Every order is original, expert-done, and screened for AI — full report on request.See how it works

Assignment questions
NursingCase studyHealthcare quality

Mr. B RCA and FMEA guide: rural ED sentinel event

A root cause analysis of the Mr. B sentinel event, a process improvement plan, and an FMEA applied to that plan. This guide covers why the scenario's closing paragraph rules out individual blame, why the FMEA belongs to part B and not to the event, and how the detection score actually works.

Updated

Editorial process

Last reviewed · August 6, 2026

01

What the scenario's last paragraph is telling you

Read the paragraph headed additional information before you read anything else, because it is the scenario telling you what kind of answer it wants. The hospital had a moderate sedation policy requiring continuous blood pressure, ECG and pulse oximetry until discharge criteria were met. Backup staff was available. Nurse J had completed the sedation training module, held current ACLS, was an experienced critical care nurse, had been rated as meeting requirements, and had no history of negligent care. Equipment was sufficient and working. Every one of those sentences closes off an individual-blame explanation, deliberately. A root cause analysis that concludes Nurse J failed to monitor the patient has been refuted in advance by the case it is analysing, which is the single most common way this task is failed. Read those seven facts as the list of explanations you are not permitted to reach for.

The two frameworks point in opposite directions in time, and confusing them costs a whole section. A root cause analysis is retrospective: it asks why this event happened. A failure modes and effects analysis is prospective: it asks what could go wrong with a process that does not exist yet. The task is explicit about this — the FMEA table is to be applied to the process improvement plan you proposed in part B, not to the original event. Running an FMEA on Mr. B's death is analysing the past twice and leaving the future unexamined, and it is visible immediately to anyone marking against the rubric. Write part B before you touch part C, and the sequencing takes care of itself. It also makes part B better, because a plan written to be analysed gets specified more carefully than one written to be described.

Root cause analysis

Failure modes and effects analysis

Direction

Backwards, at what happened

Forwards, at what could

Applies to

The sentinel event

Your improvement plan from part B

Output

Causative and contributing factors

Failure modes scored and ranked

Scoring

None

Severity x occurrence x detection

Common error

Naming a person as the cause

Running it on the original event

Both frameworks have to be described as the Institute for Healthcare Improvement defines them, which the task says twice. That rules out a generic description assembled from memory. For the FMEA, the numbers matter: each failure mode is scored for severity, likelihood of occurrence and likelihood of detection, and the risk priority number is those three multiplied together. Detection is the one people misread — a high score means the failure is unlikely to be caught, so it raises the risk rather than lowering it. That maps directly onto the scenario, where the oxygen saturation alarm sounded and was reset without assessment: the detection mechanism existed and did not function as detection. Note that you are told explicitly not to carry out the full analysis. Rank the failure modes you score and say which you would address first, since a risk priority number that is never used to prioritise anything is arithmetic rather than analysis.

The causative and contributing factors are in the timeline if you read it as a system rather than as a sequence of choices. The policy required continuous ECG and continuous pulse oximetry; Mr. B had a blood pressure cuff on a five-minute cycle and a pulse oximeter, and his ECG and respirations were not monitored at all. Between the sedation and the arrest, a two-nurse department absorbed an incoming respiratory-distress patient by ambulance, discharged two others, and filled its lobby. The staffing model made the policy unachievable, and an alarm was silenced by the only person free to answer it. Those are system factors, and each one suggests a different countermeasure — which is what part B is for. Group them before you write: monitoring, staffing, alarm response, and policy enforcement each produce a different fix, and a plan that names all four is stronger than one that names a root cause in the singular.

Two smaller requirements are worth planning for rather than discovering late. Lewin's change theory has to be applied phase by phase to your own improvement plan, which means three labelled passages — unfreezing, changing, refreezing — each naming something concrete you would do, not a definition of the phase followed by a sentence about staff buy-in. And part E asks how a professional nurse demonstrates leadership across three named areas, then asks separately how involvement in the RCA and FMEA processes demonstrates leadership. Those are four answers, not one. Give each of the three areas its own short paragraph and the fourth its own, and the rubric aspects line up with your headings. Doing that also stops part E collapsing into general praise of nursing, which is what happens when the three areas are answered together in one paragraph.

Likely learning objectives

Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.

