| Course | NURS 8705 Doctoral Seminar |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 3 |
| Paper type | Peer critique of a problem statement |
| Length | About 560 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Discussion reply, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NURS 8705 Week 3
Week 3 Discussion: Peer Critique, Response to Tanya
Three Findings and Two Strengths: A Critique of a Classmate's Problem Statement on Burnout Among Emergency Nurses
Tanya, here is your statement as posted: "Burnout among emergency nurses is a significant problem that affects patient care, staff retention and organizational costs, with national surveys showing high rates of burnout in the nursing workforce." As I read it, it currently claims that burnout exists among emergency nurses, that it has three kinds of consequence and that national data show it is common. I have three findings and two strengths, and I have tried to make each finding end in a change you could make this week.
Finding 1: Burnout is not defined. As written, the statement could mean a score on a validated inventory, a rate of resignations, sick calls or simply a shift of exhausted people. These are different problems with different measures. Maslach and Leiter (2016) treat burnout as a combination of overwhelming exhaustion, a detached or cynical stance toward the job and a feeling of ineffectiveness, and studies usually score it with an instrument built around that three-part structure. If you mean inventory scores, say so; if you mean that nurses are leaving, the problem is turnover, and burnout becomes a possible cause rather than the problem itself. Change: replace "burnout" with the measure you will actually count, such as "high emotional exhaustion scores on a validated inventory," or name the outcome, such as resignations.
Finding 2: "Emergency nurses" names an occupation, not a population. The statement has no facility, no shift pattern and no time window. A reader cannot tell whether you mean every emergency nurse in the country, those in your department or a subgroup such as night-shift nurses or travelers. Without boundaries the statement cannot be tested, and it may widen as the project goes on. Change: add the department, its size and a period, for example "registered nurses employed in the 38-bed emergency department of a regional hospital during the past twelve months."
Finding 3: The significance rests on national figures while the problem is local. You cite national surveys, and a large national survey did find burnout common among registered nurses and associated with intention to leave (Shah et al., 2021). But your project will take place in one department, and nothing in the statement shows that the national pattern holds there. A department with low turnover and stable staffing could have a much smaller problem than the national data suggest. Change: add one local figure, such as the department's twelve-month turnover, the share of shifts filled by agency staff or the results of an existing engagement survey, and keep the national data as context.
Two strengths to protect. First, your statement names consequences, which many first drafts omit. When you revise, keep at least one consequence, but choose the one you could measure locally; retention is more measurable than patient care. Second, you have chosen a problem your department's leaders already worry about. Doctoral project texts stress that a problem statement should describe a gap that the organization recognizes and has reason to address (Moran et al., 2020), and burnout in an emergency department is a problem leaders already discuss. Narrowing the statement will not weaken that; it will make it something they can act on.
If it would help, I would be glad to read your revision next week.
References
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Understanding the burnout experience: Recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 15(2), 103-111. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20311
Moran, K. J., Burson, R., & Conrad, D. (2020). The doctor of nursing practice project: A framework for success (3rd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Shah, M. K., Gandrakota, N., Cimiotti, J. P., Ghose, N., Moore, M., & Ali, M. K. (2021). Prevalence of and factors associated with nurse burnout in the US. JAMA Network Open, 4(2), e2036469. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.36469
The Walden NURS 8705 Week 3 instructions
Expect the critique week to ask you to review a classmate's problem statement and help them improve it, which means your writing is judged by how useful it is. Quote the statement exactly and say in a sentence what it currently claims. Organize your response around a small number of findings, each naming the word or phrase at issue, explaining why it matters and ending with a change the classmate could make right away. Check definitions, population boundaries and the fit between local problem and evidence. Name strengths precisely enough that the classmate knows what to keep during revision. Support your points with sources where they help, and keep the tone collegial and focused on the text.
