The fifth stage of NR-670 usually turns the evidence into a plan. The written work is an implementation design: what will change, who will do it differently, in what sequence, supported by which change framework, with resistance anticipated and answered in writing. This is where nursing leadership becomes operational, and where capstones most often reveal whether the writer has ever moved a process in a real organization. Your section may print this as NR 670 or NR670; 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 an implementation plan has to make possible
A quality specialist writing her capstone plan drafted a one-page documentation standard for a nurse-to-nurse transfer note, then did something most students skip: she took it to two night-shift nurses and asked them to complete it on paper for three transfers. Two of the fields could not be answered at the time the note was written, because the information arrived later. That thirty-minute test rewrote the plan and produced the strongest paragraph in the final paper, because it showed a design that had met reality and survived a revision.
The stage asks for a plan somebody else could execute. That means named roles rather than the passive voice, a sequence with dependencies, the resources that have to be released, the approvals required and where they come from, the training or communication that carries the change to the people doing the work, and the mechanism that keeps it alive after your 144 hours end. Sustainability is not a closing flourish here; it is the part experienced graders look for first, because a change that reverts when its champion leaves has demonstrated nothing.
A named change framework is usually expected. Whichever you use, the requirement is the same: apply it rather than cite it. A paper that lists the stages of a change model and then describes an unrelated plan has decorated the work. A paper that says what unfreezing consists of on this unit, which specific conversation happens with which council, what the small-scale test will be and what result would trigger a wider spread, has used the framework as a tool.
The practicum boundary is at its sharpest in this stage, so state it plainly in your own writing too. Your hours, activity log, site documentation and mentor evaluation are your own verified record and are never drafted, reconstructed or estimated with help. A plan is an academic artifact about work you are doing or proposing; the record of what you actually performed is yours alone. Where the plan describes real people or cases, keep them de-identified and at the level of role and pattern.
The NR-670 Week 5 method, step by step
Six moves that turn a supported idea into an executable written plan.
-
Write the change as a difference in daily behavior
Name what a specific role will do differently, at which point in the workflow, using what tool. Implement a standardized handoff is not a change; the receiving nurse completes a four-field transfer note before the patient leaves the unit is.
-
Choose a framework and apply it stage by stage
Take a named change or implementation model and write what each of its stages consists of in your setting, with the specific meeting, document or test attached. Any stage you cannot fill concretely is a hole in the plan, not a formatting problem.
-
Map stakeholders by influence and by what it costs them
For each group, write what the change adds to their day and what it removes. Resistance is usually rational and specific; a plan that treats it as a communication problem will meet the same objection again in implementation.
-
Sequence the work with dependencies visible
Approval before build, build before test, test before spread. Say what has to be true before each step can start, and name the approving body for anything that touches policy, documentation or an electronic record.
-
Design a small test before any spread
One shift, one pod, a handful of cases. Say what result would justify widening, what would justify revising, and what would justify stopping. A written stopping condition is a mark of leadership maturity that graders notice.
-
Write the sustainability mechanism into the plan itself
Who owns the standard when you leave, where it lives in policy or orientation, what audit continues, and which forum reviews the results. A plan without an owner named is a plan with an expiry date.
A layout and word budget for an implementation plan
Our frame for a written change plan, sized for roughly 1,400 to 1,700 words. It is our own outline rather than anything the university issues, and your section's rubric outranks it wherever the two disagree. Scale proportionally if your assigned length differs.
| Section | What belongs in it | Word target |
|---|---|---|
| The change, stated behaviorally | What each affected role does differently, where in the workflow, with which tool or document. | 170 to 210 |
| Framework applied | The named model with each stage filled by a concrete action in your setting, not a definition of the stage. | 280 to 340 |
| Stakeholders and resistance | Groups, their influence, what the change costs each of them, and the specific answer to the strongest objection. | 250 to 310 |
| Sequence and dependencies | Ordered steps with prerequisites, approval bodies, and the point at which each becomes possible. | 230 to 280 |
| Resources and small test | Time, materials, system changes and cost, plus the scale of the first test and its decision rules. | 220 to 270 |
| Sustainability | Named owner after handoff, where the standard is documented, the continuing audit, and the reviewing forum. | 190 to 240 |
Evidence craft for change planning
Attribute the framework and stay inside its vocabulary. Name the model and its source with a year, then use its own stage names consistently. Switching halfway into generic project language tells a grader the framework was chosen after the plan was written.
Tie every design choice back to the synthesis. If the successful studies all included audit with feedback, your plan should include it and should say so with the citation attached. Design choices that arrive without a reason are the most common reason a strong synthesis fails to earn its keep in the following stage.
Cost the change in the units your organization budgets in. Staff minutes per shift, one-time build hours, printing, meeting time. Even rough figures with stated assumptions outperform silence, because they show the writer knows a change consumes something and that somebody has to release it.
Quote objections rather than characterizing them. Write the strongest version of the resistance in the words it will actually be spoken in, then answer it. A paraphrased objection is easy to defeat on paper and useless in the meeting where it is raised.
Distinguish what your authority permits from what it requires you to request. A plan that quietly assumes you can change an electronic record template will be tested against reality by any grader who has worked in a health system. Naming the approval you need is a strength, not an admission.
Five mistakes that cost points in this week's territory
- Passive-voice implementation. Staff will be educated names nobody, so nothing in the plan can be assigned, scheduled or verified.
- Education as the entire intervention. A single in-service with no change to the tool, the workflow or the audit is the design most likely to leave no trace by week eight.
- A framework cited but not applied. Definitions of a model's stages consume word count and demonstrate nothing about your setting.
- Resistance dismissed. Treating objections as attitude problems rather than as costs is both poor leadership and a reliable point loss on the analysis row.
- No sustainability owner. If nobody is named to hold the change after the practicum ends, the plan has an unwritten end date.
Before you submit
- The change is written as a behavior a named role performs
- Every stage of the chosen framework carries a concrete action in your setting
- Each stakeholder group has a stated cost and a stated answer
- Approvals are named, with the body that grants each one
- The small test has a scale and written decision rules
- A sustainability owner, a document location and a continuing audit all appear
- Every design choice traces back to a source or to your own baseline data
Designing the NR-670 change plan?
Send the rubric and your synthesis out of Canvas. A premium original draft comes back in 24 to 48 hours with the framework applied stage by stage, resistance answered in its own words, and sustainability written in, and revisions run until the grade lands.