  • 01
    Read a scenario for the system factors it documents rather than the decisions it narrates.
  • 02
    Distinguish a retrospective analysis from a prospective one and apply each to the right object.
  • 03
    Score failure modes on severity, occurrence and detection, and interpret the detection scale correctly.
  • 04
    Apply a change theory phase by phase to a specific plan rather than describing the theory.
Assignment instructionsQuoted verbatim

Read the full question

Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.

ED) of a sixty-bed rural hospital Essay (ED) of a sixty-bed rural hospital Essay It is 3:30 p.m. on a Thursday and Mr. B, a 67-year-old patient, arrives at the six-room emergency department (ED) of a sixty-bed rural hospital. He has been brought to the hospital by his son and neighbor. At this time, Mr. B is moaning and complaining of severe pain to his (L) leg and hip area. He states he lost his balance and fell after tripping over his dog. Mr. B was admitted to the triage room where his vital signs were B/P 120/80, HR-88 (regular), T-98.6, and R-32, and his weight was recorded at 175 pounds. Mr. B. states that he has no known allergies and no previous falls. He states, “My hip area and leg hurt really bad. I have never had anything like this before.” Patient rates pain at 10 out of 10 on the numerical verbal pain scale. He appears to be in moderate distress. His (L) leg appears shortened with swelling (edema in the calf), ecchymosis, and limited range of motion (ROM). Mr. B’s leg is stabilized and then is further evaluated and discharged from triage to the emergency department (ED) patient room. He is admitted by Nurse J. Nurse J finds that Mr. B has a history of impaired glucose tolerance and prostate cancer. At Mr. B’s last visit with his primary care physician, laboratory data revealed elevated cholesterol and lipids. Mr. B’s current medications are atorvastatin and oxycodone for chronic back pain. After Mr. B’s assessment is completed, Nurse J informs Dr. T, the ED physician, of admission findings, and Dr. T proceeds to examine Mr. B. Staffing on this day consists of two nurses (one RN and one LPN), one secretary, and one emergency department physician. Respiratory therapy is in-house and available as needed. At the time of Mr. B’s arrival, the ED staff is caring for two other patients. One patient is a 43-year-old female complaining of a throbbing headache. The patient rates current pain at 4 out of 10 on numerical verbal pain scale. The patient states that she has a history of migraines. She received treatment, remains stable, and discharge is pending. The second patient is an eight-year-old boy being evaluated for possible appendicitis. Laboratory results are pending for this patient. Both of these patients were examined, evaluated, and cared for by Dr. T and are awaiting further treatment or orders. After evaluation of Mr. B, Dr. T writes the order for Nurse J to administer diazepam 5 mg IVP to Mr. B. The medication diazepam is administered IVP at 4:05 p.m. After five minutes, the diazepam appears to have had no effect on Mr. B, and Dr. T instructs Nurse J to administer hydromorphone 2 mg IVP. The medication hydromorphone is administered IVP at 4:15 p.m. After five minutes, Dr. T is still not satisfied with the level of sedation Mr. B has achieved and instructs Nurse J to administer another 2 mg of hydromorphone IVP and an additional 5 mg of diazepam IVP. The physician’s goal is for the patient to achieve skeletal muscle relaxation from the diazepam, which will aid in the manual manipulation, relocation, and alignment of Mr. B’s hip. The hydromorphone IVP was administered to achieve pain control and sedation. After reviewing the patient’s medical history, Dr. T notes that the patient’s weight and current regular use of oxycodone appear to be making it more difficult to sedate Mr. B. (ED) of a sixty-bed rural hospital Essay Finally, at 4:25 p.m., the patient appears to be sedated, and the successful reduction of his (L) hip takes place. The patient appears to have tolerated the procedure and remains sedated. He is not currently on any supplemental oxygen. The procedure concludes at 4:30 p.m.,and Mr. B is resting without indications of discomfort and distress. At this time, the ED receives an emergency dispatch call alerting the emergency department that the emergency rescue unit paramedics are enroute with a 75-year-old patient in acute respiratory distress. Nurse J places Mr. B on an automatic blood pressure machine programmed to monitor his B/P every five minutes and a pulse oximeter. At this time, Nurse J leaves Mr. B’s room. The nurse allows Mr. B’s son to sit with him as he is being monitored via the blood pressure monitor. At 4:35 p.m., Mr. B’s B/P is 110/62 and his O2 saturation is 92%. He remains without supplemental oxygen and his ECG