Good Teamwork, Afraid to Report: A Safety Culture Appraisal of a Neuroscience Step-Down Unit Against the Graduate QSEN Safety and Quality Improvement Competencies
Student Name
American College of Education
NUR5053: Quality Improvement and Safety
Module 1 Assignment
Instructor Name
October 13, 2026
The Unit and the Question
The unit appraised here is a composite 30-bed neuroscience step-down unit in a 420-bed teaching hospital. Most of its patients are recovering from stroke, subarachnoid hemorrhage or spinal surgery, and about a quarter at any time cannot swallow safely. For those patients, registered nurses place small-bore feeding tubes at the bedside using a blind technique, and a chest or abdominal radiograph is ordered to confirm the tip position before the tube is used. In the past year the unit had two known misplacements. In the first, a radiograph showed a tube in the right main bronchus and the tube was removed before anything was given through it. In the second, feeding began before the radiograph was read, and the patient developed aspiration pneumonia. Only the second event was reported through the incident system. The unit is a composite, and so are its patients and every figure reported here.
The question for this appraisal is what kind of safety culture allows a near miss of that seriousness to go unreported, and which of the competencies expected of a graduate nurse leader would have to be strengthened to change it.
Safety Culture and How It Is Measured
Reason (2000) argued that organizations can approach error in two ways. A person approach blames individual carelessness and responds with discipline and retraining; a system approach starts from the certainty that people will make errors and looks for the gaps in the layers of protection that let an error through. A safety culture is one in which the system approach is the shared habit of the staff, not just the stated policy, so that errors and near misses are reported because people expect the report to lead to a fix rather than to blame.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality measures that culture with its Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture, now in version 2.0 (Sorra et al., 2021). Staff rate items grouped into composite measures, among them teamwork, the unit's response to error, communication openness, the reporting of safety events and the staffing and pace of work, and each composite is scored as the percentage of positive responses so that units can be compared with a national database. The composite survey on this unit had 52 respondents from 71 eligible staff, a response rate of 73%.
What the Survey Shows
The unit's strengths are in its relationships. Teamwork scored 81% positive and supervisor support for patient safety 74%, both above the comparison average. Staff agree that they help each other during busy periods and that their manager takes safety concerns seriously when they are raised.
The weaknesses are in what happens after something goes wrong. Response to error scored 38% positive, the lowest composite on the unit, and reporting of safety events scored 44%. More than half of respondents agreed that staff feel their mistakes are held against them, and a similar share said that when a mistake is caught before it reaches the patient, it is usually not reported. Staffing and work pace scored 41%, reflecting a unit where nurses routinely care for four step-down patients with frequent neurological checks. The survey describes a staff that trusts each other and its manager but does not trust what the organization will do with an admission of error.
The survey and the event history agree. The near miss with the bronchial tube was known to every nurse on the shift, discussed at handoff and never reported. Asked informally why, two nurses gave the same answer: the nurse who placed the tube was new, the radiograph had caught the problem, and reporting it would only have put her name in a file.
Mapping the Gaps to the Graduate QSEN Competencies
Cronenwett et al. (2009) extended the Quality and Safety Education for Nurses competencies to graduate nursing, describing for each one the knowledge, skills and attitudes expected of nurses in advanced roles. Two competencies are directly at stake on this unit. The safety competency expects a graduate nurse to design and lead the use of systems that reduce the risk of harm, to value the contribution of reporting and to create a nonpunitive environment for it. The quality improvement competency expects the graduate nurse to use measurement to understand variation and to lead changes in the processes that produce it.
Measured against those expectations, the unit has three gaps. First, a gap in nonpunitive response to error: the attitude the safety competency describes is not present among staff, and nothing in the unit's practice teaches it. Second, a gap in reporting as a source of data: because near misses go unreported, the unit's leaders cannot measure how often tubes are misplaced, and the quality improvement competency cannot be exercised on a problem the unit cannot count. Third, a gap in system design: the unit's process allows feeding to start before a radiograph is read, and relies on individual nurses to wait, which is the kind of weak defense the safety competency asks a graduate nurse to replace with a stronger one.
