| Course | NU298 Capstone |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Implementation plan |
| Length | About 910 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BSN (prelicensure) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU298 Unit 6
Clear Liquids Until Two Hours Before, and a Call to Confirm the Time: A Capstone Implementation Plan Fitting a Fasting Bundle Into Routines a Composite Medical Unit Already Has, Sequenced by the Revised Iowa Model and Tested in an Eight-Week Pilot
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU298: Capstone
Unit 6 Implementation Plan
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The unit, team and timeline are composite; the plan is a student capstone proposal, and any change to fasting orders requires approval by the provider group, anesthesia and unit leadership.
The Bundle
1. At the 0700 huddle, the charge nurse reads out every patient with a fasting order and its reason, and the nurse caring for the patient checks it against the protocol.
2. At [0900], the unit secretary or nurse calls the procedure area for each fasting patient to confirm the planned time, and records it on the board.
3. For patients who meet the protocol, clear liquids are offered until two hours before the confirmed time, using a provider-approved order set; patients who do not meet it stay on their provider's individual order.
Attached to Existing Routines
The unit already holds a safety huddle at [0700], already calls procedure areas for transport, and already uses an order set for diets. The bundle adds a question to the huddle, a time to the transport call and an option to the order set. Changes that ride on existing routines are more likely to last than ones that add new meetings (Sparling & Yeh, 2023).
A Team Named by Role
Project lead: a staff nurse champion with protected time of [two] hours a week. Sponsor: the unit nurse manager. Clinical partners: a hospitalist and an anesthesiologist from the sedation service, who approve the order set and exclusions. Procedure-area liaison: the endoscopy charge nurse. Data: the unit's quality nurse. Student: literature, baseline review and draft materials.
Revised Iowa Model Decision Points
The revised Iowa Model asks a series of questions and decisions: is the topic a priority, is there enough evidence, is a change appropriate for practice, and should it be piloted before adoption (Iowa Model Collaborative, 2017). Trigger: the clinical-day tally and the baseline median of [13.5] hours. Priority: confirmed by the manager because of patient complaints and canceled procedures. Team: formed as above. Evidence: synthesized in Unit 5; sufficient for a pilot but not for outright adoption. Pilot: eight weeks on one unit. Decision after pilot: adopt, adapt or abandon, based on the measures below.
The evidence is strong enough to try and not strong enough to assume, which is exactly the situation the Iowa Model's pilot step was built for.
Three Kinds of Measure
Outcome: median clear-liquid fasting time before procedures, from the record, compared with the baseline; patient comfort rating for thirst on a 0 to 10 scale. Process: percent of fasting orders reviewed at the huddle; percent of fasting patients with a confirmed time by [1000]; percent of eligible patients offered clear liquids. Balancing: any procedure pushed back or called off for too short a fast; any aspiration event during sedation reported through the safety system. These measures reflect the claims in the synthesis: the problem is measured directly, the safety evidence is watched locally, and the uncertain part, whether nurses can deliver the change, is measured as process (Dang et al., 2022).
Who Is Excluded and Why
The order set keeps the provider's individual order for patients with dysphagia or a failed swallow screen, bowel obstruction or ileus, known delayed gastric emptying such as diabetic gastroparesis, recent vomiting, procedures under general anesthesia and any patient the provider marks as high risk. These exclusions follow the limits of the evidence: the guideline describes healthy patients having elective procedures, and the trials were in surgical patients. Excluding higher-risk groups keeps the pilot within what the evidence supports, and the exclusions can be revisited after the pilot.
How Staff Will Learn It
Training fits into existing huddles: three five-minute talks in week one, a one-page guide at the nurses' station and the champion on hand for questions through the opening fortnight of the pilot. The guide shows the eligibility questions, the clear-liquid list, the time to stop and the phone number for the procedure area. Nurses practice the confirmation call during the first huddle using a script.
Timeline
Weeks 1 and 2: approve the order set; brief staff at huddles; post a one-page guide. Weeks 3 to 10: pilot, with weekly data review by the champion and manager. Week 11: decision meeting with the team.
Two Barriers, Two Responses
Barrier 1: providers keep ordering fasting from midnight out of habit. Response: the order set defaults to the protocol for eligible procedures, with a box to choose the individual order instead. Barrier 2: procedure areas cannot give times early. Response: the liaison agrees to a "not before" time, so clear liquids can continue until two hours before that time.
Patient and Family Involvement
Patients will be told at the evening before a procedure what they may drink and until when, using a card left at the bedside. A short question about thirst on the day of the procedure gives patients a voice in the evaluation, and two former patients from the hospital's advisory council will review the bedside card before the pilot begins.
What Success Would Look Like
A median clear-liquid fast below [six] hours, no increase in delays or aspiration events, and process measures above [80] percent by week eight.
