| Course | NURS 8546 Strategies for Innovation in Nursing Education |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 5 |
| Paper type | Delivery mode comparison paper |
| Length | About 1,010 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NURS 8546 Week 5
One Interprofessional Module, Three Ways to Deliver It: Comparing Online, Hybrid and Campus Delivery on Cost, Faculty Time, Rooms and Placements
Student Name
College of Nursing, Walden University
NURS 8546: Strategies for Innovation in Nursing Education
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
One Interprofessional Module, Three Ways to Deliver It: Comparing Online, Hybrid and Campus Delivery on Cost, Faculty Time, Rooms and Placements
The Settled Change
The program has decided to add a required interprofessional module for second-year nursing learners, delivered jointly with the college's respiratory therapy and pharmacy technician programs. The module's purpose is scheduled contact between learners from different professions, working on shared cases, so that they practice the communication and role clarity described in the national interprofessional competencies (Interprofessional Education Collaborative, 2023). The decision to adopt is made. This paper asks where and how to deliver it.
The module would run for eight weeks each term, with about 60 nursing learners, 20 respiratory therapy learners and 20 pharmacy technician learners, organized in mixed teams of five.
Criteria Fixed in Advance
Four criteria were set before any mode was discussed, each with a stated way of being judged.
Cost is judged per learner per term, including faculty pay, technology and rooms, so that an enrollment assumption cannot hide inside a total.
Faculty time is judged in hours per term across all three programs' faculty, including preparation and facilitation.
Facilities are judged against the college's room availability for the time blocks all three programs share.
Placement consequences are judged by whether the mode affects learners' clinical schedules.
The Three Modes Compared
Table 1 summarizes the comparison.
Table 1
Delivery Modes Compared on Four Criteria
| Criterion | Fully online | Hybrid | Campus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost per learner per term | About $85 | About $140 | About $120 |
| Faculty hours per term | 96 | 152 | 112 |
| Facilities | None needed | Room for 4 of 8 weeks | Room for 8 of 8 weeks; 2 shared blocks available |
| Placement consequences | None | Conflicts in 4 weeks | Conflicts in all 8 weeks |
| Scheduled contact between professions | Asynchronous; little | Some | Full |
Costs are estimates based on the college's adjunct rate, room charges and learning management system licensing, and assume 100 learners.
Reading the Comparison
Fully online is the cheapest mode and needs no rooms. It also loses what the module exists to create. Online interprofessional modules can work when learners meet synchronously in small groups, but across three programs with different schedules, synchronous online meetings face the same timing problem as campus meetings. In practice the online version would become asynchronous discussion boards, where learners post to each other rather than working together. A systematic review of interprofessional education found that effects on collaborative behavior were reported most often for programs that included direct interaction among learners (Reeves et al., 2016). An asynchronous module would deliver the content of interprofessional practice without the practice.
Hybrid delivery costs the most in faculty time, because facilitators prepare both online materials and campus sessions, and the two must be coordinated across three programs. It needs rooms for four of eight weeks.
Campus delivery provides full scheduled contact but collides with room availability. The college has only two time blocks a week when a room for 100 learners is free and all three programs are not in class: Tuesday and Thursday afternoons from 1:00 to 3:00. The module needs one block a week.
Placement consequences are where the comparison surprises. Second-year nursing learners attend clinical placements on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and respiratory therapy learners on Mondays and Thursdays. Any campus session conflicts with one program's clinical days. A Thursday session would remove respiratory therapy learners from clinical placements their program cannot replace, given the regional placement shortage. A Tuesday session would remove nursing learners. This is the finding the comparison exists to produce. The mode decision is constrained less by cost or rooms than by clinical schedules that no one in the module planning group controls.
Studies of online and blended learning across many fields have found that blended formats often perform as well as or better than face-to-face instruction (Means et al., 2013), which supports hybrid delivery on learning grounds, provided the campus weeks can be scheduled.
The cost estimates also hide a difference in who bears them. Under online delivery, most of the cost falls on the nursing program's learning management system budget. Under hybrid and campus delivery, the respiratory therapy and pharmacy technician programs share facilitation costs, because their faculty co-teach the campus sessions. Those two programs are smaller and have less discretionary budget, and their program directors have said they can commit faculty time for four campus sessions a term but not eight. That constraint points in the same direction as the placement finding: whatever the nursing program prefers, its partners can sustain a hybrid module but not a fully campus one.
Recommendation
The paper recommends hybrid delivery with campus sessions on Tuesday afternoons in four of eight weeks, with nursing clinical days moved to Wednesday and Thursday during those weeks, a change the nursing program controls. Online weeks would use synchronous small-group meetings in the evening, scheduled by teams. This is the most expensive option in faculty time, and the recommendation is hedged to enrollment. At 100 learners, the hybrid cost of about $140 per learner is acceptable within the module's budget. If enrollment falls below about 70 learners, the fixed preparation cost per learner rises above $190 and exceeds the budget, and the module should move to the online mode with required synchronous sessions, accepting the loss of campus contact. The enrollment figure should be checked each term before scheduling.
The recommendation has two further conditions. The first is that the nursing program actually moves its clinical days during the four campus weeks, which requires agreement from the two hospitals that host second-year groups. Both have accepted Wednesday and Thursday groups in the past, but neither has been asked about these specific weeks. The second is that evening synchronous meetings remain optional in time but required in attendance, with each team choosing its own hour. Learners from the three programs work different shifts, and an evening hour chosen by the module coordinator would exclude some of them. If either condition cannot be met, the program should revisit the online option before the first term rather than discover the problem in week three.
