NU702 Unit 10 Practice Problem and PICOT Statement Example

Reviewed by Elspeth Marlowe, MSN, RN Translating Evidence into Nursing Practice Purdue University Global Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

Thirty-one patients back in hospital within a month after going home on new insulin define the problem in this NU702 Unit 10 practice problem and PICOT statement for two composite Dubuque medical-surgical units. The statement reports 214 patients, a 14.5 percent glucose-related return rate, documentation of teaching far above documentation of demonstration, pens missing at discharge and interpreter gaps. Geller and colleagues' national surveillance shows the wider burden, Healy and colleagues' cohort links formal diabetes education with fewer readmissions, and Talevski and colleagues' review supports teach-back. Purdue Global NU 702 closes by asking DNP students for a question their project can answer. The PICOT question compares a four-part bundle with usual teaching on 30-day glucose-related returns over six months. Targets, process and balancing measures follow, all split by language and age, ready for the NU802 proposal.

CourseNU702 Translating Evidence into Nursing Practice
UnitUnit 10
Paper typePractice problem and PICOT statement
LengthAbout 600 words, 5 pages double-spaced
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolPurdue University Global
ProgramDoctor of Nursing Practice (DNP)
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for NU702 Unit 10

1

Thirty-One Returns in a Year: A Unit 10 Practice Problem and PICOT Statement for an Insulin Discharge Project

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

NU702: Translating Evidence into Nursing Practice

Unit 10 Practice Problem and PICOT Statement

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The hospital, units and figures are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.

What this part is doingLeading with the count of returning patients anchors the statement in a measurable local problem.
2

The Practice Problem

Over twelve months, 214 adults left the two medical-surgical units of a composite 260-bed Dubuque, Iowa, hospital using insulin that had been started, or switched to a pen, while they were inpatients. Thirty-one of them, 14.5 percent, needed emergency or inpatient care for a low or high glucose within the following 30 days. Chart review found "diabetes education complete" documented for 92 percent, a return demonstration documented for 18 percent, the pen in hand at discharge for 77 percent and a qualified interpreter documented for 41 percent of patients who needed one.

Why It Matters

Insulin errors and hypoglycemia are a national problem. Geller and colleagues projected, from national surveillance, close to 98,000 emergency visits yearly for insulin-linked lows and dosing mistakes, of which roughly three in ten ended in admission, with the oldest patients at highest risk and reduced food intake and dosing errors among the common causes (Geller et al., 2014). Locally, each return visit means harm or fear for a patient and cost and capacity strain for the hospital.

What Is Known About Causes

Earlier course work identified four contributing causes on these units. Teaching is compressed into discharge day and measured by documentation rather than by the patient's performance. Supervised self-injection does not happen before discharge. Pens are sometimes filled after the patient leaves. Language access and caregiver inclusion are inconsistent, and results lag for interpreter users and the oldest patients.

Evidence for a Solution

In Healy and colleagues' cohort of more than 2,000 inpatients, those who received formal diabetes education were readmitted within a month at a lower rate, 11 against 16 percent, and the gap survived adjustment (Healy et al., 2013). Asking patients to show or say back what they learned helped in all but one of the twenty studies Talevski and colleagues reviewed, from knowledge retention to readmissions, though few studies described how it was sustained (Talevski et al., 2020). Combining performance-based teaching with practical supports such as having the pen before discharge and a follow-up call addresses the causes identified locally.

The question is not whether to teach but whether the patient can do it before he leaves.

The PICOT Question

In adults discharged from 5 West and 6 West on newly started insulin or a new insulin pen (P), does an insulin pen discharge readiness bundle, made up of self-injection under supervision from insulin day two, a mandatory demonstration by patient or helper, the pen handed over at the bedside and an educator's phone call by day three (I), compared with usual discharge teaching (C), reduce 30-day emergency department visits or readmissions for hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia (O) over the first six months after implementation (T)?

What this part is doingSpelling out each element of the bundle inside the question makes the intervention specific enough to measure fidelity later.
3

Measures

The primary outcome is the 30-day glucose-related return rate, with a target of 9 percent or lower. Process measures are the return demonstration rate, with a target of 85 percent, bedside pen delivery and completed calls. A balancing measure, the time between discharge order and departure, checks that the bundle does not delay discharge. Every measure is split by preferred language and by age band.

Next Steps

This statement will become the foundation of the proposal in NU802, where the project's setting, methods, data collection and evaluation plan will be developed and approved.

