NURS 6441 Week 6 Risk Register Example

Course	NURS 6441 Project Management: Healthcare Information Technology
Week	Week 6
Paper type	Risk register
Length	About 1,030 words, 6 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 6

Risk Register: Electronic Procedural Consent, Fourteen Risks Scored on Defined Scales, Including Two Opportunities

Student Name

College of Nursing, Walden University

NURS 6441: Project Management: Healthcare Information Technology

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingMentioning defined scales and opportunities in the title sets the two features that make this register more than a worry list.

Risk Register: Electronic Procedural Consent, Fourteen Risks Scored on Defined Scales, Including Two Opportunities

Scales and Conventions

Every risk is written in one form: because of a cause, an uncertain event may occur, which would affect a project objective. Likelihood uses five levels described in words: 1, rare, less than one chance in ten over the project; 2, unlikely, about one in ten to three in ten; 3, possible, about three in ten to five in ten; 4, likely, about five in ten to eight in ten; 5, almost certain, more than eight in ten. Impact also uses five levels: 1, negligible, absorbed within a package; 2, minor, delays one package without moving a milestone; 3, moderate, moves one milestone by up to two weeks or requires unplanned work by one role; 4, major, moves a go-live by two to four weeks or reduces adoption measurably; 5, severe, moves a go-live by more than four weeks or creates a risk of patient harm or data exposure. The score is likelihood multiplied by impact; 15 or more is high, 8 to 14 medium and 7 or less low. Response strategies for threats are avoid, mitigate, transfer or accept; for opportunities, exploit, enhance, share or accept, following the argument that the risk process should manage upside uncertainty as well as threats (Hillson, 2002). Residual score is the expected score after the response.

What this page is doingThe scales are defined in words before any score appears, so a reader knows what a three actually means.

Register

Table 1

Risk Register

ID	Risk statement	Category	L	I	Score	Strategy	Response action	Owner	Trigger	Residual
R1	Because the consent committee meets weekly and may cancel, form review may take longer than ten days, delaying Hospital A go-live	Schedule	3	4	12	Mitigate	Pre-book two extra review sessions	Project manager	A review meeting is canceled	6
R2	Because tablet consent may lengthen pre-procedure time, surgeons may insist on paper, leaving two processes in use	Adoption	4	4	16	Mitigate	Hold a surgeon design session; perioperative medical director champions	Clinical co-lead	More than 10% paper consents in first week	8
R3	Because some pre-procedure bays may have weak wireless coverage, signatures may fail to save, delaying cases	Technical	3	4	12	Mitigate	Survey every bay and add access points	Technical lead	Any bay fails the signature test	4
R4	Because the vendor's filing function is untested here, consents may not file to the record, delaying integration	Technical	2	5	10	Mitigate	Test filing in week 2 with vendor present	Clinical applications manager	Filing test fails	5
R5	Because video interpreter quality varies, patients with limited English proficiency may be consented without adequate interpretation	Safety and equity	3	5	15	Mitigate	Test five languages; keep telephone interpreter as backup	Language services manager	Any failed interpreter test	6
R6	Because night and weekend staff are hard to release, training may fall below 95% before go-live	People	4	3	12	Mitigate	Paid night sessions; super-user coaching on shift	Site leads	Training roster below 80% at day 55	6
R7	Because tablets move between bays, one may be lost or stolen, exposing patient information	Security	2	4	8	Mitigate	Device management with remote wipe; locked cabinets	Technical lead	Tablet unaccounted for at shift count	4
R8	Because accreditation surveys are unannounced, a survey may fall in a go-live window, postponing it	External	2	4	8	Accept	Contingency: swap hospital order	Sponsor	Survey notice received	8
R9	Because the required-elements check is new, it may block valid consents such as those signed by guardians	Technical	3	3	9	Mitigate	Test guardian and representative cases	Application analyst	Three blocked valid consents in a day	3
R10	Because analysts are shared, they may be reassigned, slowing configuration	Resource	3	4	12	Mitigate	Sponsor protects 60% allocation in writing	Sponsor	Allocation below 60% for a week	6
R11	Because paper remains available as fallback, it may become the default after go-live	Adoption	3	3	9	Mitigate	Daily report reviewed by site leads	Site leads	More than 5% paper at day 30	4
R12	Because counsel may revise wording, forms may need rebuilding mid-project	Scope	2	4	8	Avoid	Wording freeze agreed with counsel at charter	Consent committee chair	Counsel issues a wording memo	4
O13	Because consent status will show on the checklist, time-out delays may fall, allowing earlier case starts	Opportunity	3	3	9	Exploit	Measure first-case start delays before and after	Perioperative quality manager	Delay data available at day 30	12
O14	Because the interpreter workflow is built once, it may be reused for other consent types, shortening future projects	Opportunity	3	3	9	Enhance	Document the build as a reusable pattern	Technical lead	Another consent project proposed	12

Issues, events that have already occurred, are recorded in the separate issue log and are not scored here.

