Scroll down to read a full NUR 305 Module 6 Milestone Three implementation and evaluation plan for EHR-integrated digital whiteboards, with two planning tables, a technology acceptance framework, APA 7 formatting and margin notes. Searches like "nur 305 module 6 assignment", "nur305 module 6 milestone three" and "nur 305 module 6 example" land here.
The NUR 305 Module 6 example, in full
Implementing and Evaluating EHR-Integrated Digital Whiteboards on an Inpatient Oncology Unit
[Student Name]
Southern New Hampshire University
NUR 305: Information Management and Patient Care Technologies
Final Project Milestone Three
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The organization, setting and figures below are a composite written as a model document. No real employer, client, colleague or patient is described.
Implementing and Evaluating EHR-Integrated Digital Whiteboards on an Inpatient Oncology Unit
The Technology and the Problem
The earlier milestones selected digital room whiteboards for a composite 28-room adult oncology unit. Each room would have a wall-mounted screen displaying information drawn automatically from the electronic health record: the names and photos of the patient's nurse, nursing assistant, attending physician and advanced practice provider for the current shift; the day's scheduled tests and treatments; the pain goal and last pain score; mobility status; and the expected discharge date. Nurses would add a short daily goal chosen with the patient.
The problem is communication with patients who are often fatigued and receiving complex treatment. The unit's dry-erase boards are updated inconsistently, and an audit of 40 rooms found that 23 boards listed the correct nurse for the shift and only 9 listed a daily goal. Research has shown that many hospitalized patients cannot name the physicians responsible for their care (Arora et al., 2009), and a study of in-room whiteboards found that their use improved patients' ratings of communication with providers (Singh et al., 2011). A board populated automatically from the record should be more accurate than one that depends on markers.
Guiding Framework
The technology acceptance model holds that people adopt a technology mainly because they perceive it as useful and as easy to use (Davis, 1989). The model fits this project because the whiteboards will only work if nurses keep the daily goal current and trust the automated fields. Nurses will judge usefulness by whether the boards reduce questions from patients and families, and they will judge ease of use by how many seconds it takes to enter a daily goal. The plan therefore puts heavy weight on demonstrating usefulness early and on removing steps from the workflow, rather than on instructing nurses to comply.
A national survey of whiteboard practices found wide variation in what hospitals displayed and how often boards were updated, and recommended that organizations standardize content, assign clear responsibility for updates and involve front-line staff in design (Sehgal et al., 2010). Those recommendations are built into the phases below.
Implementation Phases
Implementation will take seven months from approval to stabilization. The table below sets out each phase.
Table 1
Implementation Phases, Activities and Leads
| Phase | Months | Key activities | Lead |
|---|---|---|---|
| Planning | 1 to 2 | Form a work group of four staff nurses, a nursing assistant, the educator, an informatics nurse and a physician; agree on displayed fields and privacy rules | Nurse manager |
| Build and test | 2 to 4 | Configure data feeds from the record; test accuracy of names and schedules in five rooms; revise layout with patient feedback | Informatics nurse |
| Training | 4 to 5 | Short hands-on sessions for all staff; super-users on every shift | Unit educator |
| Go-live | 5 | Activate all 28 rooms; super-users and informatics support on the unit for two weeks | Informatics nurse and charge nurses |
| Stabilization | 6 to 7 | Weekly issue review; fix data errors; adjust fields based on staff and patient comments | Work group |
Training and Go-Live Support
Training will be brief and practical. Each staff member will attend a 30-minute session on the unit, in a patient room, where they will enter a daily goal, correct a wrong field and explain the board to a mock patient. The session will open by showing a board populated with the correct care team and schedule, so that nurses see usefulness before they learn the steps. Two super-users per shift, chosen from nurses who helped design the board, will answer questions and report problems during the first month.
Privacy rules will be part of training. The board will show first names and roles only, and patients will be asked on admission whether they want the diagnosis-related fields displayed at all. Nurses will learn how to hide fields when a patient requests it. Go-live will occur on a weekday with an informatics nurse on the unit, and the unit will keep the dry-erase boards available for two weeks as a backup in case a data feed fails.
Evaluation Plan
Evaluation will measure both whether the boards are used and whether they help. Baselines come from the audit described above and from the unit's patient experience survey.