Ranking the Gaps
The gaps should be ranked by the harm each allows and by how much the others depend on it. The system design gap allows the most direct harm, since a tube in the airway that is used before confirmation can cause pneumonia, pneumothorax or death. Koopmann et al. (2011) reported that before one hospital introduced a team-based protocol with electromagnetic tracking, 20 of 1,822 blind placements entered the airway and 11 caused a pneumothorax. That gap ranks first for patient harm.
The reporting gap ranks first for improvement, however, because every other fix depends on it. A unit that does not report near misses cannot tell whether a new process works, and it will learn about failures only when they injure someone. The response to error gap sits beneath both: reporting will not rise until nurses believe a report will be met with a question about the system rather than a question about the nurse. Research on shifting a unit's safety culture offers grounds for hope, though not for confidence. Weaver et al. (2013) reviewed interventions such as executive walk rounds, multicomponent unit-based programs and team training and counted 29 studies in which culture or outcomes got somewhat better, while rating the overall strength of that evidence as low. Morello et al. (2013), reviewing 21 studies, found some support for leadership walk rounds and for unit-based programs that combine several strategies and limited evidence for definitive effects. The practical order is therefore to fix the process that allows immediate harm, and to handle the next reported near miss visibly well, because one well-handled report teaches more than any poster.
Conclusion
The neuroscience unit has the relationships a safety culture needs and lacks the response to error that would make those relationships produce reports. Its survey results, its unreported near miss and its feeding process tell the same story. Against the graduate QSEN competencies, the gaps are in nonpunitive response, in reporting as a source of measurement and in the design of a process that relies on individual vigilance. The modules that follow analyze the reported event, test the process for other ways it could fail and plan an improvement, and each depends on the reporting culture this appraisal found wanting.
References
Cronenwett, L., Sherwood, G., Pohl, J., Barnsteiner, J., Moore, S., Sullivan, D. T., Ward, D., & Warren, J. (2009). Quality and safety education for advanced nursing practice. Nursing Outlook, 57(6), 338-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2009.07.009
Koopmann, M. C., Kudsk, K. A., Szotkowski, M. J., & Rees, S. M. (2011). A team-based protocol and electromagnetic technology eliminate feeding tube placement complications. Annals of Surgery, 253(2), 297-302. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318208f550
Morello, R. T., Lowthian, J. A., Barker, A. L., McGinnes, R., Dunt, D., & Brand, C. (2013). Strategies for improving patient safety culture in hospitals: A systematic review. BMJ Quality & Safety, 22(1), 11-18. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000582
Reason, J. (2000). Human error: Models and management. BMJ, 320(7237), 768-770. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768
Sorra, J., Yount, N., Famolaro, T., & Gray, L. (2021). AHRQ Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture version 2.0: User's guide. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Weaver, S. J., Lubomski, L. H., Wilson, R. F., Pfoh, E. R., Martinez, K. A., & Dy, S. M. (2013). Promoting a culture of safety as a patient safety strategy: A systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 158(5, Pt. 2), 369-374. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-158-5-201303051-00002
How this NUR 5053 Module 1 example is structured
NUR 5053 Module 1 typically appraises safety culture against the graduate QSEN safety and quality competencies; your classroom's instructions decide whether survey data are required and how the competencies are used. This example defines safety culture from its source, reports survey composites against the national comparison, reads the numbers alongside the unit's actual event history, maps each gap to a graduate competency, and ranks the gaps by the harm each could allow. The unit and the feeding tube problem carry through the later modules of this course on this site.
NUR5053 Module 1 questions, answered
What does NUR5053 Module 1 usually ask for?
NUR5053 Module 1 typically asks you to appraise the safety culture of a unit or organization and relate what you find to the graduate QSEN competencies, especially safety and quality improvement. Many sections expect survey data or a structured assessment. Your classroom's instructions decide the format and the data required.
Can I use my hospital's real survey results?
Only with permission and without identifying the unit if your employer requires that. Many students report composite results in the same format as the real survey and say so. The appraisal is graded on how you read and rank the results, not on the exact figures.
How do I connect the survey to the QSEN competencies?
Take each weak composite and ask which competency describes the knowledge, skill or attitude that is missing. Low reporting maps to safety and to quality improvement, because unreported events cannot be measured. Then rank the gaps by the harm they allow.
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 American College of Education 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.