NURS4035: Root-Cause Analysis, Safety Improvement Plan & In-Service Presentation
How to approach the RCA template, identify root causes for your sentinel event, build a defensible safety improvement plan, and structure your Assessment 3 in-service PowerPoint — without getting lost in the template’s rows and columns.
You’ve got two assessments that build on each other — and a template that looks deceptively simple until you try to fill it in. Assessment 2 asks you to take a real patient safety concern, run it through a root-cause analysis framework, and produce a viable improvement plan. Assessment 3 asks you to turn that plan into a one-hour in-service session for nurses. Both have specific rubric criteria that are easy to miss if you’re reading the template at face value. This guide breaks down what each section actually requires and how to approach it strategically.
What This Guide Covers
How Assessment 2 and 3 Connect
These assessments are sequential. Assessment 2 uses the safety concern you identified in Assessment 1. Assessment 3 uses the improvement plan you built in Assessment 2. You’re essentially producing one connected body of work across three submissions. That’s important to keep in mind from the start — the analysis you do in the RCA template directly feeds what you present in the in-service.
Assessment 2 is submitted as the completed RCA template document — there’s no separate essay. The template has structured table rows that serve as your headings. Assessment 3 is a PowerPoint with detailed speaker notes. Both require APA citations throughout.
The instructions are clear: use the specific safety concern from your Assessment 1 (the supplement PDF scenario). Don’t change the issue or pick a new one partway through. If your Assessment 1 involved a medication error scenario, your RCA, your improvement plan, and your in-service all stay focused on that same event or issue. Graders check for this consistency.
Understanding What Counts as a Sentinel Event
The template defines it for you: a sentinel event is an unexpected patient safety event not primarily related to the natural course of the patient’s illness or underlying condition. The Joint Commission — the main accrediting body for U.S. hospitals — maintains a formal sentinel event policy that tracks categories including wrong-patient or wrong-site procedures, medication errors, patient falls with serious injury, and hospital-acquired infections leading to sepsis or death.
Your scenario from Assessment 1 will specify the type. The most commonly used scenarios in NURS4035 involve medication administration errors, patient falls, or healthcare-associated infections. Whatever yours is, the RCA process is the same — you’re working backwards from the event to uncover what systemic and human factors made it possible.
Medication Errors
Wrong drug, wrong dose, wrong patient, wrong route, wrong time. Often involve communication breakdowns at handoffs, alarm fatigue, or inadequate verification steps.
Patient Falls
Environmental factors, inadequate fall risk assessment, staffing levels, and lack of hourly rounding are typical root causes. Equipment availability (call lights, bed rails) matters here.
Healthcare-Associated Infections
CLABSI, CAUTI, surgical site infections. Hand hygiene compliance, catheter insertion bundles, and environmental cleaning protocols are common RCA targets.
Walking Through the RCA Template
The template has three major blocks: Understanding What Happened, Root Causes and Contributing Factors, and the Safety Improvement Plan. Each block has specific questions or rows you need to populate. Don’t leave any row blank without acknowledging it — if a particular factor doesn’t apply to your scenario, say why in one sentence rather than leaving it empty.
Understanding What Happened
This is your narrative section. You’re reconstructing the event: the sequence of what happened, when, who was involved, and the context. Think of it as a timeline with annotated decision points. For each row in this block — “What happened,” “Why did it happen,” “Was there a deviation from protocol,” “Was there a communication breakdown” — you need a specific, detailed response drawn from your scenario.
Key point: The template rows include prompts about human factors, system factors, and organizational culture. Cover all three explicitly. Graders look for whether you’ve gone beyond surface-level description to analyze the systemic conditions that made the event possible — not just who made a mistake.Root Causes and Contributing Factors Table
This is the most analytically demanding section. You’re identifying the most basic reason(s) the event occurred — root causes — and additional factors that made things worse — contributing factors. Then you classify each using the template’s six-category coding system (HF-C, HF-T, HF-F/S, E, R, B). Most events have multiple root causes. A medication error, for example, might have a root cause in communication (HF-C) and an environmental factor (E) like a poorly designed medication cart layout.
