| Course | NU 617 The Nurse Educator Roles |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Clinical performance decision record |
| Length | About 850 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MSN Nurse Educator |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU 617 Unit 3
Clinical Performance Decision Record at Midterm: One Senior Student, Two Competencies Not Met, and the Choice Between a Learning Contract and a Clinical Failure
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NU 617: The Nurse Educator Roles
Instructor Name
February 24, 2026
Clinical Performance Decision Record at Midterm: One Senior Student, Two Competencies Not Met, and the Choice Between a Learning Contract and a Clinical Failure
Course, Setting, and Standard
Course: senior medical-surgical practicum in a composite BSN program, 7 weeks completed of 14. Setting: a 30-bed medical-surgical unit, 12-hour shifts, student carrying two to three patients under the instructor's supervision. Student: Student B, in the final year of the program, with satisfactory clinical evaluations in all previous courses. Standard: the program's clinical evaluation instrument. The two competencies at issue are quoted from it: "1.2 Administers medications safely, verifying patient identity, dose, route, time, and indications, including relevant assessment data, before administration" and "3.1 Recognizes changes in patient condition and reports them to the appropriate person in a timely manner." Under the instrument's rules, passing the course requires a satisfactory rating on each competency by the final evaluation, and that unsafe practice may result in failure at any time.
Observations, Dated and Specific
February 3: Student B drew up 6 units of rapid-acting insulin for a patient without checking the pre-meal glucose. I stopped her at the medication cart and asked what she needed to know first; she identified the glucose check. The glucose was 94 mg/dL and the correction scale called for no insulin. Feedback given the same day, verbally and in writing.
February 10: at 10:15, a patient's oxygen saturation on the monitor was 88% on 2 liters, down from 94%. Student B documented it at 10:20 but did not tell the primary nurse or me. At 12:10, the primary nurse noticed and increased the oxygen after assessing the patient. Student B said she had planned to recheck. Feedback given the same day; we discussed the unit's parameters for reporting.
February 17: Student B brought an oral medication to a patient's bedside and began to hand it to the patient without checking the identification band against the medication record. I stopped her before the patient took it. The medication was correct for the patient. Feedback given the same day.
In each case, Student B acknowledged the error, was not defensive, and asked for guidance. Her assessments are thorough and her documentation is good. Her rating on the other competencies at midterm is satisfactory.
Midterm Rating
Competency 1.2: unsatisfactory. Two of the three events involved medication administration, and in both a required verification step was omitted. Competency 3.1: unsatisfactory. A saturation of 88% was not reported for nearly two hours. All other competencies: satisfactory.
Options Weighed
Option 1: continue with a warning. Rejected. Three events in three weeks, two of them omitting a medication safety step, form a pattern, and what makes clinical practice unsafe is a recurring concern in the nursing education literature (Scanlan & Chernomas, 2016); a warning alone would not change the conditions under which the errors occurred and would not protect patients over the next seven weeks.
Option 2: clinical failure now for unsafe practice. Considered seriously. The policy permits it, and patient safety is the educator's first obligation. Against it: no patient was harmed, each error was caught by supervision, the student is engaged and responsive to feedback, and seven weeks remain in which the student can demonstrate the competencies under closer supervision. Educators often hesitate to fail students who are struggling, sometimes to the detriment of patients (Luhanga et al., 2008), and I tested whether my preference for a learning contract was that kind of hesitation. I concluded it was not, because a contract with strict conditions would protect patients better than hope, and a clear failure criterion is written into it.
Option 3: a learning contract with defined criteria, closer supervision, and a stated consequence if the criteria are not met. Chosen.
The Decision
Student B will continue in the course under a learning contract, detailed in a separate remediation plan, which requires direct observation of every medication administration for the next four weeks and specific reporting parameters for every patient. If any further omission of a required medication verification step occurs, or any failure to report a change meeting the reporting parameters, Student B will receive an unsatisfactory final rating and fail the course. The student was informed of this decision in writing and in a meeting with the course coordinator present on February 24, and was told of her right to appeal under the program's grievance policy.
Weighing What Is Owed to Each Party
To the student, the program owes clear standards, prompt and specific feedback, a fair chance to improve, and a decision based on evidence rather than impression. To patients, it owes protection from unsafe care by students, which in this case means supervision close enough to catch every medication error before it reaches a patient. Courts have generally deferred to faculty academic judgment in clinical performance decisions when students received notice of deficiencies and the decision was careful and deliberate (Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 1978), which is one more reason the process matters as much as the outcome. The learning contract is the only option that meets both obligations at once.
References
Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978).
