| Course | NSG 633 Safety and Quality |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Control strength comparison |
| Length | About 760 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NSG 633 Unit 4
Labels on the Cap, Pens in One Bin: Six Controls for Shared Insulin Pen Storage Ranked From Weakest to Strongest
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NSG 633: Safety and Quality
Instructor Name
February 4, 2026
Labels on the Cap, Pens in One Bin: Six Controls for Shared Insulin Pen Storage Ranked From Weakest to Strongest
The Hazard
On the composite medical floor walked in Unit 3, insulin pens for several patients are stored loose in one refrigerator bin in the medication room, and the patient's label is on the removable cap rather than on the pen body. If caps are swapped, or a pen is picked up by its body, a pen can be used on the wrong patient. The consequence is double: a dosing error with a high-alert drug, and exposure to another patient's blood, since pen reservoirs can be contaminated by backflow after an injection even when a new needle is used (Herdman et al., 2013). The condition is present every day.
Everything that follows refers to this hazard only.
How the Controls Are Ordered
The controls below are ordered by how much they depend on a person remembering to do the right thing under pressure. Root cause analysis guidance classes actions as weak, intermediate, or strong on this basis: training, warnings, and new policies are weak; checklists, standardized storage, and redundancy are intermediate; changes that make the error physically difficult or remove the hazard are strong (National Patient Safety Foundation, 2015). The same four questions are asked of every control: what it depends on, what it costs and whose time pays, what shortcut it invites, and how long it lasts if nobody maintains it.
The Six Controls
The table sets each candidate against the four questions.
| Control | Depends on | Cost, and whose time | Shortcut it invites | Survives without upkeep? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Staff education session on pen safety | Every nurse remembering, including agency and float staff who missed it | About 30 minutes per nurse once; educator time | None new; the old shortcut stays | No; fades within months and never reaches new staff |
| 2. Warning sign on the refrigerator: "One pen, one patient; check the barrel" | Nurses reading a sign they see every day | Minimal | Sign becomes invisible | Poorly; signs age into the wall |
| 3. Policy requiring a two-identifier check against the pen body before each use | A step added to every insulin dose | About 20 seconds per dose; nurse time | Checking the cap anyway, since the barrel label is small | Only as long as it is audited |
| 4. Pharmacy prints the patient label on the pen body with a barcode, and the pen is scanned at the bedside | Pharmacy labeling every pen; bedside scanning being done | Pharmacy labeling time; scanner set-up for pens | Scanning the label from a printed sheet instead of the pen | Yes, while scanning compliance is monitored |
| 5. Patient-specific sealed bags or bins in the refrigerator, one per patient | Storage set-up; nurses returning pens to the right bag | One-time bins; small daily restocking time | Returning a pen to any bag when rushed | Partly; bins stay, discipline drifts |
| 6. Remove multi-dose pens from inpatient use: pharmacy dispenses single-patient doses drawn up or uses vials and syringes drawn at the bedside from patient-specific supply | Pharmacy workflow and supply | Pharmacy preparation time; possible delay in first doses | Keeping home pens for convenience | Yes; the hazard no longer exists on the floor |
What a Bedside Nurse Can Start, and What Needs a Signature
A staff nurse can start controls 1, 2, and, with the charge nurse's agreement, 5. Education and signs are within the unit's own authority, and patient-specific bins can be set up by the floor with the unit manager's approval and a small supply order. Controls 3 and 4 need the pharmacy and nursing practice councils, since they change a hospital-wide medication policy and the pharmacy's labeling workflow. Control 6 needs the pharmacy and therapeutics committee, because it changes how a whole drug class is dispensed.
This split matters because the controls a nurse can start are the weakest ones. Education is often necessary but rarely sufficient by itself, and it tends to be chosen because it is within reach, not because it works (Soong & Shojania, 2020). A proposal that stopped at control 1 would be doing what the floor can do rather than what the hazard needs.
How Each Would Be Checked
A control that cannot be checked will be assumed to work. For the education session, the only measure available is attendance, which says nothing about what happens at the refrigerator at 2100. For the warning sign there is no measure at all. The two-identifier policy could be checked by direct observation, but observation changes behavior while the observer is present and costs a nurse's time for every audit.
The barcode control produces its own evidence. Every insulin dose scanned from a pen body appears in the medication administration report with the scan source, so the pharmacy can see, week by week, what share of pen doses were scanned from the barrel label and how many were given with a manual override. A floor could set a baseline in the first month and review it at three and six months. Patient-specific bins can be checked in two minutes a shift by the charge nurse opening the refrigerator and counting pens outside their bags, which is simple enough to survive after the initial enthusiasm fades.
The Choice, and What Holds Until It Arrives
The recommended control is 4: pharmacy labeling on the pen body with a barcode scanned at the bedside. It is not the strongest on the ladder, but control 6 would add pharmacy workload for every insulin dose on every floor and may delay first doses, which carries its own risk, while control 4 builds on scanning that nurses already do for every other medication. Its main weakness is the shortcut of scanning a copy of the label, which can be monitored through the scanning reports the pharmacy already receives.