Aim for 2–3 root causes with distinct categories. Don’t stack multiple causes under a single code. If everything gets coded HF-T (training), your analysis looks shallow. Graders giving distinguished marks look for analysis that notes “the degree to which various causes contributed” — meaning you need to explain which root cause was most significant and why.Application of Evidence-Based Strategies
This section bridges your root cause analysis and your improvement plan. You need to describe what the literature says about the factors that cause your type of safety issue, then explain how the strategies you’ve found could be applied to your specific scenario. The template gives you a clear example: “interruptions during medication administration increase the risk of medication errors by [specifically stated data].” That’s the kind of citation-backed, data-specific writing the rubric rewards.
Don’t write general statements here. “Research shows medication errors are common” won’t earn marks. You need a specific finding — a percentage, an odds ratio, an incidence rate — tied to a cited peer-reviewed source published within the last five years.Root Cause Categories — What Each Code Actually Means
| Code | Full Name | What It Covers | Example in Practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| HF-C | Human Factor – Communication | Breakdowns in handoff communication, verbal orders, unclear documentation, SBAR failures, interdisciplinary team communication gaps | Nurse received verbal order but did not read it back; incorrect medication transcribed |
| HF-T | Human Factor – Training | Lack of competency, knowledge deficits, inadequate orientation, no staff education on updated protocols | New graduate nurse unaware of updated two-patient identifier policy |
| HF-F/S | Human Factor – Fatigue/Scheduling | Staff fatigue from extended shifts, inadequate rest periods, mandatory overtime, understaffing on particular shifts | Nurse on 16th hour of shift missed critical lab value during medication reconciliation |
| E | Environment / Equipment | Physical layout issues, equipment malfunctions, unavailable supplies, poor lighting, cluttered workspaces | Medication dispensing cabinet positioned in a high-traffic, noisy corridor |
| R | Rules / Policies / Procedures | Absent, unclear, outdated, or non-compliant policies; deviation from standard protocols; missing checklists | No standardized fall risk reassessment policy for post-surgical patients during night shifts |
| B | Barriers | Missing safeguards, absent double-check systems, no forcing functions, lack of independent verification | No independent pharmacist review required for high-alert medications before administration |
The template lets you check more than one category per root cause. A communication failure might also reflect a rules/procedures gap if there was no policy requiring SBAR handoffs. Checking both HF-C and R is accurate and shows nuance. But don’t check every box — that defeats the analytical purpose. Only check codes that are genuinely supported by your scenario analysis.
The Evidence-Based Strategies Section
This section has two parts. First, you describe what the literature says about the factors that lead to your safety issue. Then you explain how the strategies identified in the literature could be applied in your specific scenario. These are distinct. Don’t conflate them.
Your sources need to be peer-reviewed or from professional bodies (like AHRQ, The Joint Commission, Institute for Healthcare Improvement) and published within the last five years. Use the Capella BSN Library Guide to search CINAHL or PubMed — don’t rely on general web searches for clinical evidence.
Building Your Safety Improvement Plan
The improvement plan section has three components: an action plan table (one action per root cause, coded E/C/A), a description of new processes or policies and professional development, and a goals/timeline section. Each one needs to be specific. Vague actions that could apply to any hospital and any event won’t satisfy the rubric.
The Action Plan Table: E, C, or A — and Why It Matters
E (Eliminate) means removing the hazard entirely — decommissioning faulty equipment, removing a step that creates risk. C (Control) means adding a safeguard — a new policy, an education module, a checklist, a monitoring system. A (Accept) means acknowledging the risk exists but taking no structural action. Graders expect to see E and C actions. An improvement plan that classifies everything as A is essentially saying nothing will change — that’s not feasible or evidence-based, which fails two rubric criteria simultaneously.
New Processes, Policies, and Professional Development
This is where you describe the actual changes. Be specific: not “staff will receive education” but “a mandatory 45-minute in-service on the No-Interruption Zone protocol will be delivered to all med-surg floor nurses within 30 days of policy implementation, with competency verification via post-test.” That kind of detail shows your plan is operationally realistic — which the distinguished rubric criterion specifically requires.
Goals, Desired Outcomes, and Timeline
Write SMART-adjacent goals: specific, measurable, tied to a timeframe. Not “reduce medication errors” but “reduce medication administration errors on the med-surg unit by 20% within six months of NIZ implementation, as measured by incident report data.” The timeline should be realistic — pilot phases, staff education rollout, monitoring periods, and evaluation checkpoints all have natural timeframes. Sketch these out in sequence.