Luhanga, F., Yonge, O. J., & Myrick, F. (2008). "Failure to assign failing grades": Issues with grading the unsafe student. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 5(1), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.2202/1548-923X.1366
Scanlan, J. M., & Chernomas, W. M. (2016). Failing clinical practice & the unsafe student: A new perspective. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 13(1), 109-116. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnes-2016-0021
What the NU 617 Unit 3 instructions ask for
Unit 3 asks you to document a decision about a student's clinical performance. Expect to state the course standard, record specific dated observations, rate performance against competencies, consider options, make and justify a decision and address obligations to the student, patients and program. Many versions ask about legal and ethical considerations in clinical evaluation. Check whether your section allows a student you have taught, with details changed. Observations should be factual and specific, not impressions. The record and any learning contract are separate documents, so keep this one focused on the decision. Failing to fail students who are unsafe is a known problem in nursing education, and the literature on it supports clear documentation.
How the NU 617 Unit 3 example is put together
The record opens with course, setting and the competency standard, so every observation can be measured against something. Observations are dated and factual, each describing what happened and what the instructor did. The midterm rating section links each observation to a competency and gives the rating. The options section weighs three choices with reasons for rejecting two, which shows the decision was considered rather than reflexive. The decision section states what will happen and refers to a separate remediation plan. The final section balances obligations, explaining that a fair chance to improve and patient safety can both be honored through close supervision. Legal context is mentioned briefly, citing case law that supports academic judgment.
Where the points sit in the NU 617 Unit 3 rubric
Herzing's rubric for a clinical decision record usually covers the performance standard, the quality of observations, the evaluation against competencies, consideration of options, the decision and its justification, ethical and legal considerations and writing. Observation points reward specific, dated, behavioral descriptions that another instructor could verify. The evaluation criterion looks for each observation tied to a numbered competency. Most graders spend their time on the options and the reasoning: two or three alternatives weighed with reasons for rejecting the others is what the top band expects. Ethical and legal points go to balanced attention to the student, future patients and the program. Professional, neutral tone matters throughout the record. Scanlan and Chernomas on clinical failure and the Horowitz case belong in the APA 7 references.
Common NU 617 Unit 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Decision records in Unit 3 usually lose points by using vague language, such as the student lacks confidence, instead of describing what happened and when. Another frequent problem is observations without dates, which makes a pattern impossible to show. Students often jump to a decision without weighing options. Patient safety is sometimes left out of the reasoning, or it overrides fairness without discussion. The record mixes in the remediation plan, which belongs in a separate document with its own signatures. Legal concerns are either ignored or overstated. Finally, write in a neutral, factual tone, because a decision record may be read by a grievance committee, and graders expect language that would hold up in that setting without sounding punitive.
Get a NU 617 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 3 instructions and the rubric from your NU 617 classroom, plus the clinical situation the record has to cover and any evaluation instrument you have been given. We write a custom example with competencies quoted, observations dated, prior feedback documented, the safety obligation argued and the options weighed, returned in 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.
More NU 617 papers and nurse educator samples
- NU 617 Unit 1: Faculty workload allocation brief
- NU 617 Unit 2: Academic integrity case review
- NU 617 Unit 4: Learner remediation plan
- NU 617 Unit 5: Advising and referral protocol
- NU 617 Unit 6: Curriculum change proposal
- NU 617 Unit 7: Faculty scholarship plan
- NU 617 Unit 8: Appointment and promotion dossier
- NU 726 Unit 3: Leadership analysis
- NU 730 Unit 3: Handoff failure analysis
- NU 760 Unit 3: Annotated bibliography
- NU 780 Unit 3: Population health paper
NU 617 Unit 3 questions, answered
Can this be based on a student I am teaching or precepting?
The record itself has to be your own work about your own setting, and we do not draft observations of a real learner. What a sample can show is the structure and the standard of writing: how a competency is quoted, how behavior is recorded with no judgment attached, and how a safety argument is set out. Keep identifying detail out of anything you submit.
Is failing a student in clinical legally risky?
Institutions are sued over these decisions, which is exactly why documentation matters more here than almost anywhere else in the role. Courts have generally deferred to academic judgment where a program followed its own published process, gave notice and kept a record. That is general context rather than legal advice, so follow your program's policy and involve the people whose job it is to advise on it.
What belongs in the record and what belongs in a conversation?
Everything supporting the decision has to be in the record, including feedback given verbally, with the date it was given. Conversations that were never documented are extremely difficult to rely on later. What stays out is speculation about a student's personal circumstances, opinions about their suitability for the profession generally, and anything you would not be willing to read aloud to them.
Where can I find a free NU 617 Unit 3 sample paper?
This page shows the whole NU 617 Unit 3 midterm decision record for free, from dated observations to the options weighed and the decision. A custom record can document a different clinical performance situation.
Is failing a nursing student in clinical legally risky for faculty?
Courts have generally deferred to faculty academic judgment when standards are clear, feedback is given and decisions follow a fair process, as in the Horowitz decision. This sample documents dated observations and weighs options to meet that standard.