| Course | D024 Professional Presence and Influence |
|---|---|
| Task | Task 2 |
| Paper type | Force field analysis and influence plan |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 |
| School | Western Governors University (WGU) |
| Program | MSN |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for D024 Task 2
Bringing Peer Support for Second Victims to a Perioperative Department: A Weighted Force Field Analysis and a Plan for Influence Without Authority
Student Name
Leavitt School of Health, Western Governors University
D024: Professional Presence and Influence, Task 2
Course Instructor
Month Day, Year
Bringing Peer Support for Second Victims to a Perioperative Department: A Weighted Force Field Analysis and a Plan for Influence Without Authority
The Proposed Change
When a patient is harmed unexpectedly, the clinicians involved often suffer too. Wu (2000) named them second victims: nurses and physicians who replay the event, doubt their competence and sometimes leave the profession. Interviews with 31 second victims identified a predictable recovery path running from the chaos of the event through intrusive reflection, the ordeal of the investigation and a search for emotional first aid, to one of three outcomes: dropping out, surviving or thriving (Scott et al., 2009). The same study found that organizations could screen staff after an event and deploy support to speed recovery.
The change proposed here is a trained peer support program for the perioperative department of a composite community hospital with 240 beds, covering the preoperative area, 11 operating rooms and the post-anesthesia care unit. Volunteers from nursing, anesthesia, surgical technology and respiratory therapy would be trained to make a brief, confidential outreach call or visit within 24 hours of an unexpected event, and staff could also request support themselves. The model follows the Resilience in Stressful Events program at Johns Hopkins, which trained peer responders, piloted in one department and then expanded hospital-wide (Edrees et al., 2016). I am a PACU charge nurse with no authority over the department's budget or policy, so the change depends on influence.
Force Field Analysis
Lewin's force field analysis treats any current state as an equilibrium between forces pushing toward change and forces resisting it (Lewin, 1951). Change happens when driving forces are strengthened or, more often and more durably, when restraining forces are weakened. Each force below is weighted from 1 (weak) to 5 (strong) based on conversations with colleagues, the department's recent history and published evidence. The weights are my judgment and are meant to be argued with.
| Driving forces | Weight | Restraining forces | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Two recent events, an intraoperative cardiac arrest and a retained sponge, left staff visibly shaken | 5 | Fear that talking about an event will be used in the investigation or a lawsuit | 5 |
| Staff turnover in the operating rooms rose last year and exit interviews mention stress | 4 | Cultural norm that perioperative staff are tough and move on to the next case | 4 |
| Hospital leaders have adopted a patient safety plan that names staff wellbeing | 3 | No budget line for training or volunteer time | 3 |
| Published models exist and can be adapted at low cost (Edrees et al., 2016) | 3 | Low awareness: staff may not know the program exists when they need it | 3 |
| Several experienced nurses have offered informally to help colleagues after events | 3 | Scheduling: operating room staff cannot easily leave a case to talk | 2 |
| Total | 18 | Total | 17 |
Reading the Analysis
The totals are nearly balanced, which explains why the department has talked about peer support for two years without starting it. Two restraining forces carry the most weight: fear of legal exposure and the culture of toughness. Both are about safety in the psychological sense, the belief that one can speak without being punished or judged. Adding more driving force, such as another presentation about burnout, would push against those restraints without moving them. The plan therefore concentrates on weakening the two strongest restraints and treats the smaller ones as design problems.
Fear of legal exposure can be reduced by design. Peer support conversations in established programs are explicitly not debriefings of the clinical facts; responders are trained to ask how the person is doing, not what happened, and to refer to risk management or employee assistance when needed. Writing that boundary into the program charter, and having the risk manager say so in person at a staff meeting, answers the fear more credibly than a reassurance from a charge nurse could.
The culture of toughness is weakened by who goes first. If respected senior staff, a veteran circulating nurse or an anesthesiologist, volunteer as peer responders and say openly that they wished they had had support after an event early in their careers, the program stops looking like something for the weak. Scott et al. (2009) found that some second victims recovered by taking part in safety work, which suggests that volunteers themselves may benefit.
The remaining restraints are practical. Volunteer time can be requested as a small education cost rather than a new position. Awareness, which limited early call volume at Johns Hopkins (Edrees et al., 2016), can be built with a one-line number on every operating room whiteboard and a mention at every morning huddle for the first three months. Scheduling is managed by making the first contact brief and flexible.
Influencing Without Authority
Because I cannot order this change, the plan runs through the people who can approve it and the people whose support makes it legitimate. I would start with the perioperative director, who already rounds weekly, and bring a one-page summary of the force field and the two recent events described without identifying details. I would ask for one decision only: permission to form a small planning group. Next I would approach the risk manager privately, since her public support answers the strongest restraint, and ask what boundary language she would need in the charter. Then I would invite two respected senior clinicians to co-lead the planning group, which spreads ownership beyond the PACU.
