| Course | NU702 Translating Evidence into Nursing Practice |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Project classification paper |
| Length | About 900 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU702 Unit 9
Improvement Here or Knowledge for Everywhere: A Unit 9 Paper Classifying an Insulin Teaching Project as Quality Improvement
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU702: Translating Evidence into Nursing Practice
Unit 9 Project Classification Paper
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The hospital, project and committee are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
The Project
The planned project introduces an insulin pen discharge readiness bundle on 5 West and 6 West of a composite Dubuque community hospital: supervised self-injection from the second day of insulin, a required return demonstration with the patient's own pen, bedside delivery of the pen before discharge and a call from a diabetes educator within 72 hours. Measures include the proportion of patients completing a return demonstration and the share of patients back in hospital within a month because of a glucose problem, measured against the year that preceded the bundle. The record and the diabetes educator's call log supply all the data.
Why the Distinction Matters
Quality improvement and research are both systematic, data-driven activities, and DNP projects sit close to the boundary between them. Radzyminski (2023) argues that because DNP graduates apply research findings in real settings, a form of translational work, the degree should be understood as both practice and research focused. Whatever one thinks of that argument, the classification of an individual project determines which oversight applies, whether consent is required and how results may be shared.
Criteria for Classification
Lynn and colleagues, writing for a Hastings Center group, saw quality improvement as measured, local work to fix care promptly in a given setting, and regarded it as part of running a health service rather than a separate scientific enterprise. Rather than a single test, the group offered a set of features to weigh, so that a project could fall into quality improvement, research or an overlap needing a tailored review (Lynn et al., 2007). Applying those characteristics gives the following.
Purpose: to improve discharge teaching and outcomes for patients on two units of one hospital, not to test a hypothesis for general use. This points to quality improvement.
Intervention: a bundle built from established evidence, teach-back and return demonstration, rather than a new or unproven treatment. This points to quality improvement.
Design: a before-and-after comparison with iterative changes during the pilot, not randomization or a fixed protocol designed to answer a question beyond the setting. This points to quality improvement.
Risk: the bundle adds supervision and teaching to standard care and does not withhold anything patients would otherwise receive. Risk is minimal.
Data: collected as part of care and reviewed by staff who already have access, with no additional procedures for patients.
Intent to generalize: the team hopes to present results at a regional conference and possibly publish them. Publication alone does not make a project research, but it does require careful description.
The project is quality improvement because of what it is designed to do, not because of how its results might later be shared.
Classification
On these criteria, the project is quality improvement. Its purpose, design and risk all fit the definition, and its intent to share results does not change its character. Classification, however, is not the student's decision alone. The hospital's policy requires that any project intended for presentation or publication be submitted to the institutional review board for a formal determination. The project will follow that process, and the board's determination will be recorded. If the board considered any part to be research, for example a plan to compare patient outcomes in a way designed to generalize, that component would be reviewed accordingly.
Ethical Protections That Still Apply
Being quality improvement does not remove ethical obligations. The Hastings Center group argued that quality improvement must still be worth doing, sound in method, fair in who takes part, favorable in its balance of benefit and burden, respectful of patients and overseen in proportion to its risk (Lynn et al., 2007). For this project, that means all eligible patients receive the bundle regardless of language, with interpreters provided; patients may decline supervised self-injection without any effect on their care; data are accessed only by staff with a care or quality role and reported in aggregate; and the team watches for harm, such as delayed discharges, through a balancing measure.
Reporting
Write-ups of the project will follow SQUIRE 2.0, a guideline that were developed to make reports of improvement work clear and complete. Among other things, SQUIRE expects a report to explain why the problem mattered, the setting, what was done and how it evolved during the work, what was measured and what ethical questions arose, including whether the work received a formal review determination (Ogrinc et al., 2016). Using these guidelines from the start will shape what the team records during the pilot.
Implications for the DNP Project
Classifying the work as quality improvement shapes the project proposal in NU802: it will describe an improvement aim, measures and plan-do-study-act cycles rather than a hypothesis, sample size calculation and statistical test of efficacy. Data analysis will use run charts to show change over time, along with a before-and-after comparison of 30-day returns.
Conclusion
Applied to its purpose, design, risk and data, the criteria classify the insulin teaching project as quality improvement. The hospital's formal determination process will confirm or adjust that classification, ethical protections will apply throughout, and SQUIRE 2.0 will guide how the work is reported.
