| Course | NURS 6451 Evaluation Methods for Health Information Technology |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Evaluation question memo |
| Length | About 700 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NURS 6451 Week 2
Memorandum
To: Director of Nursing Informatics and Chief Nursing Officer
From: Clinical Informatics Nurse, Medical-Surgical Services
Date: September 30, 2026
Re: Proposed evaluation question for the secure messaging app on four medical-surgical units, for approval at the October steering meeting
The Worry, in the Nurses' Words
Since the secure messaging app replaced pagers on the first two of our four medical-surgical units, nurses there have raised the same concern at every huddle. A composite of what they say: "The doctors are unreachable now. I send a message and I don't know if anyone has it." "At least with the pager I could call back and hear a voice." The concern is serious and widely shared, and it deserves to be settled with data instead of by whoever argues hardest at huddle. As stated, however, it cannot be evaluated. Unreachable could mean three different things: the prescriber replies more slowly than before, the prescriber never replies, or the reply comes from someone other than the prescriber responsible for the patient. Each would call for a different fix, and an evaluation that measured the wrong one would reassure us falsely or alarm us without cause.
Three Candidate Questions
Unpacking the worry produces three questions. First, has the interval from a nurse's non-urgent request to the prescriber's first acknowledgment changed since the switch from pagers? Second, what share of nurse requests receive no acknowledgment within an hour, before and after? Third, what share of acknowledgments come from a prescriber other than the one covering the patient? Each is answerable, and each would matter. A fourth question, whether the app improved patient outcomes, is deliberately excluded: with four units and one rollout, too many other things move length of stay or adverse events over the same months, and any effect of faster acknowledgment would be too diluted to detect.
The Question Recommended
I recommend the first: has the interval from a nurse's non-urgent request to the covering prescriber's first acknowledgment changed since the messaging app replaced pagers on the four units? Three reasons support it. Importance: delays in acknowledgment are what nurses experience as unreachable, and they delay care for requests such as pain medication changes and discharge clarifications. Feasibility: the app timestamps sent messages and replies, so the after period is measurable, and the before period can be measured by a short observation of pager calls on each unit before the remaining units go live. Decision value: a result in either direction would change what we do. If the interval is longer, we fix the app's routing before extending it to other units; if it is shorter or unchanged, we look instead at the second and third questions, which the same data can partly answer. The CDC framework asks that an evaluation be focused on questions its users can act on (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 1999), and this one meets that test. A prospective comparison in a surgical intensive care unit has measured response time between pager and smartphone periods in a similar way (Tatum et al., 2017), which suggests the measure is workable. Expressed in a PICO frame, the population is nurses and covering prescribers on the four units, the intervention is the messaging app, the comparison is pagers and the outcome is the acknowledgment interval.
Where the Answer Would Come From
The after period uses the app's message logs, which record sender, recipient, time sent, time read and time of first reply. The before period is harder, because pagers record only that a page was sent. A mixed-methods evaluation of smartphone communication on medical wards combined usage logs, interviews and observation to understand what the counts meant (Wu et al., 2011), and we would need a similar combination: timed observation of nurse requests and callbacks on the two units that have not yet gone live, and interviews with nurses and prescribers. The measurement plan will set out the exact definitions.
What I Am Asking
Please approve the recommended question at the October steering meeting, so the baseline observation can begin on the two units still using pagers before their go-live dates. Waiting past their go-live would remove the only chance to measure the pager period directly. I am glad to walk through the proposed observation schedule with the unit managers before the meeting, so they can see how little staff time it takes and raise any concerns about timing.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 48(RR-11), 1-40.
Tatum, J. M., White, T., Kang, C., Ley, E. J., Melo, N., Bloom, M., & Alban, R. F. (2017). Prospective trial of house staff time to response and intervention in a surgical intensive care unit: Pager vs. smartphone. Journal of Surgical Education, 74(5), 851-856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.03.003
Wu, R., Rossos, P., Quan, S., Reeves, S., Lo, V., Wong, B., Cheung, M., & Morra, D. (2011). An evaluation of the use of smartphones to communicate between clinicians: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(3), e59. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1655
Reading the NURS 6451 Week 2 instructions
The Week 2 assignment usually asks you to develop a focused evaluation question for a health IT system, explain how it was derived from stakeholder concerns or goals, and justify it in terms of importance and feasibility. Many sections want a memo or brief addressed to a decision maker, and some ask for the question in PICO or a similar format. The document is typically two pages. Start from a real concern as people express it, show how you narrowed it and explain why other plausible questions were set aside. Make sure a result in either direction would change a decision, since a question that can only confirm what leaders hope is not worth evaluating.