Table 2
Evaluation Measures, Baselines and Targets
| Measure | Definition and source | Baseline | Target at month 6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Board accuracy | Rooms in which the displayed nurse matches the assignment, by weekly spot audit of 20 rooms | 23 of 40 rooms (58%) on dry-erase boards | At least 19 of 20 rooms (95%) |
| Daily goal present | Rooms with a daily goal entered for the current day, same audit | 9 of 40 rooms (23%) | At least 15 of 20 rooms (75%) |
| Patient knowledge of care team | Patients able to name their nurse and one provider, by brief interview of 20 patients per month | To be measured in month 1 | Improvement of 20 percentage points |
| Communication rating | Unit score on patient experience items about nurse and provider communication | Prior two quarters | Upward trend over two quarters |
| Staff perception | Survey items on usefulness and ease of use, adapted from the framework | Month 5 | Majority agree the boards are useful |
Risks and Mitigation
Three risks are most likely. Data errors, such as showing the previous shift's nurse, would quickly destroy trust, so the build phase includes accuracy testing and the stabilization phase includes weekly error review. Workload is the second risk: if entering a daily goal takes more than a few steps, it will be skipped, so the work group will review the entry screen during testing. Privacy is the third: visitors and roommates can see the screen, which is why the display is limited and patients can choose to hide fields. If accuracy or daily goal targets are not met by month six, the work group will interview staff to identify the barrier before deciding on further changes.
Conclusion
Digital whiteboards linked to the electronic record can give oncology patients accurate, current information about who is caring for them and what the day holds, but only if nurses find them useful and easy to maintain. This plan uses the technology acceptance model to shape design, training and support, lays out seven months of phased work with named leads, and evaluates both use and effect against local baselines. The final project will present the plan together with the evidence as a recommendation to unit and hospital leaders.
References
Arora, V., Gangireddy, S., Mehrotra, A., Ginde, R., Tormey, M., & Meltzer, D. (2009). Ability of hospitalized patients to identify their in-hospital physicians. Archives of Internal Medicine, 169(2), 199-201. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2008.565
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Sehgal, N. L., Green, A., Vidyarthi, A. R., Blegen, M. A., & Wachter, R. M. (2010). Patient whiteboards as a communication tool in the hospital setting: A survey of practices and recommendations. Journal of Hospital Medicine, 5(4), 234-239. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.638
Singh, S., Fletcher, K. E., Pandl, G. J., Schapira, M. M., Nattinger, A. B., Biblo, L. A., & Whittle, J. (2011). It's the writing on the wall: Whiteboards improve inpatient satisfaction with provider communication. American Journal of Medical Quality, 26(2), 127-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860610376088
How this NUR 305 Module 6 example is structured
Milestone Three is judged on whether a manager could follow the plan, so it is written as a sequence of decisions. After a short restatement of the technology and the problem it solves, the paper names a framework, the technology acceptance model, and uses it to explain why nurses will or will not use the boards. Implementation is laid out in five phases in a table with owners and durations. Training and go-live support get their own section, because that is where technology projects most often fail. The evaluation plan is a second table with measures, baselines, targets and timing, followed by risks and a brief conclusion.
Get NUR 305 Module 6 written to your instructions
Share your NUR 305 Milestone Three guidelines and rubric along with your first two milestones. An implementation and evaluation plan written to those instructions reaches you in 24 to 48 hours; the first costs nothing. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Southern New Hampshire University document.
NUR 305 Module 6 questions, answered
What does NUR 305 Module 6 Milestone Three ask for?
In milestone-based versions of the final project, the third milestone typically asks how the selected technology would be put into practice and evaluated: implementation steps, stakeholders and training, and measures of success. It builds directly on the technology and evidence from the earlier milestones. The guidelines in your classroom specify the required parts.
Do I need a theory or framework in a NUR 305 implementation plan?
Many rubrics reward one. The technology acceptance model, diffusion of innovations and change models such as Lewin's are common choices. Use the framework to explain decisions in your plan, for example why training focuses on showing usefulness, rather than describing it in a separate section that the plan never uses.
How specific should the evaluation measures be?
Give every measure four anchors: how it is defined, where the data come from, where it stands now and where it should be by a set date. Include at least one measure of use, such as how often the technology is updated, and at least one measure of outcome, such as patient knowledge or satisfaction, so you can tell adoption problems apart from effectiveness problems.