and respirations are not monitored. Nurse J and the LPN on duty have received the emergency transport patient. They are also in the process of discharging the other two patients. Meanwhile, the ED lobby has become congested with new incoming patients. At this time, Mr. B’s O2 saturation alarm is heard and shows “low O2 saturation” (currently showing a saturation of 85%). The LPN enters Mr. B’s room briefly, resets the alarm, and repeats the B/P reading. Nurse J is now fully engaged with the emergency care of the respiratory distress patient, which includes assessments, evaluation, and the ordering of respiratory treatments, CXR, labs, etc. At 4:43 p.m., Mr. B’s son comes out of the room and informs the nurse that the “monitor is alarming.” When Nurse J enters the room, the blood pressure machine shows Mr. B’s B/P reading is 58/30 and the O2 saturation is 79%. The patient is not breathing and no palpable pulse can be detected. A STAT CODE is called and the son is escorted to the waiting room. The code team arrives and begins resuscitative efforts. When connected to the cardiac monitor, Mr. B is found to be in ventricular fibrillation. CPR begins immediately by the RN, and Mr. B is intubated. He is defibrillated and reversal agents, IV fluids, and vasopressors are administered. After 30 minutes of interventions, the ECG returns to a normal sinus rhythm with a pulse and a B/P of 110/70. The patient is not breathing on his own and is fully dependent on the ventilator. The patient’s pupils are fixed and dilated. He has no spontaneous movements and does not respond to noxious stimuli. Air transport is called, and upon the family’s wishes, the patient is transferred to a tertiary facility for advanced care. Seven days later, the receiving hospital informed the rural hospital that EEG’s had determined brain death in Mr. B. The family had requested life-support be removed, and Mr. B subsequently died. Additional information: The hospital where Mr. B. was originally seen and treated had a moderate sedation/analgesia (“conscious sedation”) policy that requires that the patient remains on continuous B/P, ECG, and pulse oximeter throughout the procedure and until the patient meets specific discharge criteria (i.e., fully awake, VSS, no N/V, and able to void). All practitioners who perform moderate sedation must first successfully complete the hospital’s moderate sedation training module. The training module includes drug selection as well as acceptable dose ranges. Additional (backup) staff was available on the day of the incident. Nurse J had completed the moderate sedation module. Nurse J had current ACLS certification and was an experienced critical care nurse. Nurse J’s prior annual clinical evaluations by the manager demonstrated that the nurse was “meeting requirements.” Nurse J did not have a history of negligent patient care. Sufficient equipment was available and in working order in the ED on this day. REQUIREMENTS Your submission must be your original work. No more than a combined total of 30% of the submission and no more than a 10% match to any one individual source can be directly quoted or closely paraphrased from sources, even if cited correctly. An originality report is provided when you submit your task that can be used as a guide. You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course. A. Explain the general purpose of conducting a root cause analysis (RCA). 1. Explain each of the six steps used to conduct an RCA, as defined by IHI. 2. Apply the RCA process to the scenario to describe the causative and contributing factors that led to the sentinel event outcome. (ED) of a sixty-bed rural hospital Essay B. Propose a process improvement plan that would decrease the likelihood of a reoccurrence of the scenario outcome. 1. Discuss how each phase of Lewin’s change theory on the human side of change could be applied to the proposed improvement plan. C. Explain the general purpose of the failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) process. 1. Describe the steps of the FMEA process as defined by IHI. 2. Complete the attached FMEA table by appropriately applying the scales of severity, occurrence, and detection to the process improvement plan proposed in part B. Note: You are not expected to carry out the full FMEA. D. Explain how you would test the interventions from the process improvement plan from part B to improve care. E. Explain how a professional nurse can competently demonstrate leadership in each of the following areas: • promoting quality care • improving patient outcomes • influencing quality improvement activities 1. Discuss how the involvement of the professional nurse in the RCA and FMEA processes demonstrates leadership qualities. F. Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized. G. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.
02

