DNP 752 Week 8 Dissemination Plan and Reflection on the DNP Essentials Example

Getting the Findings to the People Who Can Use Them, and What Three Project Courses Taught: A Dissemination Plan and a Reflection Mapped to the AACN Essentials Domains

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

DNP/752: DNP Applied Project III

Week 8 Assignment: Dissemination and Reflection

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

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

Dissemination: A Framework

Brownson et al. (2018), reviewing lessons from communication, marketing and other fields, argued that public health findings fail to reach practice partly because dissemination is an afterthought, and that effective dissemination considers four elements together: the message, the source or messenger, the audience and the channel. They noted that practitioners and policy makers are reached better through briefs, one-on-one meetings, workshops and news or social media than through journal articles alone. The plan below applies those four elements to each audience that could use the pilot's findings.

Audience 1: Clinic Staff

Message: the pathway works when the screen sits early in rooming, and your ratings shaped it. Messenger: the medical assistant champion and a care manager, not the project lead. Channel: a 15-minute presentation at the all-staff meeting with the two run charts and three patient quotes. Timing: the month after the pilot closes. Staff heard weekly data during the pilot, but they have not seen the whole story, and hearing it from peers reinforces ownership.

Audience 2: Health Center Leaders

Message: the pathway met its adoption rules at modest cost; spreading it will take more behavioral health hours and a way to follow up in Spanish. Messenger: the project lead with the medical director. Channel: a short written brief, a presentation slot at the quality committee, followed by a one-on-one meeting with the chief operating officer about staffing. Timing: within six weeks, before the budget cycle opens. Leaders decide on spread and staffing, so a short brief that reaches them before the budget closes will matter more to patients at the other two sites than any publication.

Audience 3: Regional Partners

Message: a low-cost nursing pathway for a psychosocial standard of diabetes care, with data other health centers can compare against. Messenger: the project lead and the medical director. Channel: the scholarly poster at the state primary care association's annual meeting and a 30-minute webinar for its quality network. Timing: the association's spring conference.

Audience 4: The Nursing Community

Message: the care manager role can absorb distress follow-up, and the screen's place in rooming decides how often it happens. Channel: the final manuscript, formatted to SQUIRE 2.0 (Ogrinc et al., 2016), sent to a peer-reviewed journal whose pages regularly carry primary care or diabetes improvement reports, and the poster at a national nurse practitioner conference. Timing: submission within four months of graduation.

Reflection on the Essentials

The American Association of Colleges of Nursing (2021) Essentials describe ten domains of competence, with advanced-level expectations for doctoral graduates. The project touched most of them; the evidence below is specific to what happened.

Knowledge for nursing practice: I used stress and coping theory to decide how care managers should respond to different subscales, and the larger fall in regimen distress was analyzed against that reasoning. Person-centered care: the pathway asked patients what burdened them and matched the response to their answer, and two patients who found the questions intrusive were free to decline. Population health: I tracked results by language and insulin use and identified a gap for Spanish speakers that shapes the spread plan.

Scholarship for the nursing discipline: I appraised and synthesized the evidence, designed an evaluation with decision rules set in advance and reported limitations with their direction of bias. Quality and safety: I led three improvement cycles and wrote a safety protocol that was used twice. Interprofessional partnerships: the Friday huddle, where a care manager proposed next-day calls, was the most productive meeting of the project and taught me to bring data to the team rather than decisions.

Systems-based practice: I worked within grant priorities, staffing limits and budget timing to plan spread. Informatics and healthcare technologies: I worked with the analyst to build structured fields and a weekly report, and learned how a delayed build can shift a whole timeline. Professionalism: I handled being both a clinician at the site and the person leading the change by separating data reporting and observation from my own work. Personal, professional and leadership development: I learned to present disappointing numbers, such as the first cycle's 61%, as information rather than failure.

How Dissemination Will Be Measured

Dissemination can be tracked like any other part of the project. For staff, the measure is whether the screening rate holds on the monthly dashboard after the presentation. For leaders, it is whether the budget request for behavioral health time is made and a decision on a second site is recorded. For regional partners, it is the number of health centers that request the response guide or the form specifications after the conference and webinar; I will offer both free through the association. For the nursing community, it is submission, acceptance and, later, citation of the manuscript. Setting these measures now keeps dissemination from ending with the poster session.

Ethical Points in Sharing Results

Every product will report aggregate results only, with counts under 11 suppressed, and no patient quotation will appear without written permission. The health center will review the manuscript and poster before release, as the site agreement requires, and the poster and manuscript will describe the setting in general terms so that neither the clinic nor its patients can be identified from public materials.

Timeline in Brief

Month 1: staff presentation. Months 1 and 2: leadership brief and committee slot. Month 4: manuscript submitted. Months 6 to 8: state conference poster and webinar. Month 12: national conference poster, if accepted. Each date sits on a shared calendar with the medical director, so dissemination does not depend on memory once the course ends.

What Remains to Learn

My evaluation skills stop at descriptive statistics and simple tests. The stepped-wedge rollout that would test the pathway properly needs methods I have not yet learned, and I will need a partner with that expertise.

Professional Development Plan

In the next year I will submit the manuscript, present at the state association, complete a course in improvement science methods beyond run charts, and join the health center's quality committee as a standing member to guide the spread decision.

Looking Back Across the Three Courses

The project began as a sentence from a patient who had stopped checking her blood sugar because every number felt like a judgment. Across three courses it became a problem statement, a question, a proposal and a pathway that the clinic now runs without me. The most important shift in my own practice was learning to treat each weekly number as a question for the team rather than a grade for myself.

Conclusion

Dissemination is planned for four audiences with the products and messengers each will trust, and the reflection shows the project's contribution to each domain of doctoral practice, along with the limits of what I can do alone.

References

American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2021). The essentials: Core competencies for professional nursing education. https://www.aacnnursing.org/essentials

Brownson, R. C., Eyler, A. A., Harris, J. K., Moore, J. B., & Tabak, R. G. (2018). Getting the word out: New approaches for disseminating public health science. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 24(2), 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000673

Ogrinc, G., Davies, L., Goodman, D., Batalden, P., Davidoff, F., & Stevens, D. (2016). SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Quality & Safety, 25(12), 986-992. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411