| Course | NUR-3420 Contemporary Nursing Practice |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Health policy analysis |
| Length | About 1,074 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Bachelor of Science in Nursing |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NUR 3420 Module 5
From a Blanket Deferral to Individual Questions: The 2023 Federal Donor Eligibility Policy and Nursing's Place in the Plasma Supply System
Student Name
Bachelor of Science in Nursing, Thomas Edison State University
NUR-3420: Contemporary Nursing Practice
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
From a Blanket Deferral to Individual Questions: The 2023 Federal Donor Eligibility Policy and Nursing's Place in the Plasma Supply System
Health policy can feel distant from the work of a staff nurse until a policy changes the words a nurse says to a patient. In May 2023 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration finalized guidance that changed the questions every blood and plasma donor in the United States is asked about sexual behavior. For forty years, gay and bisexual men had been deferred as a group. The new approach asks every donor, regardless of sex or gender, the same individual questions about recent behavior. This paper describes the policy, places it in the delivery system that turns donated plasma into medicine, analyzes its rationale and early evidence, and explains where registered nurses sit in carrying it out.
The Policy and Its History
The first federal deferral for men who have sex with men was introduced in 1983, before a test for HIV existed, and it barred any man who had sex with another man since 1977 from donating for life. Galarneau (2010) argued that the policy had become a form of discrimination because it deferred a group by identity rather than by risk, while heterosexual donors with comparable or higher risk behaviors were accepted. The lifetime deferral was replaced by a twelve-month deferral in 2015 and shortened to three months in 2020 during pandemic shortages. The 2023 guidance removed the group-based question altogether (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2023).
Under the current guidance, every donor answers questions about new or multiple sexual partners in the past three months and about anal sex in that period. A donor who reports both is deferred for three months. The guidance also defers donors who have taken oral pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV in the past three months, or injectable prophylaxis in the past two years, because those medicines can delay detection of an infection by current screening tests. The policy is therefore not a relaxation of safety but a change in how risk is identified: from membership in a group to specific recent behavior reported by each person.
Where the Policy Sits in the Delivery System
Plasma donation is the first step in a long supply chain. Source plasma collected at commercial centers is pooled, tested and fractionated into therapies such as immune globulin, albumin and clotting factor concentrates, which are then infused in hospitals, clinics and patients' homes. Farrugia et al. (2014) point out that patients with primary immune deficiencies and bleeding disorders depend on these therapies for life, and that commercial plasmapheresis now supplies most of the world's plasma for fractionation. Every donor eligibility rule therefore has two effects at once: it protects the safety of the final product, and it changes how many people are able to contribute to a supply that patients cannot do without.
For a delivery system already strained by rising demand for immune globulin, any rule that defers donors without improving safety is costly. That was the core argument against the group-based deferral. The 2023 guidance aims to keep safety intact while widening the pool to include monogamous gay and bisexual men who were previously deferred and to defer heterosexual donors whose recent behavior carries risk. Nurses who infuse immune globulin at the other end of the chain rarely see this connection, but a policy written for donor screening rooms determines in part what is on their medication shelves.
Early Evidence on the Individual Approach
The United Kingdom adopted a similar individualized assessment in June 2021, known as FAIR, which allows some early evaluation. Daly et al. (2026) reviewed deferrals in England over the first two years and found 286 donors deferred at donation sessions under the new criteria, about 9 per 100,000 donations, with higher rates among first-time, younger and male donors. More than half of the donors deferred temporarily returned to donate within six months. The study measured deferral, not infection rates in the blood supply, so it cannot settle the safety question by itself, and it describes a national blood service rather than United States commercial plasma centers. What it does suggest is that individualized questions defer relatively few donors and that most temporarily deferred donors come back.
In the United States, the policy's success will depend partly on how the questions are asked. A donor who feels judged by a staff member reading questions about sexual behavior may answer inaccurately or simply not return. The guidance makes the questions uniform, but it cannot make the conversation comfortable. That is a practice problem, and it is one nurses are trained to handle.
The Nursing Role
In plasma centers, registered nurses often serve as physician substitutes who review questionnaire responses, perform donor eligibility determinations and explain deferrals. In my own center the change required retraining every staff member who conducts screening interviews. We practiced asking the questions in a neutral, matter-of-fact way, explaining that every donor is asked the same thing, and explaining deferrals as temporary and behavior-based rather than personal. The national nursing standards treat health teaching, communication and advocacy as core registered nurse responsibilities (American Nurses Association, 2021), and all three are present when a nurse explains a deferral so that the donor understands it and wants to come back.
Nurses also have a policy role beyond carrying out the rule. Because nurses see how a policy works at the counter, they can report when wording confuses donors, when a deferral category is applied inconsistently, or when a group of donors stops returning. In the year after the change, our center's nurses identified that donors who had taken pre-exposure prophylaxis were not always sure which form they had used, and we added a short explanation to the screening script. Small adjustments of that kind are how a national policy becomes workable in a single room.
Conclusion
The 2023 donor eligibility guidance replaced a forty-year group deferral with questions about individual behavior asked of every donor. Early evidence from England suggests that such an approach defers few donors and that most come back, although safety outcomes need longer study. Within the delivery system, the policy affects both the safety of plasma-derived therapies and the size of the donor pool those therapies depend on. Within the plasma center, its success depends on the way nurses and staff ask questions and explain deferrals, which makes this policy a clear example of nursing practice carrying national health policy into effect.
