| Course | NU 726 Professionalism and Leadership for Advanced Practice |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Policy position discussion post |
| Length | About 490 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion post, APA 7 citations |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU 726 Unit 2
Unit 2 Discussion: Initial Post and Two Replies
Full Practice Authority Expands Access Without Lowering Quality, but Only Where the Workforce Actually Goes
Initial Post
Removing the requirement for physician collaboration or supervision of nurse practitioners improves access to primary care without measurably harming quality, and states that still require it should remove it. Two lines of evidence support this. First, an analysis of state scope-of-practice changes found that granting nurse practitioners independence was associated with more routine checkups, some improvements in measures of care quality, and fewer emergency department visits for conditions that good primary care can prevent (Traczynski & Udalova, 2018). Second, in federally funded health centers, where nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians care for similar patients, their patterns of practice and quality of care were largely comparable (Kurtzman & Barnow, 2017).
The practical argument follows from the policy. In a rural county with one physician, a collaborative agreement requirement can mean that a nurse practitioner cannot open or keep a clinic when that physician retires. The National Academies' future-of-nursing report recommended lifting scope-of-practice barriers so that advanced practice nurses can use all of the training they have (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021).
The weakest point in my argument: independence only improves access if nurse practitioners choose to practice in underserved areas. What evidence would show that they do?
Reply: Adding the Workforce Question
You pointed out that the physicians in your county are clustered in the county seat, and that the outlying towns rely on a single nurse practitioner clinic. That supports the access argument, and it also answers part of my own question. The access benefit depends on where nurse practitioners locate, and the finding by Traczynski and Udalova (2018) that routine checkups increased suggests that in at least some states, independence changed where and how often patients could be seen. It does not prove that nurse practitioners moved to rural areas. A useful next step for our thread would be to look at state workforce data before and after a scope change, to see whether the number of nurse practitioners practicing in rural counties rose, since that is the mechanism the access argument depends on.
Reply: Where Comparable Quality Needs a Qualifier
Your post stated that research shows nurse practitioners provide "the same or better" care than physicians, and I would narrow that claim. The health center comparison found largely comparable quality on the measures studied, which were primary care process measures such as screening and counseling (Kurtzman & Barnow, 2017). Those measures do not capture complex diagnostic accuracy or outcomes in patients with multiple serious illnesses, and the study was set in health centers with team-based structures that may not exist in a solo practice. I think the evidence supports independence for primary care, but "the same or better" overstates what it shows. Would you agree that the stronger claim is that quality is comparable on the outcomes measured, and that the research on complex patients is still thin?
References
Kurtzman, E. T., & Barnow, B. S. (2017). A comparison of nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and primary care physicians' patterns of practice and quality of care in health centers. Medical Care, 55(6), 615-622. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000689
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2021). The future of nursing 2020-2030: Charting a path to achieve health equity. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25982
Traczynski, J., & Udalova, V. (2018). Nurse practitioner independence, health care utilization, and health outcomes. Journal of Health Economics, 58, 90-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2018.01.001
Reading the NU 726 Unit 2 instructions
For the Unit 2 board you argue one side of a professional or policy issue affecting advanced practice nursing, often scope of practice or full practice authority, and support it with evidence. Expect to state your position in your opening sentence, back it with at least one scholarly source, and connect it to practice or access. Replies to classmates are graded and need their own evidence and a contribution, such as extending an argument or questioning a claim. Check your section's deadlines, since initial posts and replies are often due on different days. Use peer-reviewed research rather than advocacy organization statements where possible. Keep your post within the expected length; a focused argument is easier to grade than a long summary of every study on the topic.
How this NU 726 Unit 2 example is built
The initial post opens with a one-sentence position and then gives two lines of evidence, access and quality, each tied to a specific study. A qualifier at the end of the post, that access gains depend on where clinicians practice, sets up the more careful replies. The first reply agrees with a classmate's local observation and adds a source on workforce distribution, which shows how a reply can move a point forward rather than echo it. The second reply disagrees respectfully with an overstated claim, quoting the classmate's words and explaining that the comparison found largely comparable outcomes on the measures studied, which is not the same as better. Each part is short, cites in APA 7 and makes one point clearly.
NU 726 Unit 2 rubric: what full points look like
Herzing discussion rubrics for this course usually allocate points to the initial post's content, its use of evidence, the replies, and writing mechanics, with participation timeliness sometimes scored separately. Content points require a direct answer to the prompt and a clear position. Evidence criteria reward scholarly sources that actually support the claim made, rather than sources that merely mention the topic. Reply points go to responses that add evidence, raise a new consideration or respectfully challenge a claim. Brief agreement scores low. Critical thinking may be its own criterion, rewarding qualified claims like the workforce caveat here. The mechanics criterion covers clarity, grammar and APA 7 in-text citations with a reference list for both the post and each reply.
NU 726 Unit 2 help before you submit
Unit 2 posts most often lose points by summarizing the debate without taking a position. Another frequent issue is citing an advocacy group's fact sheet as if it were research. Students also overstate findings, such as claiming nurse practitioners are proven better than physicians, which invites a correction from the instructor. Replies that say great post and restate the classmate's idea earn little; bring new evidence or a reasoned objection to each one. Posting replies late, or all on the last day, can cost participation points in some sections. Reusing the same single source for the post and both replies limits what you can add. Finally, keep a reference list under each reply that cites something, since the rubric reads replies for APA as well.
Get a NU 726 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 2 prompt and the discussion rubric from your NU 726 classroom, along with any posting requirements such as source currency or reply count. We write a custom example initial post with its replies, sized to the word range your section sets, and return it in 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.
More NU 726 papers and MSN samples
- NU 726 Unit 1: Professional role paper
- NU 726 Unit 3: Leadership analysis
- NU 726 Unit 4: Conflict case analysis
- NU 726 Unit 5: Advocacy brief
- NU 726 Unit 6: Interprofessional collaboration analysis
- NU 726 Unit 7: Professional development plan
- NU 726 Unit 8: Leadership philosophy reflection
- NU 700 Unit 2: Concept analysis paper
- NU 725 Unit 2: Workflow analysis
- NU 730 Unit 2: Care coordination plan
- NU 760 Unit 2: Search strategy
NU 726 Unit 2 questions, answered
How long should a graduate discussion post be?
Whatever the classroom sets, and no longer. Most sections state a word range for the initial post and a shorter one for replies, and rubrics reward argument inside that range rather than volume beyond it. If no range is posted, a tight three-paragraph contribution with two or three citations reads better than a page of unsupported reflection.
Do replies really need citations?
In many sections yes, and the reply rubric will say so plainly. Even where it does not, a reply carrying one source outperforms three replies that agree, because the criterion is measuring whether the thread advanced. Naming the specific claim you are answering, then adding evidence, is the pattern that reads as engagement to a grader.
Can I use the same sources for my post and my paper?
Usually yes, and reusing a strong source across a unit is efficient rather than lazy. What does not travel is the wording: a paragraph lifted from your own paper into a post tends to sit oddly in a thread and can trip similarity checking. Restate the finding in shorter form and cite it again.
Where can I find a free NU 726 Unit 2 sample paper?
Read the complete NU 726 Unit 2 full practice authority post and its two replies free on this page. If your board asks about another policy issue, such as title protection or prescriptive limits, a custom post can be built on your prompt.
Does research show nurse practitioners provide the same quality as physicians?
Studies such as Kurtzman and Barnow's comparison in community health centers found largely comparable care on the measures they examined. That supports comparable quality on those measures, which this sample's second reply distinguishes from claims of better care overall.