References
Interprofessional Education Collaborative. (2023). IPEC core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice: Version 3.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811311500307
Reeves, S., Fletcher, S., Barr, H., Birch, I., Boet, S., Davies, N., McFadyen, A., Rivera, J., & Kitto, S. (2016). A BEME systematic review of the effects of interprofessional education: BEME Guide No. 39. Medical Teacher, 38(7), 656-668. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2016.1173663
The Walden NURS 8546 Week 5 instructions
Expect the delivery mode paper to compare ways of delivering one change that has already been adopted, such as online, hybrid and campus formats. A paper of several pages with a comparison table is typical. State the change and its purpose first, since the purpose decides what a mode must preserve. Fix the criteria and how each will be judged before discussing any mode. Use figures where you can, such as cost per learner and faculty hours, and label any assumptions. Look for consequences beyond the classroom, including clinical schedules and partner programs. Make a recommendation that follows from the criteria, and state the condition, such as an enrollment level, under which the recommendation would change.
Inside the NURS 8546 Week 5 example
The opening section describes the module, its partner programs and its purpose, citing the IPEC competencies. A criteria section defines four measures under italic labels. Table 1 compares the three modes on cost, faculty hours, rooms, placement conflicts and contact. The reading section takes each mode in turn: online loses contact, with Reeves and colleagues on interaction; hybrid duplicates preparation; campus has only two shared blocks. A paragraph explains the clinical-day conflict between nursing and respiratory therapy, and another shows who bears the costs. Means and colleagues support blended delivery. The recommendation chooses Tuesday campus sessions in four weeks, gives the 70-learner reversal point and adds two conditions about clinical days and evening meetings.
NURS 8546 Week 5 rubric: what earns full marks
In comparison papers, credit usually tracks four things: criteria set out clearly, accurate figures, real constraints noticed and a recommendation that grows out of the table. Faculty reward criteria fixed in advance with a stated way of judging each, because that guards against a preferred answer. Cost figures earn credit when expressed per learner and when assumptions are visible. The strongest submissions find a constraint that changes the decision, such as clinical schedules or partner budgets. A recommendation scores well when it names the point at which it would reverse. Use of evidence on interprofessional and blended learning supports the analysis. A clear table, logical organization and APA citations complete the grade in most sections.
NURS 8546 Week 5 help from the desk
Delivery comparisons often turn into a general discussion of online versus face-to-face learning without reference to the change being delivered. Others list advantages and disadvantages but never weigh them against fixed criteria. Some ignore schedules and partner programs, which can decide the matter. Write your criteria and measures before you look at the options, then fill a table honestly, including where your preferred mode loses. Check the clinical calendar for every group involved. If you cannot obtain real costs, use stated assumptions and show their effect on the result. Our writers can prepare a delivery mode comparison for the change your section is examining, with criteria, a table and a recommendation that names its reversal point.
Get a NURS 8546 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Send the prompt, the rubric, the change being priced and the modes your section wants compared, and a Week 5 example returns with criteria fixed first and a reversal condition attached. First custom sample at no cost, back within 24 to 48 hours. Your institution's own cost figures are not needed, since the example prices a described program.
More NURS 8546 papers and DNP samples
- NURS 8546 Week 1: Program Pressure Post
- NURS 8546 Week 2: Needs Assessment Paper
- NURS 8546 Week 3: Diffusion of Innovation Paper
- NURS 8546 Week 4: Stakeholder Map Example
- NURS 8546 Week 6: Technology Evaluation Paper
- NURS 8546 Week 7: Faculty Preparation Plan
- NURS 8546 Week 8: Resistance Analysis Paper
- NURS 8546 Week 9: Rollout Timeline Example
- NURS 8546 Week 10: Outcome Evaluation Design
- NURS 8546 Week 11: Sustainability Brief Example
- NURS 8600 Week 5: DNP implementation midpoint report
- NURS 8544 Week 5: Active Learning Design
- NURS 8542 Week 5: Curriculum Map Paper
- NURS 8540 Week 5: Education Philosophy Statement
NURS 8546 Week 5 questions, answered
Do three modes have to be compared?
The prompt decides and two is common. Adding a third pays off only when it changes the answer, which hybrid usually does because it duplicates rather than splits preparation. Where a section names the modes, the criteria matter far more than the count, and a two mode comparison with defined measurement beats a three mode table of impressions every time.
Where do the cost figures come from?
Published rates and stated assumptions, both labeled. Adjunct rates, room capacities and platform pricing are frequently public, and anything else can be carried as a stated assumption with its effect shown. What draws a correction is an unsourced number presented with the same confidence as a published one, since the comparison rests on figures a reader is being asked to accept.
Is a recommendation required?
Most prompts ask for one, and stopping at the table leaves credit unclaimed. What matters is that the recommendation follows visibly from the criteria rather than arriving as a preference at the end. The reversal condition in the example does that work economically, because naming the point at which the answer changes proves the criteria were driving it.
Where can I find a free NURS 8546 Week 5 sample paper?
Above, the comparison of online, hybrid and campus delivery is published in full with its table and recommendation, open to anyone at no charge.
What decides the delivery mode in the NURS 8546 Week 5 example?
Clinical schedules. Nursing and respiratory therapy learners attend clinical on different days, so any campus session conflicts with one program's placements unless nursing moves its clinical days.