References
American Nurses Association. (2021). Nursing: Scope and standards of practice (4th ed.). American Nurses Association.
Daly, K., Reynolds, C., Davison, K., & Brailsford, S. R. (2026). FAIRly deferred: Low impact of the individualised risk assessment policy on blood donor deferrals in England. Transfusion Medicine. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/tme.70091
Farrugia, A., Penrod, J., & Bult, J. M. (2014). The ethics of paid plasma donation: A plea for patient centeredness. HEC Forum, 27(4), 417-429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-014-9253-5
Galarneau, C. (2010). Blood donation, deferral, and discrimination: FDA donor deferral policy for men who have sex with men. The American Journal of Bioethics, 10(2), 29-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160903487619
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2023). Recommendations for evaluating donor eligibility using individual risk-based questions to reduce the risk of human immunodeficiency virus transmission by blood and blood products: Guidance for industry. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/recommendations-evaluating-donor-eligibility-using-individual-risk-based-questions-reduce-risk-human
What the NUR 3420 Module 5 instructions ask for
In many terms the fifth module of NUR-3420 asks students to analyze a health policy that affects nursing practice or the health care delivery system. The directions typically ask you to describe the policy and its history, explain the problem it was meant to address, evaluate evidence on its effects, and discuss the nurse's role in implementing or changing it. Some sections let you choose any federal, state or organizational policy, and others name a topic area such as access, workforce or quality. Because Thomas Edison State University posts the nursing course materials only inside Moodle, confirm the length and source requirements on your assignment page. Use current sources, since a policy paper built on outdated rules will lose points quickly.
Inside the NUR 3420 Module 5 example
The example opens by showing how a distant policy reaches a nurse's words. The history section gives four dated steps and states the current rule precisely, including the prophylaxis deferrals that are often left out. A delivery system section follows plasma from collection through fractionation to infusion, so the reader sees why donor rules affect supply as well as safety. The evidence section reports a two-year English evaluation with its numbers and limits. The nursing role section describes retraining, neutral questioning and one change to a screening script, and argues that nurses carry national policy into effect at the counter. Five references support the analysis, two of them primary policy or evaluation sources.
NUR 3420 Module 5 rubric: what earns full marks
Policy analysis rubrics in a professional practice course usually divide the marks among accurate description of the policy, analysis of its purpose and effects, use of evidence, discussion of the nursing role, and writing quality with APA format. Mentors give weight to precision: a policy described in general terms, or one whose current version is wrong, rarely earns top marks. The evidence row rewards sources that evaluate the policy rather than simply describe it. The nursing role row looks for specific actions, such as implementation, education or advocacy, linked to professional standards. Clear organization with headings that match the directions helps the mentor find each element. Check your section's rubric for the exact distribution before you start.
NUR 3420 Module 5 help: mistakes that cost marks
A common mistake in this module is to write an opinion piece about a policy without describing what it actually requires. Another is picking something the size of an entire federal statute, which leaves room only for a skim. Pick one rule, program or provision and analyze it closely. Students also lose points for outdated information, especially on policies that have changed in the last few years. Check the agency's current page before writing. Finally, make the nursing role concrete: name what nurses do differently because of the policy, or what they could do to improve it. The desk can draft a policy paper on a rule from your own setting if you send the directions and your topic.
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 Thomas Edison 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 NUR 3420 and Bachelor of Science in Nursing sample papers
- NUR 3420 Module 1: Professional Introduction
- NUR 3420 Module 2: Scope of Practice Paper
- NUR 3420 Module 3: Peplau Theory Application
- NUR 3420 Module 4: Ethical Dilemma Paper
- NUR 3420 Module 6: Professional Development Plan
- NUR 4190 Module 1: PICOT Question Paper
- NUR 4280 Module 6: Leadership Project Proposal
- NUR 4430 Module 3: Outbreak Investigation Paper
- NUR 4102 Module 1: Leadership Styles Paper: Relational Leadership and Outcomes for Nurses and Patients
NUR 3420 Module 5 questions, answered
Where can I find a free NUR 3420 Module 5 sample paper?
It is on this page in full, a health policy analysis for Contemporary Nursing Practice at TESU with five references and margin notes on each section. The policy is the 2023 FDA donor eligibility guidance; use the structure for whichever policy your directions allow.
What kind of policy works best for the NUR-3420 policy paper?
A specific rule that changed recently and touches nursing practice works best, because you can describe it precisely and find evidence about its effects. Staffing laws, scope of practice changes, payment rules and public health regulations all fit. Avoid choosing a whole law that cannot be covered in a few pages.
How do I show the nursing role in a policy paper?
Name the actions nurses take because of the policy, such as screening, teaching, documenting or reporting, and connect them to a professional standard. Then add one way nurses can influence the policy, for example by reporting problems with implementation or joining a professional organization's comment process.
Can I cite an FDA guidance document in APA style?
Yes. Treat it as a report by a government author: the agency as author, the year, the title in italics, and the URL. Guidance documents are updated, so use the date of the version you read and check that it is still current before submitting.
Should a health policy paper take a side?
Most directions ask for analysis first, and some ask for a recommendation at the end. Describe the policy fairly, present evidence on both its benefits and its limits, and then state your view with reasons. A paper that only argues one side often loses points on the analysis row.