Reading the Register

Two threats score high: surgeon resistance leading to parallel paper processes (R2) and inadequate interpretation for patients with limited English proficiency (R5). They are different kinds of risk. R2 threatens the objective, since the project succeeds only if 90% of consents are electronic; R5 threatens patients, and its response is chosen to reduce harm even if it slows some consents. Research on software projects has long found that risks involving user commitment and requirements tend to matter more than purely technical ones (Keil et al., 1998), and the register reflects that: of the six threats scoring 12 or more, only one, weak wireless coverage, is technical.

Each response is written as an action with an owner and each trigger as something observable, a missed test, a roster count, a percentage on the daily report, so that the register tells the project manager when to act rather than merely what to worry about. Residual scores show what the responses are expected to achieve; R8 keeps its score because the response is to accept the risk with a contingency. The two opportunities have residual scores higher than their initial scores, because the response aims to increase their likelihood. Treating them in the same register ensures someone owns them, rather than leaving benefits to chance (Hillson, 2002). The register is reviewed at every steering meeting, and project management guidance treats this kind of continuing review as part of managing uncertainty rather than a one-time exercise (Project Management Institute [PMI], 2021).

References

Hillson, D. (2002). Extending the risk process to manage opportunities. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 235-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00074-6

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.).

The Walden NURS 6441 Week 6 instructions

The Week 6 assignment usually asks for a risk register for your project, identifying risks, analyzing likelihood and impact, planning responses and assigning owners, often with triggers and residual risk. Many sections ask you to use a standard scale and response strategies. Registers vary in length; ten to twenty well-developed risks is common, with a page of explanation. Define your scales in words before scoring. Write each risk as a cause, an event and an effect so the response has something to act on. Include at least one opportunity if your prompt allows, and keep issues, events that have already happened, in a separate log. Most prompts expect at least one risk each for schedule, people and technology.

How the NURS 6441 Week 6 example is put together

The first section defines five-level likelihood and impact scales in words, the scoring and priority bands, and the response strategies for threats and opportunities, citing the case for managing opportunities in the risk process. Table 1 lists twelve threats and two opportunities with category, scores, strategy, action, owner, trigger and residual score. A footer notes that issues are logged separately. The closing section contrasts the two high threats, notes that only one of six threats scoring 12 or more is technical, citing a software risk framework, explains triggers and residual scores and states how often the register is reviewed. Owners are named by role in every row, never as the project team.

Where the marks sit in the NURS 6441 Week 6 rubric

Risk register rubrics usually score identification of relevant risks, quality of risk statements, analysis with defined scales, appropriateness of responses, ownership and triggers, and discussion. Risk statements earn credit when they name cause, event and effect. Scales are judged on whether they are defined and applied consistently. Responses should match strategies and be specific enough to carry out. Owners and triggers are often required and valued, since they make the register usable. Discussion rewards interpreting the register rather than repeating it. Many rubrics also credit including opportunities and residual scores. Some rubrics also reward a note on how often the register is reviewed and by whom.

NURS 6441 Week 6 help: mistakes that cost marks

Registers lose most marks when they read as vague worries, such as staff resistance, with no cause, effect or action. Another is scoring without defined scales, so numbers mean different things row to row. Some registers mix issues with risks. Others assign responses to the project team rather than a named role, or give triggers no one could observe. Define scales, write risks in cause-event-effect form, choose a strategy and write a real action, name an owner and an observable trigger and explain what the register tells you about the project. Also make sure every high risk has an active response, since graders check the top rows first.

Get a NURS 6441 Week 6 example written to your instructions

If your classroom mandates a template or a scoring scale, include it with the prompt and the rubric. A NURS 6441 risk register built for a composite rollout arrives with defined scales, typed responses, owning roles and observable triggers throughout. A register belonging to your own organization stays with your organization. First sample free, inside 24-48h.

More NURS 6441 papers and MSN samples

NURS 6441 Week 6 questions, answered

How many risks belong in the register?

Your prompt decides, and nothing official is published about it. Fourteen works in the example because it covers several categories without any row becoming filler. Registers of forty thin entries score below registers of twelve where every response addresses its cause. Depth per row is what the rubric language usually describes, not the count. Coverage across categories matters more than a total.

What separates a risk from an issue?

Uncertainty. A risk may happen; an issue already has. Registers that mix them lose credibility fast, because a response to something already occurring is a corrective action and belongs elsewhere. The example keeps them apart and notes in a footer that issues would be tracked in a separate log during execution. Mixing them costs credibility across every row of the table.

Can I use my employer's risk categories?

Categories are generic enough to borrow if your instructor allows it, but we build the sample on standard project categories instead and never reproduce an organization's own register, scoring history or escalation records. What transfers to your version is the row grammar, the scale definitions and the discipline of tying every response to a named cause. Standard project categories cover the same ground publicly.

Where can I find a free NURS 6441 Week 6 sample paper?

The full register, with scale definitions, fourteen rows and the closing analysis, is posted here without charge. Registers for other projects are available from the desk.

Should the NURS 6441 risk register include positive risks?

Yes, if your prompt allows. Opportunities, such as a benefit the project could capture, can be managed like threats, with owners and actions, so they are not left to chance.

NURS 6441 Week 6 risk register example