NU 725 Unit 2 Workflow Analysis Example

Course	NU 725 Technology and Nursing Informatics in Advanced Practice
Unit	Unit 2
Paper type	Clinical workflow analysis
Length	About 820 words, 5 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Herzing University
Program	MSN
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for NU 725 Unit 2

Workflow Analysis of Mealtime Insulin Administration on a Medical-Surgical Unit, as Observed

Student Name

Department of Nursing, Herzing University

NU 725: Technology and Nursing Informatics in Advanced Practice

Instructor Name

January 27, 2026

What this page is doingThe title names one bounded process and says it was mapped as observed, not as written in policy. A workflow analysis is the ground later informatics work is argued from, and a map of the ideal process would give that later work nothing real to stand on.

Workflow Analysis of Mealtime Insulin Administration on a Medical-Surgical Unit, as Observed

Scope and Method

This analysis maps mealtime rapid-acting insulin administration for patients on basal-bolus insulin on a 32-bed composite medical-surgical unit. Start event: the patient's meal tray is ordered by the diet office. Stop event: the insulin dose is documented as given in the medication administration record. The process was observed across six lunchtime administrations on three weekdays, with the consent of the nurses observed, and timed with a stopwatch. Workflow is defined here in the sense used in informatics research, as the sequence of tasks, actors, tools, and information that together accomplish work, including the informal parts no policy describes (Unertl et al., 2010).

Timing matters clinically. Rapid-acting insulin is ideally given shortly before or with the meal so that its action matches the rise in glucose, and the hospital guidance recommends coordinating mealtime insulin with meal delivery and glucose testing (American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee, 2024). The unit's policy states that the glucose check, dose, and meal should all happen within 30 minutes.

The Process as Observed

Lanes: patient care technician (PCT), registered nurse (RN), nutrition services (NS), and pharmacy (Rx). Durations are medians across the six observations.

Step	Actor	Action	System touched	Data entered or read	Median time
1	NS	Tray assembled and sent to unit on a cart	Diet ordering system	Meal order	Cart leaves kitchen about 11:40
2	PCT	Point-of-care glucose checks for all insulin patients	Glucose meter, later docked	Glucose value	11:15 to 11:30, before trays arrive
3	PCT	Writes glucose values on paper list and tells RN verbally	Paper list (workaround)	Glucose value, second entry	1 to 2 minutes per patient
4	RN	Opens MAR, reviews sliding-scale correction and carb ratio	EHR medication administration record	Reads glucose, order	2 minutes
5	RN	Retrieves insulin pen from automated dispensing cabinet	Dispensing cabinet	Patient, drug override if not profiled	3 to 6 minutes, queue at cabinet
6	NS	Tray delivered to room	None	None	Arrives 11:50 to 12:20
7	RN	Waits to confirm patient will eat; checks tray	None	Meal intake estimate	Variable; RN often elsewhere
8	RN	Scans patient and pen, gives dose	Barcode scanner, MAR	Scan, dose, time	2 minutes
9	RN	Documents dose; enters glucose if meter has not docked	MAR, flowsheet	Glucose value, third entry	1 to 3 minutes

Handoffs, Waits, and Workarounds

Three handoffs cross lanes: nutrition services to the unit (tray), the technician to the nurse (glucose value), and the dispensing cabinet to the nurse (insulin). Each is a place where timing slips. The largest gap in the six observations was between the glucose check and the dose: a median of 48 minutes, and in two of six observations more than an hour, because technicians checked glucose early to finish their rounds, trays arrived later than expected, and nurses waited to see whether the patient would eat before giving insulin. In practice the glucose value used to calculate the dose was often more than an hour old at the time of administration.

The same glucose number was recorded up to three times: in the meter, on the paper list, and, when the meter had not yet docked, typed into the flowsheet by the nurse. The paper list is a workaround that staff built because the meter only uploads when placed in its dock, and nurses need the value before then. Workarounds of this kind usually signal a mismatch between the system and the work rather than careless staff, and they can introduce new risks, such as transcription errors or doses given on a value from the wrong patient (Koppel et al., 2008).

What this page is doingThe map records the process as it actually runs, including the paper list and the repeated entry of the same number, with durations and handoffs. Mapping the policy instead of the practice is the most common way this deliverable loses marks, because everything later in the course depends on the map being true.

What the Map Shows

Across the six observations, the dose was given within 30 minutes of the glucose check only once. Four features of the process, not individual performance, produced the delay. First, glucose checks were scheduled by the technicians' workload, not by tray arrival. Second, trays arrived across a 30-minute window with no notification to the unit. Third, the glucose value reached the nurse by paper and voice rather than through the record. Fourth, the dispensing cabinet queue at noon added several minutes per dose. Any proposal to improve timing that addresses only one of these, such as reminding nurses of the policy, would be unlikely to change the result.

Where Change Would Matter Most

The map does not yet propose a solution, but it shows where one would have to act. The largest single delay sits between the glucose check and the dose, so any change that does not move the glucose check closer to the meal, or move the dose closer to the check, will leave most of the gap in place. The triple entry of the glucose value is the clearest data problem, and it is also a safety problem, because each transcription is a chance to attach a number to the wrong patient. The absence of any signal that trays have reached the unit is an information gap between two departments that currently share no system at all.

Three candidate directions follow, each to be tested in later work rather than assumed: aligning glucose checks with tray delivery rather than with the technician's round; wireless meters that send the value to the record at the bedside, removing the paper list; and a tray-arrival notification to the unit. Each changes a different lane, and each will need its own before-and-after measurement, which is why the map records durations now.

