| Course | NURS 6451 Evaluation Methods for Health Information Technology |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 8 |
| Paper type | Stakeholder analysis for an evaluation |
| Length | About 820 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 6451 Week 8
Who Can Open the Data, Who Can Refuse to Be Watched and Who Will Act on the Findings: A Stakeholder Analysis for the Messaging App Evaluation
Student Name
College of Nursing, Walden University
NURS 6451: Evaluation Methods for Health Information Technology
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Who Can Open the Data, Who Can Refuse to Be Watched and Who Will Act on the Findings: A Stakeholder Analysis for the Messaging App Evaluation
Purpose
This analysis concerns the evaluation study, not the adoption of the app, which is already live on two units. Its question is who must allow data access and observation, who may object to being measured, and who will act on the findings. The CDC framework places engaging stakeholders first among its steps, because evaluations that ignore the people who control data or use results tend to be neither feasible nor used (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 1999). Stakeholders are listed by role. Salience theory suggests that roles with power over the evaluation, a legitimate interest in it and urgent concerns about it will command attention whether or not the evaluator plans for them (Mitchell et al., 1997), so the table records what each role controls as well as its likely stance.
Stakeholder Table
Table 1
Roles in the Evaluation Study
| Role | Controls | Gains or loses from the evaluation | Likely stance | Engagement step |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chief nursing officer (sponsor) | Approval, staff time for observation | Gains evidence to decide on further rollout | Supportive | Monthly briefing; approves plan |
| Medical staff leadership | Permission to observe prescribers | Gains data on interruptions; risks criticism of prescriber practice | Cautious | Present design at medical executive committee; agree reporting rules |
| Information services | Message log extraction | Workload; gains feedback on configuration | Neutral | Early meeting on log fields and extraction effort |
| Privacy officer | Approval to use message content, de-identification rules | Must protect patient information | Cautious | Joint review of data handling before any extraction |
| Vendor | Export format and contractual limits on data use | Reputation depends on results | Uncertain | Early conversation on export terms |
| Night-shift hospitalists | Whether observation at night is possible | May feel scrutinized | Resistant | Meet their group; offer opt-out from individual observation |
| Unit clerks | Knowledge of prior informal triage | Role changed by the app; may gain recognition | Supportive | Interviews; share findings with them first |
| Nurse managers (four units) | Unit access and staff release | Gain evidence for unit problems | Supportive | Include in planning; review unit-level results |
| Pharmacy leadership | Pharmacist participation | Clarification workload may be revealed | Neutral | Invite to define pharmacy measure |
Access: Who Holds the Most Important Data
The most important data for the balancing measure on decisions not reaching the chart are the message threads themselves, and those threads contain protected health information: patient names, rooms, medications and clinical details. Two roles jointly control them. Information services controls extraction from the app, and the privacy officer controls whether and how thread content can be used, including the de-identification rules that must be applied before the evaluation team sees any text. Neither can approve alone. The plan therefore schedules a joint meeting with both before the design is finalized, to agree on sampling, de-identification, who may see raw threads and how the sample will be destroyed. Discovering a refusal after the design depends on these data would force the balancing measure to be dropped.
Resistance, Taken Seriously
Night-shift hospitalists objected to being observed when the plan was described informally. Their concern is reasonable: they work alone, their message volume is highest, and a finding that they answer slowly at 0300 could be read as a judgment on individuals rather than on the system. The engagement step is to meet their group, show that results will be reported by unit and time of day, never by prescriber, and offer an opt-out from individual observation while keeping message log data, which is already recorded, in the analysis. If they still decline observation, the interruption measure will be limited to day shift and the limit will be reported.
The vendor's position is different. Its contract governs what data can be exported, in what format and at what cost, and it has an interest in how results are described. The engagement step is an early, neutral conversation about export terms and a statement that the evaluation will report findings whatever they show, with the vendor given a chance to correct factual errors about the product before publication but not to change conclusions. Reporting guidance for health informatics evaluations asks authors to state any competing interests and the roles of parties involved in the study (Talmon et al., 2009), and the vendor's role will be described that way.
Who Will Act on the Findings
The sponsor will decide whether to extend the app beyond the four units. Medical staff leadership will decide whether to change norms for message urgency and response. Information services and the vendor will act on configuration findings such as the directory. Nurse managers will act on unit-level findings. Each needs results in a different form, and the evaluation plan will commit to a short summary for the sponsor, a unit-level report for managers and a configuration list for information services. An evaluation whose findings nobody is positioned to act on fails the CDC framework's utility standard (CDC, 1999).