The template says “one action for each root cause/contributing factor from above.” Don’t write three generic actions that could apply to anything. Each action should directly address the specific root cause it corresponds to. If root cause 1 was HF-C (communication breakdown during handoffs), action 1 should specifically target handoff communication — like implementing a standardized SBAR form or bedside shift report protocol.
Identifying Organizational Resources
This section asks two things: what resources are needed for the plan to succeed, and what existing organizational resources could be leveraged. Students often only answer the first question. The rubric specifically rewards identifying existing resources — things already in the organization that can support the plan without requiring new budget allocation.
Resources That May Need to Be Obtained
- Visual floor markings or signage for a No-Interruption Zone
- Updated electronic health record (EHR) alert configurations
- Simulation lab time for skills practice
- New protocol documentation reviewed by legal/compliance
- External trainer or consultant for staff education rollout
Existing Resources to Leverage
- Staff development / nurse educator already on payroll
- Existing quality improvement committee structure
- Current incident reporting system (SERS, RL Solutions, etc.)
- Charge nurse leadership for peer accountability
- Unit-based councils or shared governance bodies
- Current electronic medication administration record (eMAR)
The distinguished rubric criterion says to “prioritize resources according to potential impact.” That means you shouldn’t just list them — you should note which resources will have the greatest effect on the plan’s success. Identifying the staff educator as a high-impact existing resource makes more analytical sense than listing office supplies.
Assessment 3: The In-Service Presentation
This assessment builds directly on your Assessment 2 work. You’re developing a one-hour in-service session — represented as a PowerPoint with detailed speaker notes — that would teach a staff nurse audience about the safety improvement initiative you created. The session needs to do five things according to the rubric: describe the purpose and at least three goals, explain the need for and process to improve safety outcomes, explain the audience’s role, create resources or activities for skill development, and communicate respectfully while soliciting feedback.
PowerPoint Structure and Speaker Notes
The instructions say 8–14 content slides — not including the title, conclusion, or references slide. That gives you room. Most students end up using 10–12 slides when they cover all five parts adequately. Here’s how to think about the slide count across the five parts.
Agenda & Session Goals
One-line purpose statement, then at least three goals starting with action verbs. “Explain the causes of [X]. Describe the steps of the new [Y] protocol. Demonstrate how to complete [Z] documentation.” Goals should be achievable within a one-hour session.
Safety Improvement Plan Overview
Current problem with supporting data, what the improvement plan proposes, and why the organization needs to address it. Reference specific statistics or incident data here. This is where your Assessment 2 evidence-based literature gets turned into talking points.
Audience’s Role & Importance
How staff nurses will help implement the plan, why their buy-in matters, and how embracing their role benefits their own practice. The distinguished rubric criterion specifically calls for “persuasive, transparent communication to improve buy-in.”
New Process & Skills Practice
Explain the new process or skill, then provide an activity — a case study, simulation scenario, quiz, group discussion, or resource slide. This is a required rubric criterion. A resource slide listing credible websites or in-house tools counts; an interactive activity with audience participation is stronger.
Soliciting Feedback
How you’ll collect feedback (survey, verbal debrief, comment cards) and how you’d use it for future improvements. This doesn’t need to be elaborate — one clear mechanism with a rationale is enough.
Write What You’d Actually Say
The instructions say speaker notes should reflect what you would say if delivering the presentation live. Another presenter should be able to deliver it using your notes alone. That means full sentences, not bullet fragments. Aim for 100–200 words per slide in the notes.
The rubric says “slides are easy to read and clutter free.” Short, concise bullet points on slides, with expansion in the speaker notes. If your slide has three lines of text, that’s probably the right amount. The substance goes in the notes. A common mistake is writing paragraphs on slides and leaving the notes section almost empty — that’s backwards from what the rubric rewards.
References and APA Formatting
Both assessments require a minimum of three scholarly or professional sources published within the last five years. For Assessment 2, references go in the designated reference section at the bottom of the template. For Assessment 3, you need an APA-formatted reference slide at the end of your PowerPoint.
Use the Capella BSN Library Guide to search CINAHL Complete, PubMed, or the Cochrane Library. Peer-reviewed nursing and healthcare quality journals — like the Journal of Nursing Care Quality, BMJ Quality & Safety, or Nursing Management — are the right tier. Professional body publications from AHRQ, The Joint Commission, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), and the American Nurses Association also qualify. Wikipedia, hospital marketing pages, and general health websites do not.