Limits of This Map

Six observations at lunch on weekdays cannot show what happens at breakfast, when staffing is lower, or on weekends, when trays are delivered differently. Observation may also have changed behavior, although the nurses said the process looked typical. The map also does not include patients who manage their own insulin with their own devices, which follows a separate policy. The next step is to extend observation to breakfast and dinner and to pull medication administration record timestamps for a month of doses to test whether the delay seen in six observations holds across the unit.

References

American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. (2024). 16. Diabetes care in the hospital: Standards of care in diabetes-2024. Diabetes Care, 47(Suppl. 1), S295-S306. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc24-S016

Koppel, R., Wetterneck, T., Telles, J. L., & Karsh, B.-T. (2008). Workarounds to barcode medication administration systems: Their occurrences, causes, and threats to patient safety. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 15(4), 408-423. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2616

Unertl, K. M., Novak, L. L., Johnson, K. B., & Lorenzi, N. M. (2010). Traversing the many paths of workflow research: Developing a conceptual framework of workflow terminology through a systematic literature review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 17(3), 265-273. https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.2010.004333

Reading the NU 725 Unit 2 instructions

The Unit 2 assignment asks you to analyze a clinical workflow, usually one involving technology, by observing or describing it and mapping its steps. Expect to define the scope with a clear start and end, identify the roles involved, and produce a diagram such as a swimlane or flowchart. Many versions ask you to identify inefficiencies, workarounds, handoffs and safety risks, and some ask for a proposed future-state workflow. Check whether your section wants the current state only or both states, because that changes the length. Observation is ideal, but some sections accept a process you know from practice if you explain how the steps were confirmed. Times and counts strengthen the analysis. Keep patient and staff details out of the map so nobody can be identified.

Inside the NU 725 Unit 2 example

The paper begins with scope and method in a few sentences: the process, the unit, the start and stop events, and six observations at lunch. The map follows with four lanes and median durations at each step, so delays are visible without reading the prose. The handoff section counts three crossings between lanes and names the longest wait. Workarounds, such as nurses drawing insulin before the tray arrives, are recorded as part of the real process rather than hidden. The findings section moves from the single on-time dose to four causes, each a feature of scheduling or supply rather than a person. The change section points to where any fix would have to act without designing one yet. A short limits section notes that weekday lunches cannot represent breakfast or weekends.

Reading the NU 725 Unit 2 rubric

Herzing rubrics for a workflow analysis usually give points for defining the process and its scope, the accuracy and clarity of the diagram, the analysis of problems, recommendations or implications, and writing. Scope points require a start, an end and named roles. Diagram criteria reward standard notation, readable labels and steps detailed enough to show handoffs. The analysis criterion is often weighted most, and full credit goes to papers that identify delays, workarounds and safety risks with evidence such as times or counts. Implication points are earned when the paper connects findings to a place where technology or redesign could help. The writing criterion includes APA 7 citations for workflow methods and clinical standards, such as the diabetes care guidelines used here to judge timing.

NU 725 Unit 2 help before you submit

The most frequent mistake in Unit 2 is mapping the process as the policy describes it instead of as staff actually perform it. Without workarounds, the map hides the very problems the analysis is supposed to find. Another common error is a scope with no clear start or stop, so the diagram wanders into admission or discharge. Students often skip times entirely, which leaves claims about delay unsupported. Blaming individuals for slow steps costs points and misses system causes. Diagrams with tiny text or unlabeled arrows are hard to grade. Some papers jump to a technology solution before showing where the problem sits. Finally, include a limits section, since a small number of observations at one time of day is a real constraint graders expect you to name.

Get a NU 725 Unit 2 example written to your instructions

Send the Unit 2 instructions and the rubric from your NU 725 classroom, plus the process you have chosen and any diagramming format your instructor requires. We write a custom example against those instructions, bounded and mapped with actors, entries and handoffs, and return it in 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free.

More NU 725 papers and MSN samples

NU 725 Unit 2 questions, answered

How do I map a process I cannot observe directly?

Build it from structured conversation and say that is what you did. Ask two or three people in different roles to walk through their part, then reconcile the versions and mark the places where accounts differ, because those disagreements are findings in themselves. State the method and its limits in the document, since a map presented as observation when it came from interviews misrepresents its own evidence.

Should workarounds go in the map?

Yes, and leaving them out is the most common way this piece loses value. A workaround is evidence that the designed path costs more than the improvised one, and it tells you exactly where a future change will meet resistance. Record what people do, why they say they do it, and what risk the shortcut carries, without naming individuals.

How detailed should the steps be?

Detailed enough that each step has one actor, one action and a clear end, and no finer than that. Splitting a single entry into six keystrokes produces a map nobody reads. A workable test is whether a colleague in a different role could follow the map and predict who is doing what at any point in the process.

Where can I find a free NU 725 Unit 2 sample paper?

The complete NU 725 Unit 2 insulin workflow map and analysis are posted here for free, with notes in the margin. A custom workflow paper can be written for a different process, such as discharge or blood transfusion, from what your section requires.

Should I include workarounds in a workflow diagram?

Yes. Workarounds are part of how the process really runs, and they often show where it breaks. This sample records nurses preparing insulin before trays arrive and treats that as evidence about timing, not as staff misconduct.

NU 725 Unit 2 workflow analysis example