| Course | DNP 714 Professional Relationships in Healthcare |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Team action plan with presentation |
| Length | About 607 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DNP 714 Module 5
Seven O'Clock and Still Scanning: A Plan to Turn Around a Dysfunctional Interventional Radiology Team
Student Name
Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University
DNP 714: Professional Relationships in Healthcare
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Seven O'Clock and Still Scanning: A Plan to Turn Around a Dysfunctional Interventional Radiology Team
How We Chose the Example
Four members brought examples: a night shift that ignored a new charge nurse, an outpatient clinic split between two physician groups, a rapid response team that argued in front of families and an interventional radiology suite. We chose the radiology suite because the dysfunction involved three professions and a scheduling office, because its cost was measurable in late finishes and staff turnover, and because the member who described it could gather data.
The Background Situation
The suite runs three procedure rooms. Most days, two or three urgent add-on cases arrive after noon. Schedulers accept them because physicians ask; technologists learn about them when the patient arrives; nurses find out when the patient needs sedation and a pre-procedure assessment. Procedures regularly run until 7 p.m. Over six months, two nurses and one technologist resigned, citing the evenings. In team meetings, each group blames another: nurses blame the schedulers, schedulers blame the physicians, technologists blame the nurses for slow preparation. No one owns the add-on process.
Diagnosis
Tannenbaum and Salas (2021) describe several drivers of team effectiveness. Measured against them, this team shows three gaps. Coordination is weak: there is no shared process for accepting and sequencing add-ons. Communication is incomplete: information reaches each group at a different time, with no closed loop (Salas et al., 2005). Trust has eroded: groups assume the worst of each other. Underneath sits low psychological safety. Technologists told our member that they do not raise concerns about late cases because "nobody listens," and teams with low psychological safety are less likely to report problems and learn from them (Edmondson, 1999).
The Plan
| Change | What it involves | Driver addressed | Evidence base |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Shared add-on protocol | Add-ons requested through one electronic form; charge nurse, lead technologist and scheduler accept or defer together by 1 p.m.; cases after 3 p.m. accepted only if urgent by agreed criteria | Coordination | Relational coordination links shared processes and goals to better outcomes (Gittell et al., 2000) |
| 2. Midday huddle | Ten minutes at 12:30 with all three groups and the interventional radiologist on duty to review the afternoon | Communication | Closed-loop communication as a core teamwork mechanism (Salas et al., 2005) |
| 3. Speaking-up norm | Any member can call a "pause" on an add-on that cannot be done safely; leaders thank every pause | Psychological safety | Psychological safety supports learning behavior (Edmondson, 1999) |
| 4. Shared goal and recognition | One team goal: all cases finished by 5:30 p.m. on four of five days; monthly recognition for the team, not individuals | Trust and shared purpose | Team drivers include shared purpose and trust (Tannenbaum & Salas, 2021) |
Timeline
Weeks 1 to 2: present the data to all three groups and the medical director; agree on add-on criteria. Weeks 3 to 4: start the huddle and the electronic form. Weeks 5 to 12: run the protocol, review weekly and adjust. Week 13: evaluate and decide whether to continue.
Evaluative Criteria
| Criterion | Measure | Target at 12 weeks |
|---|---|---|
| Finishing on time | Days with all cases complete by 5:30 p.m. | Four of five days |
| Coordination | Add-ons accepted through the protocol | 90% |
| Communication | Huddles held with all groups present | 90% of workdays |
| Psychological safety | Pauses called; staff survey item on speaking up | At least one pause a week; survey score improved from baseline |
| Retention | Resignations citing schedule | None in the period |
Anticipated Discussion
We expect questions about physician resistance to deferred add-ons and about what happens with a true emergency. Our answer: emergencies always proceed, and the medical director co-signs the urgency criteria so that deferral decisions are backed by physician leadership.
References
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Gittell, J. H., Fairfield, K. M., Bierbaum, B., Head, W., Jackson, R., Kelly, M., Laskin, R., Lipson, S., Siliski, J., Thornhill, T., & Zuckerman, J. (2000). Impact of relational coordination on quality of care, postoperative pain and functioning, and length of stay: A nine-hospital study of surgical patients. Medical Care, 38(8), 807-819. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200008000-00005
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a "Big Five" in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555-599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405277134
Tannenbaum, S., & Salas, E. (2021). Teams that work: The seven drivers of team effectiveness. Oxford University Press.