Until control 4 is approved and in place, which could take several months, the floor would use control 5, patient-specific bins, alongside control 2 as a reminder. Neither is strong, and the interim plan should say so. A floor that puts in bins and then considers the problem solved has taken the weaker fix and stopped. The bins hold the line; the barcode on the barrel is what closes it.
References
Herdman, M. L., Larck, C., Schliesser, S. H., & Jelic, T. M. (2013). Biological contamination of insulin pens in a hospital setting. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 70(14), 1244-1248. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp120728
National Patient Safety Foundation. (2015). RCA2: Improving root cause analyses and actions to prevent harm.
Soong, C., & Shojania, K. G. (2020). Education as a low-value improvement intervention: Often necessary but rarely sufficient. BMJ Quality & Safety, 29(5), 353-357. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010411
What the NSG 633 Unit 4 instructions ask for
Unit 4 asks you to compare possible controls for a hazard and choose the strongest workable one. Expect to describe the hazard, order controls by strength, compare them on set questions, identify who can start each, explain how each would be checked and recommend one with interim steps. Students often ask what makes a control strong and whether education counts. Controls that rely on memory, such as education and signs, are weakest; those that change the system, such as forcing functions and standardization, are strongest. Ask whether each can be checked. A bedside nurse can start some controls; others need management or pharmacy. Interim steps cover the time before a strong control arrives. State the cost of each control so a manager can weigh it.
How this NSG 633 Unit 4 example is built
The comparison opens with the hazard and why shared pens risk infection and wrong-patient doses. The ordering section explains the hierarchy. The table lists six controls against four questions: does it depend on memory, who can start it, how it is checked and its cost. The authority section separates nurse-led steps from those needing a signature. The checking section explains audits for each. The recommendation section chooses labeling and bins and lists interim steps, such as rubber-banding each patient's pens with a label until bins arrive. The structure shows why education alone would not solve the problem. Costs are given for each control, from staff time for education to the price of bins.
NSG 633 Unit 4 rubric: what full points look like
Herzing's rubric for a control comparison typically covers the hazard, the ordering principle, the comparison table, authority, verification and the recommendation. The ordering principle and the final choice draw the closest reading, since the strongest workable control should win for stated reasons. Hazard points reward a specific risk, here infection and wrong-patient doses. Table criteria look for the same questions applied to every control. Authority earns credit when nurse-led and management-led steps are separated. Verification points go to a concrete audit for each control, since an unchecked control is assumed to work. Interim steps are often credited because strong controls take time. Costs stated plainly help the committee. ISMP's hierarchy of effectiveness supports the ranking.
Common NSG 633 Unit 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Control comparisons in Unit 4 commonly lose points by recommending education as the main fix. Another frequent problem is no ordering principle, so the ranking looks arbitrary. Students often ignore who has authority to start each control. Verification is missing. Interim steps are skipped, leaving the hazard in place until the strong control arrives. Costs are not considered. The infection risk of shared pens is not explained. Pharmacy's role is overlooked. Controls are listed without the four questions applied to each. Finally, rank by how much each control depends on memory, because graders reward a choice that changes the system rather than asking people to try harder.
Get a NSG 633 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 4 instructions and the rubric from your NSG 633 classroom, with the hazard the comparison should work on. We write a custom example that holds one hazard, ranks the candidates by reliance on memory, asks each the same questions and names who would have to approve it. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.
More NSG 633 papers and BSN samples
- NSG 633 Unit 1: Barrier to reporting analysis
- NSG 633 Unit 2: Near miss narrative analysis
- NSG 633 Unit 3: Unit level hazard walk
- NSG 633 Unit 5: Patient identification audit
- NSG 633 Unit 6: Interruption and workload study
- NSG 633 Unit 7: Escalation chain trace
- NSG 633 Unit 8: Frontline improvement pitch
- NSG 222 Unit 4: Newborn transition record
- NSG 223 Unit 4: Complex adult case file
- NSG 233 Unit 4: Escalation decision record
- NSG 298 Unit 4: Concept linking exercise
NSG 633 Unit 4 questions, answered
Is the strongest control always the right recommendation?
Not when nothing available can deliver it, and saying so is part of the argument. Many sections give credit to a paper that names the design change it would want, explains why it is out of reach this year, and then defends a weaker measure as a stated interim with a review point attached to it.
Where do the candidate controls come from?
Published safety work and professional bodies supply the general ranking language, and you supply the candidates that fit the hazard. Cite the source of the ranking rather than presenting it as common sense. Internal policy documents from an employer are not available for this, so describe the type of control a policy represents instead of quoting it.
Can the comparison reuse a hazard from an earlier unit?
Most sections encourage it, since a floor already described carries the detail the rows need. Rewrite rather than paste, and check what your course allows about work handed in before. Carrying a hazard forward also lets the closing say what the earlier analysis got wrong, which reads better than a fresh hazard chosen for convenience.
Where can I find a free NSG 633 Unit 4 sample paper?
Read the complete NSG 633 Unit 4 control comparison here at no charge, six controls for insulin pen storage ranked weakest to strongest. Ask for a custom comparison on another hazard.
What is the hierarchy of safety controls in nursing?
Controls range from weak ones that rely on memory, such as education and signs, to strong ones that change the system, such as forcing functions and standardization. This sample ranks six controls for insulin pen storage that way.