11) changes to the surgical time-out checklist other than displaying consent status. The sponsor has already asked about items 7 and 10, and surgeons have asked about item 8. Each is excluded now and may be proposed through the change process after the third hospital is live.
Assumptions
The five charter assumptions carry forward: consent forms will not change during configuration; the consent module is licensed and supported; wireless coverage is adequate in pre-procedure bays; interpreters can join by video on the tablet; and each hospital will release super-users. Two are added. The procedure scheduling system will send the booked procedure name to the consent form, so staff do not retype it. And each procedural area has a locked charging cabinet for tablets, or will have one before go-live, funded outside this project.
Change Process
Anyone may request a change to scope by submitting a change request to the project manager, describing the change, the reason and who is asking. The project manager returns an impact assessment within ten business days covering effect on schedule, effort, risk and other deliverables. Changes that alter scope, a milestone or the objective go to the sponsor for decision; changes to consent wording go to the consent committee. Approved changes are recorded in the change log and reflected in this statement with a new version number. Uncontrolled additions are among the most frequently cited risks in software projects (Keil et al., 1998), and the purpose of this process is not to refuse change but to make its cost visible before anyone agrees to it. Communication and clear decision paths are repeatedly identified as success factors in health information technology projects (Kaplan & Harris-Salamone, 2009), and the change log will be summarized in each steering meeting.
References
Kaplan, B., & Harris-Salamone, K. D. (2009). Health IT success and failure: Recommendations from literature and an AMIA workshop. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 16(3), 291-299. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2997
Keil, M., Cule, P. E., Lyytinen, K., & Schmidt, R. C. (1998). A framework for identifying software project risks. Communications of the ACM, 41(11), 76-83. https://doi.org/10.1145/287831.287843
Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.).
NURS 6441 Week 3 instructions, in plain terms
This week's prompt generally asks for a project scope statement that builds on the charter, listing deliverables, acceptance criteria, boundaries, exclusions, assumptions and constraints, and describing how changes will be controlled. Many sections want acceptance criteria that are specific and measurable. Most scope statements fill three to five pages and use a deliverables table. Carry the charter's scope forward without contradicting it, then make each boundary concrete. The exclusion list deserves real thought: list the things stakeholders are most likely to ask for, and say whether they could be considered later. Describe how a change request would be submitted and decided.
How this NURS 6441 Week 3 example is built
A short opening explains how the scope statement relates to the charter. Table 1 lists seven deliverables, from configured forms to a validated daily report, each with a checkable condition and an accepting role. Boundary conditions name the three hospitals, four procedural areas, shifts, four interfaces and three patient populations, and define a scheduled procedure. The out-of-scope section lists eleven exclusions and notes which ones the sponsor and surgeons have already asked about. Assumptions carry forward five from the charter and add two. The change process section sets a ten-day impact assessment and cites research naming scope change as a leading software project risk. The change process names who assesses a request, who decides and where the decision is recorded.
Reading the NURS 6441 Week 3 rubric
Scope statement rubrics usually score deliverable definition, acceptance criteria, boundary clarity, exclusions, consistency with the charter, change control and presentation. Acceptance criteria are often the heaviest row, rewarding conditions that someone other than the writer could apply and reach the same result. Boundaries earn credit when they name concrete facilities, units, interfaces or populations. Exclusions are judged on relevance and specificity. Consistency with the charter is checked item by item. Change control earns credit when it names who assesses, who decides and how decisions are recorded. Presentation covers tables and clear references. Some rubrics also look for assumptions carried from the charter, which shows the documents were written as a set.
NURS 6441 Week 3 help from the desk
The most common mistake is acceptance criteria that repeat the deliverable, such as forms configured correctly. Another is a short exclusion list that avoids the difficult requests. Some scope statements quietly expand the charter, which graders notice. Others omit how changes are controlled, leaving scope to grow unchecked. Write criteria as observable conditions with a number where possible, name who accepts each deliverable, make the exclusion list longer than you think it needs to be and give a change process with a timeline and a decision maker. Also say when excluded items could be reconsidered, so an exclusion reads as a decision rather than a refusal. Keep boundary lists concrete.
Get a NURS 6441 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Send the scope prompt, the rubric, and the charter your classroom is building from, since the second document has to answer the first. A NURS 6441 scope statement comes back with deliverables, testable criteria and a full exclusion list on a composite project. No contract of your employer's is drawn on. First sample free, inside 24-48h.
More NURS 6441 papers and MSN samples
- NURS 6441 Week 1: Discussion post
- NURS 6441 Week 2: Project charter
- NURS 6441 Week 4: Work breakdown
- NURS 6441 Week 5: Schedule
- NURS 6441 Week 6: Risk register
- NURS 6441 Week 7: Stakeholder plan
- NURS 6441 Week 8: Communication plan
- NURS 6441 Week 9: Discussion post
- NURS 6441 Week 10: Go-live plan
- NURS 6441 Week 11: Lessons learned
- NURS 6421 Week 3: Process map
- NURS 6501 Week 3: Pathophysiology Case Analysis
- NURS 6412 Week 3: Terminology mapping
- NURS 6512 Week 3: Diagnostic tool validity review
NURS 6441 Week 3 questions, answered
How does this differ from the charter?
The charter authorizes and sets an outer edge; the scope statement makes that edge testable. Charter scope might say three hospitals and the emergency departments within them. Scope statement language names the units, the shifts, the interfaces and the eleven things nobody is getting. Sections that assign both in sequence expect the second to be considerably more specific. Specificity is the whole difference between them.
What makes acceptance criteria good enough?
Somebody other than the writer can apply them and reach the same answer. Configured correctly fails that test. A criterion naming what has to be observable, on which devices, verified by which role, passes it. The example writes one per deliverable in that form, which is what the criteria row is written to reward. Two readers applying them independently should reach the same verdict.
Can the out of scope list be longer than the deliverables?
It usually should be, and it is in the example. Projects are defined more by refusals than by promises, and an exclusion list of two lines suggests nobody thought about what stakeholders would ask for. Each entry works hardest when it names something a reasonable person would otherwise have assumed was coming. Each entry works hardest when it answers a request somebody has made.
Where can I find a free NURS 6441 Week 3 sample paper?
The complete scope statement, with the deliverables table, boundaries, eleven exclusions, assumptions and change process, is posted here at no cost. Ask the desk for a version built on the project you picked.
How specific should NURS 6441 acceptance criteria be?
Specific enough that two people would agree whether each is met. Include what must be observable, how many tests must pass and which role confirms it, rather than words like correctly or successfully.