A chart audit is where most NR-559 papers should start, because an audit produces the one thing an opening research paper cannot fake: a countable gap between what the record says happened and what the standard says should have happened. Week 1 in a research methods course is the stage where that gap becomes a searchable question, usually in PICOT form, and where you learn to write a problem statement that carries a number instead of a mood. Your section may print this as NR 559 or NR559; it is the same course. Chamberlain publishes no syllabi outside Canvas. The placement here is our teaching judgment from the course's catalog arc; your section's rubric decides what your week actually asks.
What NR-559 Week 1 asks for
The territory of an opening stage in a graduate research course is problem identification, and the graded distinction is between a topic and a problem. A topic is delirium in older adults. A problem is that on a 28-bed medical unit, delirium screening was documented on admission for a minority of patients over 65 across a defined month, while the unit's own standard calls for it on every admission. The second version can be searched, measured and changed. The first can only be discussed.
Chamberlain runs this material in eight-week sessions, which means the question you write in the first stage is the question you will still be carrying in the seventh. Students who choose a broad topic in the opening week spend the middle of the session quietly narrowing it, and their designs, samples and analyses inherit the drift. Faculty know this, which is why opening rubrics in research courses reward specificity so heavily and why a vague opening submission is expensive twice: once now, and again in week 6 when the ethics or design paper has nothing precise to attach itself to.
Deliverables at this stage are usually a short written piece introducing a practice problem with a question attached, and often a posted introduction in the classroom where you name the problem you intend to work on all session. If your section runs a discussion this week, treat it as final copy. Posts do not reopen once submitted in Canvas, and an opening post that describes a topic rather than a problem invites a faculty reply asking you to narrow, which is a public correction you would rather not carry into week 2.
The habit this stage installs is the move from impression to record. Nurses know their units. They know where the process leaks, and they are usually right. What graduate writing demands is that the knowledge be converted into something a reader who has never set foot on the unit can verify: a count, a denominator, a period, and a standard the count is being measured against.
The NR-559 Week 1 method, step by step
Six moves that turn a suspicion about your unit into a question the rest of the session can be built on.
-
Read the rubric down to its verbs before you choose a problem
Copy each scoring row into a blank file and reduce it to the verb it uses. Identify, describe, analyze and support ask for different depths, and a row that says support is telling you that a paragraph most students write from memory needs a published source under it. Do this first, because a problem chosen without reference to the rows is a problem you may have to abandon.
-
Pick a problem that leaves a documentary trail
Choose something that is recorded somewhere: a screening field, a reassessment timestamp, a checklist, an incident report category, a discharge instruction form. Problems that live only in conversation cannot be sized, and a problem you cannot size will not survive the measurement stages later in the session. Attitudes, morale and communication culture are real, but they are hard opening choices.
-
Size the gap with a count and a denominator
Say how many records out of how many, across what period, in what unit. Eleven of 94 admissions over six weeks is a statement a reader can weigh. A significant number of patients is a statement a reader has to take on faith, and graduate rubrics do not give credit for faith.
-
Name the standard the gap is measured against
A gap only exists relative to an expectation. Say where the expectation comes from: a professional organization's guideline, a national safety goal, a published recommendation, or your organization's own policy. Give it a year in the sentence. Without a named standard, you have described variation rather than a problem.
-
Build the PICOT so each letter is independently searchable
Population, intervention, comparison, outcome, timeframe. Test each element by asking whether you could type it into a database and get sensible results. Nurses is not a population; night-shift nurses on an adult inpatient medical unit is. Improved outcomes is not an outcome; documented screening completion within 24 hours of admission is.
-
Close the loop between the question and the gap
The last paragraph should let a reader trace the question back to the count you opened with. If the audit found missing screening documentation and the question asks about a staffing model, something broke in between, and the grader will find it faster than you will.
A layout and word budget that produces a usable question
The frame our tutors keep beside an opening problem paper, sized for roughly 900 to 1,200 words. It is our own outline rather than anything the university issues, and your week's rubric outranks it wherever the two disagree. Scale the targets proportionally if your assigned length differs.
| Section | What belongs in it | Word target |
|---|---|---|
| The problem in one paragraph | Setting, population, the documented gap with its count and period, stated before any background. | 110 to 140 |
| Why it matters here | The consequence of the gap for this population, supported by published evidence rather than by your own conviction. | 180 to 220 |
| The standard being missed | The guideline, safety goal or policy that defines the expectation, named with its issuing body and year. | 140 to 170 |
| Scope of the problem beyond your unit | Two or three sources showing this is a recognized problem in similar settings, not a local anomaly. | 180 to 210 |
| The PICOT question | The question stated once in full, then each element defined in a sentence so the reader can see it is searchable. | 170 to 210 |
| What the session will do with it | What kind of evidence you expect to need and what you intend the finished work to support. | 80 to 110 |
Evidence craft for a problem statement
Your audit numbers are context, not findings. A count you pulled from records establishes that the problem is real where you work. It does not establish that the problem is important, that it has known causes, or that anything fixes it. Those three claims all need published support, and the paragraph that scores puts the published claim first and the local count second, as illustration.
Every guideline gets an issuing body and a year in the sentence. Standards are revised on their own schedules, and a recommendation quoted without a date is a claim about current practice made from an unknown point in time. Name the organization inside the sentence rather than leaving the reader to reconstruct it from the reference list.
Prefer recent evidence, and say so when you cannot. Research courses usually expect sources from roughly the last five years for anything describing current practice. Older work is legitimate when it is the original description of a model or instrument, but say why you reached back. An unexplained 2007 citation in a paragraph about present-day incidence reads as a search that stopped early.
Keep the boundary between research and practice change visible from the first page. Evidence-based practice applies existing findings locally. Research produces new generalizable knowledge and carries formal review before data are collected. Opening papers that describe a local improvement effort in the language of a study make claims neither activity can support, and this course grades that distinction all session.
Do not report protected information. Aggregate counts belong in a paper. Individual charts, dates of service, room numbers and anything that could identify a patient or a colleague do not, and reviewing records for a course paper is not the same permission as reviewing them for care.
Five mistakes that cost points in this week's territory
- A topic wearing a question mark. What can be done about nurse burnout is a subject heading, not a PICOT question, and it will not narrow on its own by week 4.
- A gap with no denominator. Many patients and frequently are unmeasurable, and unmeasurable openings force every later stage to work around them.
- An intervention chosen before the problem was defined. Deciding you will write about hourly rounding and then finding a problem it fits is the most common way these papers become unsearchable.
- Personal authority carrying the whole argument. Fifteen years on the unit is credibility, not evidence, and a graduate rubric scores the support row separately from the content row.
- An outcome nobody could measure. Better patient care cannot be counted, and a question whose O cannot be counted guarantees trouble in the analysis stages.
Before you submit
- The gap appears with a count, a denominator and a period in the first paragraph
- A named standard with a year defines what the gap is a gap from
- At least two sources show the problem exists beyond your own setting
- Every element of the PICOT could be typed into a database search
- The outcome is something a record could confirm happened or did not
- No patient, colleague or unit is identifiable from anything you wrote
- Every in-text citation appears in the reference list and every reference is cited
Starting NR-559 this week?
Send the instructions and the rubric out of Canvas. A premium original draft comes back in 24 to 48 hours with the problem sized, the standard named and the question built to survive all eight stages, and revisions run until the grade lands.