What this part is doingLinking the statement to the next course shows how the problem definition will carry into the DNP project.
4

References

Geller, A. I., Shehab, N., Lovegrove, M. C., Kegler, S. R., Weidenbach, K. N., Ryan, G. J., & Budnitz, D. S. (2014). National estimates of insulin-related hypoglycemia and errors leading to emergency department visits and hospitalizations. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(5), 678-686. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.136

Healy, S. J., Black, D., Harris, C., Lorenz, A., & Dungan, K. M. (2013). Inpatient diabetes education is associated with less frequent hospital readmission among patients with poor glycemic control. Diabetes Care, 36(10), 2960-2967. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc13-0108

Talevski, J., Wong Shee, A., Rasmussen, B., Kemp, G., & Beauchamp, A. (2020). Teach-back: A systematic review of implementation and impacts. PLOS ONE, 15(4), e0231350. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231350

Reading the NU 702 Unit 10 instructions

The final unit of NU702 typically asks for a practice problem statement and a PICOT question that will carry into the DNP project courses. Prompts generally require the problem defined with local data, its significance supported by national evidence, what is known about causes, evidence for a solution, a PICOT question with each element specified, and planned measures. Instructors look for a population and intervention described precisely enough to measure fidelity later, an outcome with a time frame and a comparison that reflects real current practice. Many sections also expect targets and a note on how the statement leads into the proposal. Statements are often shorter than full papers but should be dense with specifics. Sources typically include national data on the problem's burden, at least one study supporting the intervention and evidence on the main mechanism, such as teach-back.

How the NU 702 Unit 10 example is put together

This statement presents the local problem in one paragraph of figures, then explains its significance with Geller and colleagues' surveillance estimate. A causes section summarizes what earlier units found, including the interpreter and age gaps. The evidence section reports Healy and colleagues' readmission difference and Talevski and colleagues' review, and the highlighted line argues that the question is whether the patient can perform before discharge. The PICOT question names the population, each part of the bundle, usual teaching as comparison, the 30-day outcome and a six-month window, and a margin note explains why the intervention is spelled out in full. Measures set a 9 percent outcome target, an 85 percent process target, delivery and call rates and a balancing measure, all stratified. A closing note links the statement to NU802, marked by a second margin note.

Reading the NU702 Unit 10 grading rubric

Practice problem statements are marked on local evidence, significance, causal understanding, evidence for the proposed solution, the quality of the PICOT question, measurement and clarity. Local evidence earns credit when the problem is stated in numbers from the student's own setting. Significance should connect local data to a national pattern. Graders reward a causes section that reflects real investigation rather than assumption. The PICOT question is often weighted most: each element must be specific, and the intervention must be defined well enough to measure fidelity. Measures should include an outcome with a target, process indicators and a balancing measure, and stratification shows attention to equity. A clear link to the next course shows planning. Concise writing, figures that match earlier units and accurate APA citations finish the rubric for NU702.

Common NU702 Unit 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Statements lose the most marks when the PICOT question is vague, for example "will education improve outcomes," with no defined intervention, comparison or time frame. Another frequent weakness is a problem described in national terms only, with no evidence that it exists in the student's setting. Some statements choose an outcome that cannot be measured in the project's time, such as long-term A1C change, when a 30-day measure is available. Others leave out the comparison or describe it as "no intervention" when usual care already includes some teaching. Figures that change from earlier units undermine credibility. Begin by writing the outcome you will measure and the date by which you will measure it, then work backward to the population and intervention. The practice problem and your local figures can become a custom statement.

Get an NU702 Unit 10 example written to your instructions

Send the practice problem, your data and the statement instructions with the rubric. A custom statement defines the problem with evidence and frames a PICOT question your project can answer. The first statement is free and comes back within 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.

Request this unit free All NU702 units Finished samples

More NU702 papers and DNP samples

NU702 Unit 10 questions, answered

What does PICOT stand for?

Population, intervention, comparison, outcome and time. A good PICOT question names each one specifically enough to measure.

Should the problem statement include local data?

Yes. Local data show the problem exists in your setting, and national data show it matters more widely.

Can the PICOT question change later?

It often gets refined, but a clear question now makes the project proposal much easier.

Where can I find a free NU702 Unit 10 sample paper?

This page holds the full NU702 Unit 10 practice problem and PICOT statement. It defines a 14.5 percent rate of glucose-related returns after new insulin on two composite units and frames a PICOT question for an insulin pen discharge bundle.

What outcome does the NU702 Unit 10 PICOT question use?

Emergency visits or readmissions for hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia within 30 days of discharge, measured over the first six months after the bundle starts, with a target of 9 percent or lower.