Inside the NURS 8705 Week 3 example
The critique opens by quoting Tanya's statement and summarizing its three claims. Finding 1, under an italic label, shows that burnout could mean a score, resignations or exhaustion, cites Maslach and Leiter and suggests naming the measure. Finding 2 shows that emergency nurses lacks a department, shift pattern and window and offers sample wording for a 38-bed department. Finding 3 notes that Shah and colleagues' national survey cannot by itself show a local problem and suggests adding turnover or agency-shift figures. A paragraph on two strengths, consequences and organizational relevance, cites Moran and colleagues. A closing line offers to read the revision.
NURS 8705 Week 3 rubric: what earns full marks
Peer critiques are generally graded on accuracy, specificity, constructiveness and collegial tone. Faculty reward critiques that tie each point to exact words in the classmate's statement rather than to general impressions. Each finding earns more when it explains the consequence of the problem and offers a concrete revision. Balanced critiques that name strengths precisely are valued, because they help the classmate know what not to change. Sources earn credit when they support a specific point, such as how a concept is usually defined. A short, organized critique often scores better than a long one, since usefulness is the criterion. Faculty also notice when the critique quotes the original wording exactly, so the classmate can see which phrase each comment concerns.
Common NURS 8705 Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Critiques often praise the statement and suggest a small wording change, which gives the classmate little to work with. Others list many problems without saying which matters most or how to fix them. Some comment on the topic rather than the statement, arguing about burnout instead of its definition. Read the statement as if you had to measure it tomorrow: what would you count, where and over what period? Limit yourself to the three issues that would most change the statement. Write each fix as a phrase the classmate could paste in. Our writers can prepare a critique of the statement you have been assigned to review, with findings, fixes and strengths. End with an offer to read the revision, which keeps the exchange going and signals goodwill.
Get a NURS 8705 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Send the classmate's statement, the critique prompt and any structure your section requires, and an example critique written to that structure comes back to you. The first custom one is free and lands inside 24 to 48 hours. Nobody here rewrites a classmate's draft on your behalf; the example shows how one critique was built.
More NURS 8705 papers and DNP samples
- NURS 8705 Week 1: Practice Problem Post
- NURS 8705 Week 2: Problem Statement Draft
- NURS 8705 Week 4: Evidence Brief Example
- NURS 8705 Week 5: Significance Argument
- NURS 8705 Week 6: Population and Setting Memo
- NURS 8705 Week 7: Setting Size Discussion Post
- NURS 8705 Week 8: Scope Revision Memo
- NURS 8705 Week 9: Preliminary Search Record
- NURS 8705 Week 10: Revised Problem Statement
- NURS 8705 Week 11: Next-Step Plan Example
- NURS 8600 Week 3: DNP as-implemented workflow map
- NURS 8546 Week 3: Diffusion of Innovation Paper
- NURS 8544 Week 3: Learner Analysis Paper
- NURS 8542 Week 3: Research Appraisal Paper
NURS 8705 Week 3 questions, answered
Should a critique be soft or direct?
Direct, in the sense of naming the exact word or clause that fails, and courteous in how the finding is framed. The example does both by attaching every objection to text rather than to the writer. Sections differ on whether they want a required number of strengths alongside the problems, and your prompt settles that count.
Who wrote the statement being critiqued?
Nobody in a classroom. It was drafted for this page so the critique would have a target with real defects in it, including the undefined term and the population left open. Using a classmate's actual submission anywhere outside the assignment is a separate matter, and the example avoids the question by supplying its own object.
How long is a doctoral peer critique?
The course publishes no length requirement. Sections tend to set a range, often shorter than students expect, since the value sits in precision rather than in volume. The example runs about six hundred words and spends most of them on the findings, which is the proportion worth keeping even when your required length differs.
Where can I find a free NURS 8705 Week 3 sample paper?
Above this section, the full critique of the burnout statement, with its three findings and two strengths, is open to read free.
What is the first finding in the NURS 8705 Week 3 critique?
That burnout is undefined, so the statement could mean an inventory score, a resignation rate or exhausted staff, and it should name the measure the project will count.