| Course | NUR 307 Exploring Information Technology for Professional Practice |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Technology implementation and evaluation plan |
| Length | About 1,040 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Southern New Hampshire University |
| Program | RN to BSN |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NUR 307 Module 6
Project Two: Implementing and Evaluating Infusion Pump Location Tracking, Dimension by Dimension
[Student Name]
Southern New Hampshire University
NUR 307: Exploring Information Technology for Professional Practice
Project Two
[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.
Project Two: Implementing and Evaluating Infusion Pump Location Tracking, Dimension by Dimension
The Project One proposal ended with a recommendation: track infusion pumps only, let biomedical engineering own the system, and pilot it tower-wide while 4 West serves as the unit where results are measured. Most health information technology does not fail because the hardware breaks; it fails because it does not fit the people, workflow and organization around it. This plan therefore uses the sociotechnical model of Sittig and Singh (2010), which treats a health information system as eight parts that act on one another. Three concern the technology itself: the equipment and programs, the clinical content they hold and the screens people use. The remaining five cover the staff who use it, the sequence of tasks and messages around it, internal policy and culture, regulation from outside, and ongoing monitoring of how it performs. The plan argues that the pilot will succeed only if every dimension is addressed before go-live, and that its success should be judged by whether nurses stop searching, not by how many tags are installed. The hospital and all figures are composites.
Hardware, Software and Clinical Content
Biomedical engineering will tag all 240 infusion pumps in the tower and install sensors at room level on six medical-surgical floors, soiled and clean utility rooms, the elevator lobbies and the central equipment room. Fisher and Monahan (2012), studying 23 hospitals, found that systems often underperformed and that asset tracking worked best with whole-hospital deployment and centralized control, so the pilot covers the full tower rather than one unit, and the equipment room where pumps are cleaned is included from the start. The clinical content is simple: each pump's location, clean or dirty status and time since last movement. Environmental services will press a status button on each tag after cleaning, and the dashboard will show dirty pumps in gray so nurses do not walk to a pump they cannot use.
Interface and People
Nurses will reach the map from a shortcut on unit computers and from the hospital's mobile app on unit phones, with a search box that returns the three nearest clean pumps. Before go-live, five nurses from 4 West, including night shift, will test the interface in the simulation lab and suggest changes, a step that costs little and prevents the common problem of dashboards designed without users. Training will take 15 minutes at each unit's huddle, supported by a one-page guide at each nurses' station and two superusers per shift for the first month. Environmental services staff will receive separate training on the status button, since the system's value depends on their step as much as on nursing's.
Workflow and Communication
The new workflow for finding a pump has three steps: search the map, go to the nearest clean pump, and call the equipment room if none are within the tower. The old habit of hiding pumps in closets will be addressed directly at huddles, with the charge nurse checking the map at the start of each shift for pumps sitting unused in patient rooms. When a patient is discharged, the pump's tag will remain dirty until cleaning, so a pump left in a room shows up on the map instead of disappearing. Communication about problems, such as tags that stop reporting, will go through a single biomedical engineering ticket queue rather than informal messages.
Organizational Policy and External Rules
Two policies will be written before go-live. The first defines ownership: biomedical engineering maintains tags, batteries and sensors, and reports weekly on system uptime. The second protects staff: the system tracks equipment only, location data will not be used to monitor or evaluate employees, and access to historical location data is limited to biomedical engineering for maintenance. Externally, the system must meet the hospital's information security review and its wireless network standards, and tags must withstand the cleaning agents approved for pumps under infection prevention guidance. These reviews are scheduled in the first month so they do not delay go-live.
Timeline
Month 1 covers security and infection prevention reviews, tag installation and sensor mapping. Month 2 covers interface testing with nurses, training and baseline measurement on 4 West, repeating the two-week pump search audit from Project One. Month 3 is go-live across the tower, with superusers on every shift. Months 4 through 6 are the evaluation period, with a repeat audit in month 5 and a decision meeting at the end of month 6 in which nursing, biomedical engineering and finance decide whether to continue, expand or stop.
Measurement and Monitoring
The eighth dimension, measurement, returns to the problem. Primary measures on 4 West will be the number of pump searches per nurse per shift, median search time and the count of doses or transfusions delayed past half an hour for want of a pump, all compared with the Project One baseline. Secondary measures include pumps found outside the tower, system uptime, the share of tags reporting each day and nurse satisfaction on a short survey. A balancing measure will track whether environmental services cleaning times rise because of the status step. Because documentation, medication administration and care coordination already take most of nurses' practice time (Hendrich et al., 2008), even modest time savings are meaningful, but the pilot should be judged against targets set in advance: a 50% reduction in searches and no late starts attributable to missing pumps.
Risks and Contingencies
If tag reporting falls below 90% for two consecutive weeks, biomedical engineering will audit batteries and sensor coverage before the evaluation continues. If nurses stop using the map, superusers will ask why during huddles, and the interface will be adjusted. If the pilot meets its targets but costs more than finance can support, the par-level stocking system proposed as an alternative in Project One remains available as a lower-cost fallback.
Conclusion
This plan treats the location system as a change in how people work, not an equipment purchase. By addressing all eight sociotechnical dimensions before go-live, protecting staff privacy, involving the environmental services staff whose button keeps the map honest and measuring success by the time nurses no longer spend searching, the pilot will produce a clear answer about whether the technology earns its place.