References
Lynn, J., Baily, M. A., Bottrell, M., Jennings, B., Levine, R. J., Davidoff, F., Casarett, D., Corrigan, J., Fox, E., Wynia, M. K., Agich, G. J., O'Kane, M., Speroff, T., Schyve, P., Batalden, P., Tunis, S., Berlinger, N., Cronenwett, L., Fitzmaurice, J. M., ... James, B. (2007). The ethics of using quality improvement methods in health care. Annals of Internal Medicine, 146(9), 666-673. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-146-9-200705010-00155
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
Radzyminski, S. (2023). DNP: Research or not, that is the question. Journal of Professional Nursing, 44, 33-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2022.11.003
What the NU702 Unit 9 assignment asks for
In the ninth unit, students commonly explain whether their planned DNP project is quality improvement, research or both, and what follows from that classification. Prompts usually point to readings on DNP projects and the research question. A strong paper describes the project precisely, applies published criteria feature by feature, reaches a conclusion, explains the institution's determination process and sets out the ethical protections that apply regardless of classification. Instructors also expect a reporting plan and an explanation of how the classification shapes methods. The paper should not substitute for the institution's process or include completed review forms. Citations usually include a framework for classifying quality improvement, a reporting guideline such as SQUIRE 2.0 and at least one source on the nature of DNP projects.
How the NU 702 Unit 9 example is put together
The paper opens with the colleague's question and an honest "it depends," then describes the bundle, the measures and the data sources. A section on why the distinction matters introduces Radzyminski's argument about translational work. The criteria section, built on Lynn and colleagues, takes each feature in turn and records which way it points, with a highlighted line that classification rests on design rather than on later sharing, and a margin note on the stepwise reasoning. The classification section concludes quality improvement and commits to the hospital's formal determination. Ethical protections follow, restated in the project's terms: fair inclusion with interpreters, freedom to decline, limited data access and a balancing measure. Reporting with SQUIRE 2.0, flagged by a second note, and implications for the NU802 proposal close the paper.
NU702 Unit 9 rubric: what earns full points
Classification papers earn marks for describing the project precisely, applying recognized criteria, reaching a reasoned conclusion, respecting institutional process, addressing ethics, planning reporting and writing. Precision means purpose, intervention, design, data and risk are all stated. Graders reward feature-by-feature application of a framework rather than a single assertion. The conclusion should follow from the criteria and acknowledge features, such as publication plans, that could confuse the classification. Institutional process carries real weight; a paper that bypasses the organization's determination loses credit. Ethics marks require protections that apply even to quality improvement, framed for the specific project. Reporting and methods implications show that the classification has practical consequences. Clear headings, a professional tone and correct APA references for the classification framework, reporting guideline and DNP source complete the criteria in most sections.
Common NU702 Unit 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Papers lose the most marks when they declare a project quality improvement because it seems small or low risk, without applying any criteria. Another frequent error is assuming that quality improvement needs no ethical safeguards at all. Some students treat publication plans as automatically making a project research, or ignore them entirely. Others skip the institution's determination process, which their organization may require regardless of the student's view. Methods that do not match the classification, such as a power calculation for a local improvement project, suggest confusion. Start by writing one sentence on what you want the project to achieve and for whom, then one sentence on what you will do with the results. Those two sentences settle most of the question. Your project description and the classification prompt are enough to draft a custom paper.
Get an NU702 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Send the project description and the paper instructions with the rubric. A custom paper applies the distinguishing criteria, explains the ethical safeguards that still apply and plans reporting. It comes back within 24-48h, and the first is free. 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 NU702 papers and DNP samples
- NU702 Unit 1: Evidence-Practice Gap Discussion Post
- NU702 Unit 2: Theory Application Paper
- NU702 Unit 3: Implementation Framework Paper
- NU702 Unit 4: Equity Analysis
- NU702 Unit 5: Seminar Reflection
- NU702 Unit 6: Interprofessional Team Charter
- NU702 Unit 7: EBP Culture Assessment
- NU702 Unit 8: Clinical Judgment Analysis
- NU702 Unit 10: Practice Problem and PICOT Statement
- NU703 Unit 9: Practice Problem Statement, Depression
- NU823 Unit 9: Sustainability Plan
- NU713 Unit 9: Structural Framework Application, WHO
- NU813 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
NU702 Unit 9 questions, answered
How is quality improvement different from research?
Quality improvement aims to improve care in a specific setting using known evidence; research aims to produce generalizable knowledge. Intent, design and use of results help distinguish them.
Does a quality improvement project need ethical review?
It still needs ethical safeguards, and many organizations require a formal determination of whether it is research. Follow your institution's process.
How are quality improvement projects reported?
Often using the SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines, which structure reports of improvement work.
Where can I find a free NU702 Unit 9 sample paper?
The complete NU702 Unit 9 project classification paper appears on this page. It applies published criteria to an insulin discharge teaching project, concludes it is quality improvement, respects the hospital's determination process and plans SQUIRE 2.0 reporting.
Does planning to publish make the NU702 Unit 9 project research?
Not by itself. The project's purpose, design and risk make it quality improvement, and sharing results does not change that, though the hospital's policy requires a formal determination for any project intended for publication.