NSG/456 Week 5: Research Dissemination Plan, sample paper

Research Dissemination Plan: Sharing the Results of a Night-Shift Nap Study With the Staff, the Managers Who Decide and the Wider Profession

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

NSG/456: Research Outcomes Management for the Practicing Nurse

Week 5 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The units, the results and the audiences are a composite written for a model paper.

Over the past four weeks, I planned a study of whether protecting a short sleep period on night shift makes nurses less sleepy by morning and changes how many medication mistakes and near misses they report. This plan assumes a realistic result and describes how it would be shared. A dissemination plan is not an afterthought; findings that stay in a report change nothing on the units where nurses are still sleepy at 0600.

The Findings to Be Shared

For planning, assume the following results. On the intervention unit, nurses took a nap on 71% of eligible shifts, and the median Karolinska Sleepiness Scale rating at 0600 fell from 7, sleepy but no difficulty remaining awake, to 5, neither alert nor sleepy. The comparison unit showed no change. Medication errors and near misses were too few on either unit to support a conclusion. No patient harm occurred during a nap, and coverage was refused on three nights because of high acuity.

The honest message is narrow: naps were workable and nurses were less sleepy, and the study cannot yet say whether patients were safer. Every audience would receive that message, including its limit.

Audience 1: Night-Shift Nurses on Both Units

Message: naps were taken on most shifts, you reported feeling less sleepy, and coverage worked. Channel: a ten-minute presentation at each unit's night-shift huddle during the month after analysis, and a one-page summary posted in the break rooms. The presenters would be two staff nurses who took part, not the researcher alone, because peers explaining their own experience are more persuasive than data. Timing: within one month of analysis, so that participants hear results while the study is still fresh.

Audience 2: Nurse Managers and Directors

Message: the practice was safe and workable on one unit with clear coverage rules, sleepiness fell and three nights of refused coverage show the limits. Channel: a presentation at the monthly nursing leadership meeting with a two-page brief that includes the protocol, the coverage rule and the costs, which were minimal, a recliner and a room already available. Timing: within two months. This audience matters most. In the two-hospital implementation project by Geiger-Brown et al. (2016), managers' approval was the main barrier, and napping succeeded on only one of six units. The brief would address the concerns managers raised in that project directly, such as patient coverage and how it looks to patients and families.

Audience 3: Nursing Executives and the Safety Committee

Message: a low-cost fatigue countermeasure was tested locally, with a clear effect on sleepiness and no harm. Channel: a written report to the chief nursing officer and a presentation at the patient safety committee, linking the results to the known relationship between long shifts and errors (Rogers et al., 2004). Timing: within three months, before the next budget cycle.

Audience 4: The Wider Profession

Message: a medical-surgical nap study adds inpatient evidence to a literature drawn mostly from emergency departments and from implementation projects. Channels: a poster at a regional nursing research conference within six months, and a manuscript submitted to a peer-reviewed nursing journal within a year, reported with the limits of a quasi-experimental design. Both would go through the hospital's research office.

Audience 5: Participants Individually

Participants would receive a short written summary by email, as promised during consent. This respects their contribution and closes the loop that research with colleagues opens.

Materials and Timeline

Each channel needs its own material, prepared before the first presentation.

Month 1: a one-page summary for staff, written in plain language with the median sleepiness ratings shown as a simple before-and-after bar for each unit, how often nurses actually napped and the three nights coverage was refused. Staff presenters rehearse a ten-minute talk from it.

Month 2: a two-page brief for managers containing the protocol, the coverage rule, the room and equipment used, the absence of patient harm and a short list of answers to common objections. The brief also cites the emergency department trial, in which the nap group reported less fatigue at the end of the night than colleagues who did not nap (Smith-Coggins et al., 2006), so managers see that the local result fits earlier evidence.

Month 3: a written report to the chief nursing officer and slides for the safety committee.

Month 6: a conference poster, reviewed by the research office.

Month 12: a manuscript submitted for peer review.

Holding to this order matters. Staff hear the results first, from colleagues, so that managers who ask their nurses about the study hear the same message.

Barriers and Responses

Stigma is the largest barrier. Many nurses and managers see sleeping at work as unprofessional. The plan responds by using the language of fatigue management rather than napping in the brief, by citing the use of planned rest in other safety-sensitive industries and by having managers from the intervention unit speak to their peers. A second barrier is the narrow evidence. The plan responds by stating the limits openly and recommending a second test on another unit rather than immediate adoption across the hospital.

Evaluating the Dissemination

The plan would be judged by measures set in advance: at least three additional units approving a trial of the protocol within a year, attendance at the huddle presentations of at least 70% of night-shift nurses on both units, acceptance of the conference poster and, over the longer term, repeat measurement of Karolinska ratings on units that adopt the practice. If no new unit adopts it within a year, the plan would be revised, most likely by returning to managers to learn what stopped them.

Conclusion

Dissemination turns a finished study into a possible change. For a practice as unfamiliar as napping on duty, the message must be honest about its limits, delivered by peers to nurses and by managers to managers, and measured by whether other units try it. Research outcomes improve practice environments only when they reach the people who decide how nights are run.

References

Geiger-Brown, J., Sagherian, K., Zhu, S., Wieroniey, M. A., Blair, L., Warren, J., Hinds, P. S., & Szeles, R. (2016). Napping on the night shift: A two-hospital implementation project. American Journal of Nursing, 116(5), 26-33. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000482953.88608.80

Rogers, A. E., Hwang, W.-T., Scott, L. D., Aiken, L. H., & Dinges, D. F. (2004). The working hours of hospital staff nurses and patient safety. Health Affairs, 23(4), 202-212. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.23.4.202

Smith-Coggins, R., Howard, S. K., Mac, D. T., Wang, C., Kwan, S., Rosekind, M. R., Sowb, Y., Balise, R., Levis, J., & Gaba, D. M. (2006). Improving alertness and performance in emergency department physicians and nurses: The use of planned naps. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 48(5), 596-604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.02.005