What the DNP 714 Module 5 instructions ask for
The posted syllabus grades Team Assignment 2 at 16 points in Module 3. Each team member provides an example of a dysfunctional team experience, the team collaborates to choose the example that best demonstrates a learning opportunity, and the team builds an organized plan with evidence-based recommendations to transform that team into one that is positive, supportive and effective. The plan must include evaluative criteria to determine whether it works. Teams present the situation and their plan in a fifteen-minute slot on a live call, then take questions. Canvas holds the rubric. Bring an example you can describe in detail without identifying individuals, and agree as a team on how you will choose.
How the DNP 714 Module 5 example is put together
The plan opens by explaining how the team chose its example from four candidates and why. The background describes the radiology suite in enough detail to see the pattern: late add-ons, information reaching each group at different times and mutual blame. A diagnosis section applies the course text's team drivers and the psychological safety research to name three gaps and the underlying climate. A table sets out four changes, each linked to a driver and to evidence. A timeline, a table of evaluative criteria with targets and prepared answers to likely questions follow. Four sources support the plan, including the course text on team effectiveness.
DNP 714 Module 5 rubric: what earns full marks
Team action plans in this course are likely graded on the clarity of the background, the quality of the diagnosis, the use of evidence for each recommendation, the organization and feasibility of the plan, the strength of the evaluative criteria and the presentation and discussion. Diagnoses earn most when they use course concepts to explain the specific dysfunction. Each recommendation should link to evidence and to the problem it addresses. Evaluative criteria should be measurable and include relational outcomes, not only efficiency. Showing how the example was chosen demonstrates the collaborative process the prompt requires. Preparing for discussion shows readiness. A timeline with weekly review points shows the plan can be managed.
DNP 714 Module 5 help: mistakes that cost marks
A frequent weakness is a plan full of general advice, such as "improve communication," with no specific changes. Name the routine, the people and the timing. Another is diagnosing individuals as the problem; look for the system and climate behind the behavior. Keep identifying details out of the example. Make sure your evaluative criteria can be collected in the time you propose. Once your team picks its example, the desk can turn the story into a diagnosis and plan. Practice the 15-minute presentation as a team. Assign each likely board question to one teammate before the call. Keep the background short enough to leave most of the 15 minutes for the plan.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Arizona State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More DNP 714 and Doctor of Nursing Practice sample papers
- DNP 714 Module 1: Individual Assignment 1: Coordination, Communication and Collaboration MindMap
- DNP 714 Module 2: Team Assignment 1: Patient Portal Team Charter
- DNP 714 Module 3: Individual Reflection 1: Theory in Healthcare Partnerships
- DNP 714 Module 4: Individual Assignment 2: MindMap of Three Relationship Theories
- DNP 714 Module 6: Individual Reflection 2: My Part in Team Processes
- DNP 714 Module 7: Team Assignment 3: A Scalable Transdisciplinary Care Model
- DNP 715 Module 2: Team Charter for the Healthy People 2030 Project
- DNP 709 Module 1: Immersion Reflection: Leadership Vision
- DNP 671 Module 2: Discussion: Interviewing Adults and Motivational Interviewing
- DNP 673 Module 2: Effective Parenting Article Post
DNP 714 Module 5 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DNP 714 Module 5 sample paper?
The plan above is a complete DNP 714 Team Assignment 2 sample turning around a dysfunctional interventional radiology team, with a diagnosis, four changes and evaluative criteria.
What is DNP 714 Team Assignment 2?
Team members share dysfunctional team experiences, choose one and build an evidence-based plan with evaluative criteria to make that team effective, then present it.
How do you fix a dysfunctional healthcare team?
Diagnose the specific gaps in coordination, communication, trust and psychological safety, then change routines and leader behavior to address each one.
What evaluative criteria fit a team improvement plan?
Include outcome measures such as on-time finishes, process measures such as huddle attendance and relational measures such as speaking-up survey items.
How many points is DNP 714 Team Assignment 2?
The posted syllabus lists it at 16 points, with a 15-minute presentation in Module 3.