DNP 751 Week 8 The Complete Proposal Draft With Self-Assessment Example

Ready to Submit? The Complete DNP Applied Project Proposal Draft, a Rubric Self-Assessment and a Forecast of What Could Go Wrong in the Implementation Course

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

DNP/751: DNP Applied Project II

Week 8 Assignment: Complete Proposal Draft

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The health center, staff and figures are composites written for a model paper.

Structured Abstract

Background: Diabetes distress affects about a third of adults with type 2 diabetes, differs from depression and is linked with medication adherence and glycemic control, yet the project site screens only for depression. Purpose: to add distress screening, with a follow-up route run by the clinic's nurse care managers, and to measure what it does to recognition of distress, the speed of follow-up and distress itself. Methods: a 12-week quality improvement pilot at one clinic, comparing weekly process data across baseline and pilot, guided by the revised Iowa Model (Iowa Model Collaborative, 2017) and stress and coping theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984); a two-item screener at rooming (Fisher et al., 2008), the 17-item scale for positive screens and responses matched to subscales. Planned analysis: run charts for process measures, paired comparison of distress scores, staff implementation measures and subgroup reporting by language and age. Implications: a low-cost, nurse-led pathway that the health center could extend to its other sites.

Map of the Proposal

Section 1, the introduction, frames the problem at the site with national and international evidence and defines the key terms. Section 2 synthesizes twelve sources in four themes: prevalence, significance, measurement and response. Section 3 pairs stress and coping theory with the revised Iowa Model and the companion framework for implementation strategies. Section 4 sets out the design and describes the intervention item by item with a reporting checklist. Section 5 gives the phased rollout, champion role, feedback plan, timeline and budget. Section 6 defines clinical, process and implementation outcomes with their analyses and decision rules. Section 7 covers ethics, the safety protocol and the determination request. Appendices hold the instruments and permissions, the evidence table, the site letter, the budget and the training materials.

Self-Assessment Against the Grading Criteria

Alignment. The criteria ask that problem, question, measures and analysis agree. Reading the draft end to end revealed that timely follow-up was defined as 14 days in Sections 1 and 6 but as two weeks after the visit in Section 4, a small difference that would have changed the numerator, so all three now read "a documented care manager contact no later than day 14 after a positive screen." Rating after revision: strong.

Evidence. The criteria ask for a current synthesis. Two sources are older than ten years but are instrument development studies, which is explained in Section 2. Rating: strong, with the age of sources justified.

Framework. The criteria ask that frameworks be applied, not named. The stress and coping model is carried into the subscale-matched responses and into an analysis of subscale change. Rating: strong. A weakness remains: the theory cannot be tested directly, which is now stated.

Methods and evaluation. The criteria ask for precise measures and suitable analysis. Decision rules for adoption were added after feedback that the evaluation did not say what result would count as success. Rating: strong after revision.

Ethics. The criteria ask for a justified classification and a risk plan. The safety protocol was tightened to require a care manager call within 48 hours after any self-harm disclosure. Rating: strong.

Writing and format. The criteria ask for scholarly style and APA format. Tense was checked throughout, and three reference entries with missing issue numbers were corrected. Rating: good; one more proofread is planned.

Revisions Made Across the Term

The proposal changed substantially between the precis and this draft. The background grew from studies by the scale's developers to a wider base that includes an international survey, a primary care study of treatment intensity and a prospective study separating two kinds of distress. The framework section gained a clinical theory, stress and coping, which now explains why responses are matched to subscales. The methods adopted a reporting checklist for the intervention and an interrupted design in place of a two-point comparison. The evaluation added implementation outcomes measured with validated staff scales and a set of decision rules agreed in advance. The ethics section moved from a statement of minimal risk to a full safety protocol and privacy plan. Each change answered a specific comment, and the feedback log in the appendix pairs every comment with the revision it produced.

Highlights From the Feedback Log

Three comments shaped the proposal more than the rest. The first asked what the care managers would actually do after a positive screen; the answer became the subscale-matched response guide. The second asked how the team would know the pathway succeeded; the answer became the adoption decision rules. The third asked what would happen if a patient disclosed thoughts of self-harm; the answer became the safety protocol with its 48-hour follow-up call. Smaller comments addressed tense, heading levels and the order of appendices.

Forecast for the Implementation Course

Risk 1, staff turnover. Warning sign: a medical assistant gives notice or the screening rate falls for two weeks. Response: the backup champion trains the replacement in the first week.

Risk 2, a late review determination. Warning sign: no response from the university committee within three weeks of submission. Response: the site's quality committee determination is already scheduled, and baseline extraction, which uses existing data, can proceed while waiting.

Risk 3, fewer positive screens than expected. Warning sign: fewer than 15 positive screens in the first four weeks. Response: repeat full scales can begin earlier, and the analysis will report precision honestly rather than extend the pilot beyond the course.

Risk 4, care manager overload. Warning sign: more than a quarter of positive screens waiting over 10 days. Response: triage by subscale with high emotional burden first, and ask the behavioral health consultant to take direct referrals for two weeks.

What the Next Course Will Test

DNP 752 will answer questions the proposal can only predict: whether patients accept the screen in both languages, whether the care managers' responses fit the subscales as the theory suggests, and whether the staff find the pathway workable after the novelty wears off. The proposal's measures are built to answer each one. Patient acceptance will show in the decline rate by language, the fit of responses in the subscale analysis, and staff experience in the three implementation scales given after cycles two and three. If any of these answers is disappointing, the proposal has already said how the team will respond, which is the purpose of forecasting before a project starts rather than explaining problems after it ends.

Submission Checklist

All seven sections revised and consistent in terms and numbers; appendices complete and cited in the text; site letter signed; determination request submitted to both committees; instruments and Spanish versions with permissions on file; timeline aligned with the DNP 752 calendar; references checked against the text; final proofread scheduled.

Summary

The proposal is complete, consistent after revision, and ready for submission. The self-assessment found and fixed real inconsistencies, and the forecast prepares responses to the most likely problems in implementation.

References

Fisher, L., Glasgow, R. E., Mullan, J. T., Skaff, M. M., & Polonsky, W. H. (2008). Development of a brief diabetes distress screening instrument. Annals of Family Medicine, 6(3), 246-252. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.842

Iowa Model Collaborative. (2017). Iowa model of evidence-based practice: Revisions and validation. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 14(3), 175-182. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12223

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.