References
Fisher, J. A., & Monahan, T. (2012). Evaluation of real-time location systems in their hospital contexts. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 81(10), 705-712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.07.001
Hendrich, A., Chow, M. P., Skierczynski, B. A., & Lu, Z. (2008). A 36-hospital time and motion study: How do medical-surgical nurses spend their time? The Permanente Journal, 12(3), 25-34. https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/08-021
Sittig, D. F., & Singh, H. (2010). A new sociotechnical model for studying health information technology in complex adaptive healthcare systems. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 19(Suppl. 3), i68-i74. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2010.042085
What the NUR 307 Module 6 instructions ask for
Project Two in NUR 307 usually asks how the technology from your Project One proposal would be put into use and then judged. Common instructions ask for a framework or model to guide implementation, a description of stakeholders and their roles, training and communication plans, workflow changes, privacy and security measures, a timeline, a budget or resource summary, evaluation measures and contingency plans. Some sections ask for a presentation instead of a paper. The written version typically runs four to five pages, and graders expect the plan to connect clearly to the problem and recommendation from Project One. Keeping the same unit, figures and terms across both projects makes that connection visible and saves time.
How this NUR 307 Module 6 project two implementation plan example is built
This plan implements an asset-only real-time location system for infusion pumps across a composite hospital tower. It uses a sociotechnical model with eight dimensions as its structure, addressing hardware and scope with evidence from a multi-hospital study, usability testing and training for both nurses and environmental services, a rewritten workflow that tackles pump hiding, two written policies including a staff privacy protection, and external security and infection prevention reviews. A phased six-month timeline includes a baseline audit and a decision meeting. Measurement uses primary, secondary and balancing measures with targets set in advance, and contingencies are triggered by specific thresholds. All figures are composites.
Where the NUR 307 Module 6 rubric puts the points
Project Two rubrics generally assess the implementation framework, the stakeholder and training plan, the workflow and policy changes, the privacy and security measures, the evaluation plan and the writing quality. The framework criterion rewards plans organized by a recognized model rather than a list of tasks. Evaluation is usually weighted most heavily; graders look for baseline data, measures tied to the original problem, targets set in advance and a balancing measure. The stakeholder criterion rewards including groups outside nursing whose actions affect the technology. Consistency with Project One, in the problem, the setting and the measures, is often checked explicitly by the grader.
NUR 307 Module 6 help: the mistakes that cost points
A frequent weakness in implementation plans is focusing on installation and training while ignoring workflow, policy and the people outside nursing who make the system work. Another is an evaluation plan with measures that were never tied to the original problem, such as counting tags installed. Some plans leave out a baseline, which makes any result impossible to interpret. Others have no plan for what happens if the pilot fails. Organize the plan by a model, walk through the new workflow step by step, write down the policies that protect staff and patients, measure before and after against targets, and state in advance what result would lead you to stop. A plan that can end a failing pilot is more credible than one that can only declare success.
Get NUR 307 Module 6 written to your instructions
Send your Project One proposal or a summary of the technology and setting, plus the Project Two rubric. An implementation and evaluation plan for that technology, organized by a recognized model, is written in 24 to 48 hours at no cost for a first sample. 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.
More NUR 307 papers and related RN to BSN samples
- NUR 307 Module 1 Short Paper: From Data to Wisdom at a School Nurse's Desk
- NUR 307 Module 2 Short Paper: Smartwatch Rhythm Alerts in the Patient Portal
- NUR 307 Module 3 Project One Technology Proposal: Tracking Infusion Pumps With a Location System
- NUR 307 Module 4 Telehealth Short Paper: Telelactation Visits After Early Rural Discharge
- NUR 307 Module 5 Clinical Decision Support Short Paper: An Early Mobility Prompt and Alert Fatigue
- NUR 307 Module 7 Short Paper: A Video Filmed at the Nurses' Station
- NUR 307 Module 8 Journal: From Technology User to Technology Shaper
- NUR 499 Module 2 Short Paper
- NUR 300 Module 2 Milestone One
- NUR 301 Module 6 Project Two Preparation
- NUR 350 Module 4 Assignment: sample paper, in real form
NUR 307 Module 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free NUR 307 Module 6 Project Two sample?
The full implementation plan on this page is free: an infusion pump location system rolled out across a hospital tower using an eight-dimension sociotechnical model, with timeline, measures, contingencies, margin notes and three references. Plans for other technologies can be produced on request.
Which framework works for a NUR 307 implementation plan?
The Sittig and Singh sociotechnical model is a strong fit for health information technology because it covers hardware, interface, people, workflow, policy, external rules and measurement. Implementation science frameworks and change models such as Lewin or Kotter are also used.
What evaluation measures should Project Two include?
Measures tied to the problem from Project One, a baseline, targets set in advance and at least one balancing measure that watches for unintended effects. Include how and when each measure is collected.
Do I need a budget in the implementation plan?
Many rubrics ask for resources or cost. A short summary of equipment, licenses, staff time and training, with who pays, shows feasibility even if the numbers are estimates.
How should Project Two handle privacy?
Describe what data the technology collects, who can see it, how long it is kept and what it may not be used for. Written policies before go-live are stronger than general promises.