Every specific claim supported by a source needs a parenthetical citation in the table cell or paragraph where you make the claim: (Author, Year) for a paraphrase, (Author, Year, p. X) for a direct quote. Don’t cluster all citations at the end of a section — place them immediately after the specific claim they support. In the PowerPoint, in-text citations go on the slide itself, not just in the speaker notes.
For a journal article in APA 7th: Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Year). Title of article in sentence case. Journal Name in Title Case and Italics, Volume(Issue), page–page. https://doi.org/xxxxx. Include the DOI when available — it’s standard for academic sources. The template says references go in the designated section; don’t embed them in the table cells.
Mistakes That Cost Marks
Treating All Root Causes as Training Issues
Coding every cause as HF-T makes the analysis look one-dimensional. Real sentinel events have multiple interacting causes. If your RCA says “nurses need more training” three times, you haven’t analyzed the system — you’ve just blamed the staff.
Vary the Categories Across Root Causes
A strong RCA identifies causes across multiple categories: maybe one is HF-C (communication), one is E (equipment/environment), one is R (policy gap). This reflects the systemic nature of sentinel events and shows you understand that human error is usually the last link in a longer chain.
Action Plan Using Only A-Rated Actions
“We’ll have a discussion about not letting it happen again” is an A (Accept) action. A plan where every action is classified A means structurally nothing changes. That’s explicitly not feasible, which fails the “create a feasible, evidence-based safety improvement plan” rubric criterion.
Prioritize E and C Actions
The strongest improvement plans use E (eliminate the hazard) or C (control it with a structural safeguard). Redesigning a workflow, adding a mandatory checklist, or updating a policy are all C actions. Removing faulty equipment is E. These show structural change, not just good intentions.
Generic Evidence Statements Without Data
“Studies show that better communication reduces errors” is not an evidence-based statement — it’s a platitude. No citation, no specific data, no connection to your specific safety issue. This level of writing won’t reach distinguished on the scoring guide.
Cite Specific Data Tied to Your Issue
Find a peer-reviewed source that reports a specific finding about your type of safety issue — an incidence rate, a risk ratio, a percentage reduction from an intervention study — and cite it with author, year, and the specific number. Then connect it directly to the root cause you identified.
In-Service Slides With No Activity or Resource
Rubric Criterion 4 for Assessment 3 explicitly requires creating a resource or activity for skill development. A presentation with only informational slides and no case study, quiz, simulation scenario, or resource slide fails this criterion regardless of how good the other slides are.
Build in One Concrete Activity or Resource Slide
A brief case study scenario with discussion questions counts. A quiz with three knowledge-check items counts. A resource slide listing credible clinical tools (AHRQ guides, IHI protocols, unit-specific checklists) counts. Pick whichever fits your topic and build it into the slide deck — don’t leave this as an afterthought.
Your in-service should teach nurses about the same safety improvement plan you built in Assessment 2 — using the same evidence, the same root causes, and the same actions. Students sometimes write their in-service about a different angle of the topic or introduce new evidence that contradicts their RCA. The two assessments are graded separately but they’re evaluated as a coherent body of work. Stay consistent across both.
Frequently Asked Questions
Need Help With Your NURS4035 Assessments?
From completing the RCA template and sourcing evidence-based literature to structuring your safety improvement plan and building the in-service PowerPoint — our nursing writing specialists work across Capella BSN courses at all levels.
Nursing Assignment Help Get StartedThe Bigger Picture
Root-cause analysis is one of the most practically useful tools a BSN nurse can have. In real clinical settings, RCAs are conducted after every sentinel event — and nurses who understand the framework are the ones who end up leading quality improvement committees, not just attending them. The template might feel bureaucratic, but the thinking behind it is sound: most patient harm isn’t caused by careless individuals. It’s caused by systems that make errors easy and safeguards rare.
The in-service component matters for the same reason. Change doesn’t happen because a policy gets updated. It happens because frontline staff understand why the change is needed, believe it will work, and know exactly what they’re expected to do differently. That’s what a well-constructed in-service does.
Get the analysis right, tie your evidence to your specific scenario, and make sure your improvement plan actually addresses your root causes. That’s how these two assessments hang together.