Recommendations from a nursing service evaluation should follow the local findings and identify a realistic next action. They should explain what could change, who would consider it and how its consequences might be reviewed.
Start with the finding, not a preferred solution
List the main findings and the limits of each. Then ask which issue genuinely requires action. A low response rate may justify reviewing the feedback process; it does not by itself prove that users dislike the service.
HRA guidance distinguishes service evaluation as an examination of service provision rather than automatically generalisable research (HRA, n.d.). Keep recommendations tied to the evaluated setting and purpose.
Build a finding-to-action table
Use columns for finding, proposed action, rationale, responsible role, resource implications and review measure. This makes it easier to see whether a proposal addresses a documented issue.
For example, a hypothetical finding of inconsistent call-back instructions might support a proposal to review the wording and handover process. It would not justify a complete staffing redesign without further evidence.
Make the action specific enough to assess
“Improve communication” gives the reader no clear next step. Specify which communication, to whom, when and through what process. Avoid prescribing details that the evaluation did not examine or that exceed your professional scope.
An actionable recommendation can still be provisional. You might propose consultation or a feasibility review before implementation where evidence is incomplete.
Consider ownership, resources and trade-offs
Identify the role or team that could assess the proposal, without claiming they have already agreed. State likely categories of resources, such as staff time or documentation changes, but do not invent a budget.
Consider possible unintended effects. Adding an extra assessment may improve information while increasing consultation burden. Explain what needs checking rather than assuming a change has only benefits.
Choose a review measure that fits the proposal
The follow-up measure should address the problem and the action. A revised instruction leaflet might be assessed for comprehension and usability, not simply counted as produced. Distinguish completion of an action from achievement of the intended benefit.
Use the evaluation indicator guide to define the measure. Any new data collection or implementation should follow the relevant local process rather than be promised within an academic recommendation.
Acknowledge evidence limits and prioritise
Explain whether the recommendation rests on complete records, a small feedback sample or several information sources. Where confidence is limited, recommend investigation or a proportionate pilot rather than an unsupported universal policy.
Order proposals by their relationship to the findings, feasibility and dependencies. For recommendations across other dissertation designs, retain the broader recommendations guide. This article addresses existing-service evaluation specifically.
Recommendations from a nursing service evaluation: worked action table
Illustrative planning example: First, imagine that patients describe unclear call-back instructions while staff describe uncertainty about who returns calls. The evidence supports reviewing communication and responsibility. However, it does not establish that additional staffing is the answer. Next, propose a discussion with the service team and identify what would need approval. Finally, explain how comprehension could be assessed if a change were agreed.
| Element | Example | Meaning or limit |
|---|---|---|
| Finding | Patients report unclear call-back arrangements | Illustrative feedback, not a measured prevalence |
| Proposed action | Review call-back wording with patients and staff | A proposal requiring local agreement |
| Review measure | Ask whether the revised instructions are understood | Does not establish clinical effectiveness |
Practical checklist
- Link each action to a finding.
- State the proposed owner.
- Identify dependencies and resources.
- Choose a relevant review measure.
Frequently asked questions
Must every finding have a recommendation?
No. Some findings describe context or uncertainty rather than justify an immediate change.
Can I specify an implementation deadline?
Use an agreed or clearly proposed timescale and explain dependencies; do not claim organisational commitment.
Can I recommend more research?
Yes, when you explain the particular unresolved question and why the current evaluation cannot answer it.
How do I prioritise recommendations?
Consider the strength of the finding, feasibility and dependencies. Explain your reasoning rather than assign unsupported urgency scores.
Conclusion
Recommendations from a nursing service evaluation need a transparent chain from finding to action and review. Specific proposals are useful when their limits, ownership and feasibility remain clear.
Get feedback on your project
For a review of your own question, plan or draft, use service evaluation discussion support. Send your university brief and supervisor comments through our contact page. Follow your university’s rules on external support and share only material you are authorised to disclose.
References
Health Research Authority (n.d.) Student research: Questions and answers on eligibility criteria. Available at: HRA student research guidance (Accessed: 12 October 2026).