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 48(RR-11), 1-40.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105
Talmon, J., Ammenwerth, E., Brender, J., de Keizer, N., Nykänen, P., & Rigby, M. (2009). STARE-HI: Statement on reporting of evaluation studies in health informatics. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 78(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.09.002
NURS 6451 Week 8 instructions, in plain terms
The Week 8 prompt usually asks for a stakeholder analysis for your evaluation, identifying who controls data, access and resources, who may resist being studied and who will use the findings, with strategies for engagement. Some prompts confuse adoption and evaluation stakeholders, so read carefully. Expect three or four pages built around a table. Use roles rather than names. Pay particular attention to data owners and privacy approvals, since an evaluation that loses access to key data late in the design may have to drop a measure. Plan how results will be reported to avoid singling out individuals. Include the people who will act on results, not only those who control access.
How this NURS 6451 Week 8 example is built
The purpose section distinguishes the evaluation from adoption, cites the CDC framework's first step and salience theory. Table 1 lists nine roles with controls, gains or losses, stance and engagement step. The access section explains that message threads contain protected health information and that information services and the privacy officer must agree before extraction. The resistance section describes the hospitalists' concern and an opt-out while keeping log data, and sets vendor terms, citing reporting guidance on declaring parties' roles. A final section names who will act on which findings and in what form. Each stance is recorded as likely, since it is a judgment made before any conversation.
Where the marks sit in the NURS 6451 Week 8 rubric
Stakeholder analysis rubrics usually score identification of relevant stakeholders, analysis of their interests and influence, attention to data access and ethics, engagement strategies, link to use of findings and presentation. Identification rewards including data owners and people who may be studied, not only sponsors. Analysis is judged on specificity. Data access and privacy often carry significant weight in evaluation courses. Strategies should be practical and respectful. Use of findings earns credit when the analysis names who will act on which results. Presentation covers the table and professional language. Some rubrics also reward a plan for how results will be reported so that no individual is singled out. Clear, respectful strategies for resistant groups also earn credit.
NURS 6451 Week 8 help from the desk
The most common loss is analyzing stakeholders for adopting the system rather than for evaluating it. Another is omitting the privacy officer or the vendor, who often control access to key data. Some analyses dismiss resistance instead of addressing its reasons. Others name real individuals. Focus on who controls data, who might object to observation and who will use results, plan engagement steps for each, report results by unit rather than person and meet the data owners before your design depends on them. Also schedule the data owners' meeting before finalizing measures that depend on their approval. State stances as likely, not certain. Plan the order of meetings.
Get a NURS 6451 Week 8 example written to your instructions
A short account of who holds your system's data matters most here; with it, the Week 8 prompt and the rubric, the stakeholder table is organized around those roles. The first one is free and returns within 24-48h, resistance written with reasons rather than as obstacles to push past.
More NURS 6451 papers and MSN samples
- NURS 6451 Week 1: Discussion post
- NURS 6451 Week 2: Evaluation question memo
- 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 9: Discussion post
- NURS 6451 Week 10: Evaluation plan
- NURS 6451 Week 11: Reflection
- NURS 6501 Week 8: Gastrointestinal case explanation
- NURS 6441 Week 8: Communication plan
- NURS 6512 Week 8: Abdominal SOAP note audit
- NURS 6421 Week 8: Workaround inventory
NURS 6451 Week 8 questions, answered
Why is the vendor treated as a stakeholder?
Because the contract often decides what data can leave the system, in what format and at what cost. A vendor also has an interest in how results are reported. The sample treats that interest neutrally and plans an early conversation about export terms, since discovering a restriction after the design is settled can end an evaluation before it starts.
Is this a stakeholder analysis for adopting the app?
No. The app is already live on the imagined units. This analysis concerns the evaluation study: who must allow data access and observation, who might object to being measured, and who will act on findings. Adoption stakeholder work usually precedes go-live and asks different questions about buy-in and training, which a later leadership course may take up.
Should real names appear in the table?
Roles, not names, even when the organization is real. Names change, and a table built on individuals fails when someone leaves. For coursework about an actual employer, roles also protect colleagues who never consented to being discussed in coursework. The sample uses roles throughout, even for an organization that is itself invented, and the convention transfers directly.
Where can I find a free NURS 6451 Week 8 sample paper?
The whole stakeholder analysis, table, access, resistance and use-of-findings sections, is free on this page. An analysis for your own evaluation can be drafted on request.
Why is the vendor a stakeholder in a NURS 6451 evaluation?
Because the contract often controls what data can be exported and in what format, and the vendor has an interest in how results are reported. An early, neutral conversation avoids surprises.