Inside the NURS 6451 Week 2 example
A memo block addresses the director of nursing informatics and the chief nursing officer with a subject line naming the decision requested. The first section quotes the composite complaint and explains the three things unreachable could mean. The second lists three candidate questions and excludes a fourth on patient outcomes, explaining why four units and one rollout cannot support it. The third recommends one question, defends it on importance, feasibility and decision value, cites the CDC framework and a pager versus smartphone trial, and adds the PICO mapping. The fourth previews data sources and cites a mixed-methods smartphone study. The fifth asks for approval by a date.
Where the marks sit in the NURS 6451 Week 2 rubric
Evaluation question rubrics generally score clarity and focus of the question, derivation from stakeholder needs, justification, feasibility, consideration of alternatives and professional format. Clarity rewards a question with a defined population, comparison and measurable outcome. Derivation earns credit when the memo shows how a vague concern was unpacked. Justification is often weighted heavily and rewards reasons tied to decisions the organization will make. Feasibility asks whether data exist or can be collected, including for the period before the system. Alternatives earn credit when other questions are named and set aside with reasons. Format checks the memo block and citations. Some sections also reward a clear statement of the decision the question will inform.
NURS 6451 Week 2 help: mistakes that cost marks
Memos often fail by asking something too broad to answer, like whether the app improved communication or patient outcomes. Another is a question chosen because data are easy to get, which usually measures adoption rather than effect. Some memos skip the concern that prompted the evaluation, so the question seems arbitrary. Others never say what decision the answer will inform. Quote the concern, unpack it, list several candidate questions, choose one you can defend on importance, feasibility and decision value, and say what data would answer it for both the before and after periods. Keep the memo to two pages so it is read before the meeting.
Get a NURS 6451 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Tell the desk which system your section is evaluating and the worry that prompted it, then attach the Week 2 prompt and rubric; the memo example returns with a question narrowed to what your data could answer. The first is free and back within 24-48h, subject line and exclusions included.
More NURS 6451 papers and MSN samples
- NURS 6451 Week 1: Discussion post
- NURS 6451 Week 3: Literature matrix
- NURS 6451 Week 4: Evaluation design
- NURS 6451 Week 5: Measurement plan
- NURS 6451 Week 6: Usability analysis
- NURS 6451 Week 7: Workflow impact analysis
- NURS 6451 Week 8: Stakeholder analysis
- NURS 6451 Week 9: Discussion post
- NURS 6451 Week 10: Evaluation plan
- NURS 6451 Week 11: Reflection
- NURS 6501 Week 2: Immune mechanism case analysis
- NURS 6441 Week 2: Project charter
- NURS 6512 Week 2: Tailored history interview plan
- NURS 6421 Week 2: Observation log
NURS 6451 Week 2 questions, answered
Why not ask whether the app improved patient outcomes?
Because four units and a single rollout cannot carry an outcome question honestly: too many other things move patient outcomes over the same period, and the effect of faster acknowledgments would be diluted beyond detection. The memo names outcomes as an exclusion and explains why. A question the hospital can answer well is worth more to the course than one it can only gesture at.
Does the memo need a PICO format?
Some sections ask for PICO or a similar template, and the chosen question in the sample maps onto one easily: the units' nurses and prescribers, the messaging app, pagers as comparison, and the acknowledgment interval as outcome. The memo keeps the plain-language version in the subject line and adds the structured form if your prompt requires it.
Is the hospital in the memo real?
No. The units, the complaint and the informatics lead are all composites, assembled so the memo can discuss a messy data situation without describing anyone's employer. If your own evaluation concerns a system you use at work, the same memo shape applies; strip anything that would identify the organization and write about how the work runs, not where.
Where can I find a free NURS 6451 Week 2 sample paper?
The full evaluation question memo, with all five sections and references, can be read here free. For a memo built on the system and concern in your own prompt, the desk can prepare one on request.
Why does the NURS 6451 memo exclude patient outcomes?
Because a small rollout on four units cannot isolate the app's effect on outcomes from everything else that changes over the same months. A process measure closer to the mechanism can be answered honestly.