Throughout, the emotional intelligence skills from the first task apply. Empathy means recognizing that the surgeons and anesthesiologists may hear peer support as an accusation that they caused harm; the framing will stress that most adverse events are not errors at all. Self-regulation means not taking early skepticism personally. Social skill means asking skeptics to help design the program rather than trying to win arguments with them.
Reflection on Influence
My instinct as a charge nurse is to fix problems directly, and this analysis showed me the limits of that instinct. The forces holding the department in place are beliefs and fears, and I cannot fix them by working harder. What I can do is change who is in the room and what they hear first. The most useful thing I learned from building the force field was that my own strongest argument, the two recent events, is also a restraining force in disguise, because staff involved in those events will be wary of anything that reopens them. I will ask the planning group to decide how, or whether, to refer to those events at all. I will measure my influence by one test: whether the program exists and has taken its first calls within six months, regardless of whose name is on it.
References
Edrees, H., Connors, C., Paine, L., Norvell, M., Taylor, H., & Wu, A. W. (2016). Implementing the RISE second victim support programme at the Johns Hopkins Hospital: A case study. BMJ Open, 6(9), e011708. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011708
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (D. Cartwright, Ed.). Harper & Brothers.
Scott, S. D., Hirschinger, L. E., Cox, K. R., McCoig, M., Brandt, J., & Hall, L. W. (2009). The natural history of recovery for the healthcare provider "second victim" after adverse patient events. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 18(5), 325-330. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2009.032870
Wu, A. W. (2000). Medical error: The second victim. BMJ, 320(7237), 726-727. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.726
What the D024 Task 2 instructions ask
The second D024 task asks you to analyze the forces acting on a proposed change and to plan how you would influence it. Most versions ask you to describe the change, complete a force field analysis with driving and restraining forces, often weighted, interpret the results, describe strategies to influence stakeholders, particularly without formal authority, and reflect on your approach. The change should be one a nurse could realistically champion. The evaluator reads for forces specific to the setting, weights that are explained and influence strategies that target the forces carrying the most weight. Most versions also expect the change to be supported by evidence.
How this D024 Task 2 example is built
The paper introduces the change and the evidence behind peer support for clinicians after harm. The force field analysis appears as a table with each force weighted and totaled, so the balance is visible. The interpretation explains what the near-equal totals mean and which two restraining forces matter most. The influence plan names the people to approach in order and what each needs to hear, using evidence and early supporters to shift the heaviest restraining forces. The reflection examines the writer's habit of solving problems directly and why that approach fails when the resistance is made of beliefs rather than tasks. The table totals make the balance of forces clear at a glance.
Where the D024 Task 2 rubric puts the marks
For D024 Task 2, each aspect receives competent, approaching competence or not evident. A change aspect checks that the proposed change is clear and supported. A force field aspect looks for driving and restraining forces specific to the setting, with weights if required. An interpretation aspect asks what the analysis means for the change. Influence aspects want strategies aimed at the key forces and stakeholders, especially where you lack authority. A reflection aspect looks for honest insight. Evaluators check that strategies follow from the analysis. APA citations and professional writing are assessed as well. Evaluators look for weights that are explained in the text, not just numbers in a table, and for influence strategies that answer the heaviest restraining forces directly.
D024 Task 2 help: what sends it back
Force field analyses are returned most often because the forces are generic, such as resistance to change. Name the specific belief, policy or resource that pushes or resists. Second, weights appear without explanation. Say why a force earns its score. Third, the interpretation is skipped, leaving the table to speak for itself. Explain what the totals and heaviest forces tell you. Fourth, influence strategies ignore the restraining forces. Aim at the forces that matter most. Finally, a plan that relies on your title will not fit most nurses. Show how you would influence through relationships, evidence and allies when you cannot order the change.
Get a D024 Task 2 example written to your instructions
Send the Task 2 instructions and rubric aspects from your D024 course of study. We write a custom force field analysis to those exact aspects and your proposed change, returned in 24-48h. The first custom sample is free.
More D024 papers
Other Nursing (MSN) sample papers
- C920 Task 1 Curriculum Needs Analysis
- D025 Task 1 Advocacy and At-risk Population Analysis
- C947 Task 1 Education Program Design
- D025 Task 2 Policy Change Advocacy ISBAR Summary
D024 Task 2 questions, answered
How should forces be weighted in a D024 force field analysis?
Use a simple scale, such as 1 to 5, and say what the weights are based on: conversations, data or published evidence. The weights let the evaluator see which forces your strategy should target.
What kind of change works best for D024 Task 2?
A change a nurse could champion but not simply order, supported by evidence and facing real resistance. The sample proposes peer support after patient harm in a perioperative department.
Does D024 Task 2 need a reflection?
Most versions include one. Reflect on how your own habits affect your ability to influence others, as the sample does with the writer's instinct to fix problems directly.
What is influence without authority in D024?
Moving a decision through relationships, evidence and allies rather than through a title. The sample plans conversations with the director, respected physicians and staff who have experienced harm.
Where can I find a free D024 Task 2 sample paper?
The complete force field analysis and influence plan are reproduced above with notes. For an analysis of the change you want to lead, share your D024 task and the first custom paper is free.