Everything parts A to G require

  1. 01
    The general purpose of a root cause analysis, and each of the six steps as defined by IHI.
  2. 02
    The RCA applied to the scenario, giving causative and contributing factors.
  3. 03
    A process improvement plan that would reduce the likelihood of recurrence.
  4. 04
    Each phase of Lewin's change theory applied to that plan.
  5. 05
    The general purpose of FMEA and its steps as defined by IHI.
  6. 06
    The FMEA table completed against the part B plan using severity, occurrence and detection scales.
  7. 07
    An explanation of how you would test the interventions.
  8. 08
    Nursing leadership in promoting quality care, improving patient outcomes and influencing quality improvement, plus how RCA and FMEA involvement demonstrates it.
  9. 09
    In-text citations and references for all quoted, paraphrased or summarised content.
03

Working parts A to E in the order the task assumes

01

A. The purpose of RCA and its six steps

Explain what an RCA is for and set out the six IHI steps.

02

A1. The RCA applied to Mr. B

Identify causative and contributing factors from the timeline and the policy.

03

B. The process improvement plan

Propose specific changes that would make the sedation policy achievable.

04

B1. Lewin, phase by phase

Apply unfreezing, changing and refreezing to your plan specifically.

05

C. FMEA on the plan

Explain the process, then score the plan's failure modes on the three scales.

06

D and E. Testing, and nursing leadership

Describe how you would test the interventions, then answer the four leadership prompts.

04

Where IHI defines the steps the task asks for

Recommended databases

  • Institute for Healthcare Improvement
  • The Joint Commission
  • AHRQ Patient Safety Network
  • CINAHL
  • MEDLINE / PubMed

Search sequence

  1. 1.
    Take the RCA and FMEA step definitions from IHI directly, because the task names IHI as the source for both.
  2. 2.
    Read the sentinel event definition from the accreditor rather than a textbook, so part A's framing is precise.
  3. 3.
    Find a peer-reviewed application of Lewin's model in a clinical setting, so part B1 has a worked precedent.
  4. 4.
    Look for published analyses of alarm response and monitoring failures, which is where this scenario's factors sit.
05

Reference shortlist

These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.

Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.

  1. 01

    Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) Tool

    Institute for Healthcare Improvement · 2026

    The tool the task names, with the risk priority number defined as severity times occurrence times detection, each scored one to ten. Note that a ten on detection means very unlikely to detect.

  2. 02

    Quality Improvement Essentials Toolkit

    Institute for Healthcare Improvement · 2026

    Nine improvement tools with instructions, an example and a template each. Use it for the process descriptions the task asks to be attributed to IHI, and for the testing method in part D.

  3. 03

    Sentinel Event Policy and Procedures

    The Joint Commission · 2026

    Defines the sentinel event and the comprehensive systematic analysis expected in response, whose stated purpose is to look past the individual to the system breakdowns. That is the framing part A needs.

  4. 04

    Sentinel Event

    StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf, US National Library of Medicine · 2023

    A concise reference account of sentinel events and the analysis that follows them, useful for the general-purpose explanations in parts A and C without leaning entirely on one source.

  5. 05

    Nurse staffing and inpatient hospital mortality

    New England Journal of Medicine, via PubMed · 2011

    Evidence that exposure to below-target staffing carries excess mortality. It supports the contributing-factor argument that a two-nurse department absorbing an ambulance arrival is a system condition, not a lapse.

06

Before the submission goes up

Common mistakes

  • Concluding that Nurse J caused the outcome, which the scenario's final paragraph pre-empts point by point.
  • Running the FMEA on the original event instead of on the part B improvement plan.
  • Describing RCA and FMEA generically when the task specifies the IHI definitions twice.
  • Reading a high detection score as good — it means the failure is unlikely to be caught.
  • Describing Lewin's phases rather than applying each one to your own plan.
  • Treating part E as one question when it names three leadership areas plus a fourth on RCA and FMEA involvement.
  • Missing that the sedation policy required continuous ECG, which was never in place.
  • Attempting a full FMEA when the task says explicitly that you are not expected to.

Submission checklist

  • The six RCA steps are attributed to IHI and match its definitions.
  • Causative and contributing factors are system-level and traceable to the timeline.
  • The improvement plan exists before the FMEA references it.
  • The FMEA table scores the plan's failure modes, not the original event.
  • Severity, occurrence and detection are each scored, and the detection scale is used correctly.
  • Lewin's three phases each name a concrete action from your plan.
  • Part E has four distinct answers.
  • A method for testing the interventions is described.

Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.

Written by

Aaron Bishop

MA, Education

assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines

Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.

Reviewed by

Dr. Nathan Cole

PhD, Rhetoric & Composition

Argumentation and thesis development

Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.

Want feedback on your plan before you draft?

Get help interpreting the brief, checking your evidence strategy, and strengthening your outline while keeping the work your own.

Get assignment guidance
Start your order