References
Dang, D., Dearholt, S. L., Bissett, K., Ascenzi, J., & Whalen, M. (2022). Johns Hopkins evidence-based practice for nurses and healthcare professionals: Model and guidelines (4th ed.). Sigma Theta Tau International.
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
Sparling, J. L., & Yeh, D. D. (2023). Hungry for change: How best to implement and sustain reduced fasting times in hospitalized surgical patients? The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 49(11), 579-580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2023.07.001
The Purdue Global NU298 Unit 6 instructions
Unit 6 usually asks students to write an implementation plan for the capstone practice change. Prompts commonly want the change described, an evidence-based practice model applied, the team and stakeholders, a timeline, strategies for staff education, barriers with responses and measures for evaluation. Instructors look for a change that fits existing workflow, a model whose steps are applied to the project, roles rather than names, realistic barriers and a mix of outcome, process and balancing measures. Exclusions should follow from the evidence. Patient involvement is often welcomed. A plan of four or five pages is usual, with references to the practice model, the leveling system and evidence on implementation in APA 7.
Inside the NU298 Unit 6 example
The plan describes the three-part bundle, then explains how each part attaches to an existing routine, citing a commentary on sustaining reduced fasting, with a margin note. A team is named by role. The revised Iowa Model's decision points are applied one by one, with the highlighted sentence on why a pilot fits and a margin note. Three kinds of measure follow, linked to the synthesis. Sections cover who is excluded and why, how staff will learn the bundle and the timeline. Two barriers each get a response, with a margin note. Patient involvement and a definition of success close the plan. Each section is short enough for a manager to read in a few minutes.
Where the points sit in the NU298 Unit 6 rubric
Implementation plan rubrics in NU 298 generally award points for a clear intervention, application of an EBP model, stakeholder engagement, feasibility, barrier planning, evaluation design and writing. Intervention points depend on specific components. Model points go to applying each decision point to the project. Stakeholder points reward roles for nursing, medicine, anesthesia and procedure areas. Feasibility points are earned by attaching the change to existing routines. Barrier points require realistic barriers with matched responses. Evaluation points go to outcome, process and balancing measures with targets. Plans that design the change into defaults, such as an order set, usually show the strongest grasp of what makes changes last.
NU298 Unit 6 help from the desk
Implementation plans often lose points by adding new meetings and forms that a busy unit will not sustain. Another frequent error is naming a model without applying its steps to the project. Some students list barriers without responses, or measure only outcomes, which leaves nobody able to say if the change actually happened. Others leave out exclusions, applying evidence beyond its limits. Attach each part of the change to an existing routine, apply the model step by step, name roles, plan responses for likely barriers, measure outcome, process and harm and define success before you start. Involve patients in at least one part of the design.
Get an NU298 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Implementation plans in Unit 6 tend to differ by change model: Iowa, ACE Star, Lewin, Kotter, PDSA or one the course prefers. Attach the Unit 6 instructions, the rubric, your synthesis and the model you are asked to use. The change gets fitted to routines a unit already runs, with measures of three kinds attached. First custom sample free; 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More NU298 papers and BSN samples
- NU298 Unit 1: Capstone Topic Proposal
- NU298 Unit 2: Capstone Problem Statement
- NU298 Unit 3: Capstone Literature Search Summary
- NU298 Unit 4: Capstone Annotated Bibliography
- NU298 Unit 5: Capstone Evidence Synthesis
- NU298 Unit 7: Role Transition Paper
- NU298 Unit 8: Professional Portfolio Piece
- NU298 Unit 9: Discussion Board Post
- NU298 Unit 10: Capstone Paper
- NU263CL Unit 6: Pulmonary Embolism SBAR Handoff
- NU263 Unit 6: Five-Patient Prioritization Exercise
- NU104 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- NU245CL Unit 6: Safety Rounds Reflection
NU298 Unit 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free NU298 Unit 6 sample paper?
This page shows the complete NU298 Unit 6 implementation plan for a fasting bundle on a composite medical unit, using the revised Iowa Model with measures, barriers and three sources. Tell us about your practice change and we can help you plan it.
What is the revised Iowa Model?
An evidence-based practice model that guides a team from a trigger through evidence review and a pilot to a decision about adopting the change.
Why attach a change to existing routines in NU298 Unit 6?
Changes that ride on huddles, calls and order sets the unit already uses are easier to start and more likely to last.
What are process measures?
Measures of whether the change was delivered, such as the percent of fasting orders reviewed at the huddle or times confirmed by 1000.
Why exclude some patients?
The evidence on shorter fasts comes from healthy elective patients, so those with swallowing problems, obstruction or slow stomach emptying stay on individual orders.