| Course | NU806 DNP Project III |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Final defense presentation |
| Length | About 920 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 NU806 Unit 8
Fourteen Slides and the Question About Significance: A Unit 8 Final Defense Presentation for an Insulin Discharge Readiness Project
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU806: DNP Project III
Unit 8 Final Defense Presentation
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The hospital, results and committee are composite and illustrative; the studies cited are real.
Slide 1: What We Set Out to Do and What Happened
Slide: Aim: fewer returns for glucose problems after discharge on new insulin. Result: 81 percent got every part; returns went down by about five points, probably real but not proven.
Notes: I want to give you the whole answer first. The bundle was delivered reliably and safely. Returns fell by about five points. The interval around that fall includes no change, and I will explain what that means and what it does not.
Slide 2: The Problem
Slide: One in seven new insulin patients came back within a month. The audit found the safeguards missing.
Notes: Before the project, 403 patients a year started insulin on our eight spread units. Supervised self-injection, written plans, early pens and early follow-up were each documented for well under two-thirds of them.
Slide 3: The Evidence Behind the Bundle
Slide: Strongest support: inpatient teaching for people new to insulin. Weakest: follow-up calls on their own.
Notes: A small trial found the benefit concentrated in patients newly discharged on insulin (Wexler et al., 2012). In a review of teach-back, all but one of 20 studies found it worked (Talevski et al., 2020). That is why teaching sits at the center of the bundle and follow-up sits inside it rather than standing alone.
Slide 4: The Five Parts and the Resource Nurse
Slide: Dose on the home pen with teach-back. One-page plan. Pen on the first insulin day. Texts on days one, three, seven. Class seat. A resource nurse on every unit.
Notes: The resource nurse replaced the second educator the original business case assumed, following a tiered model linked to fewer readmissions elsewhere (Drincic et al., 2017).
Slide 5: How We Spread It
Slide: Two units per wave, waves roughly six weeks apart, eight units in all. Eleven logged changes, all within the core.
Notes: The staggered start was meant to strengthen the evaluation. Each change, from weekend pens to the evening-before dose, is dated in the log.
Slide 6: Delivery
Slide: All five parts: 81 percent. Pen by the first insulin day: 88 percent, a sustained shift on the run chart.
Notes: This is the project's firmest finding. The pen measure stayed above the baseline median for seven months in a row.
Slide 7: Returns
Slide: Before, 32 returns in 223 patients. After, 13 in 144. The true change could lie anywhere from 11.9 points down to 1.2 up.
Notes: The direction matches published work. The size matches our aim. The interval is wide because the comparison is small; detecting a change this size with confidence would take about 600 patients in each period.
A defense earns trust on the slide where the result is weakest, not the one where it is strongest.
Slide 8: Safety and Cost
Slide: No slower discharges. No rise in lows. About $74,900, under budget.
Notes: The balancing measures matter because a bundle that delayed discharge or caused lows would fail even with fewer returns.
Slide 9: Who Did Less Well
Slide: Medicaid or no insurance: 30 of 41 got every part; 6 of 41 came back. Everyone else: 7 of 103 came back.
Notes: The gap narrowed in delivery after early prior authorization began, but not in returns. Cost after discharge is the likely reason, which is where the next cycle should go.
Slide 10: What We Did Not Expect
Slide: A third of patients with correction scales were unsure of their dose. Before the scale was taught on its own, 8 of 13 such patients were unsure; afterward, 5 of 31.
Notes: This may be the most useful finding for other hospitals, and I present it as an observation that needs testing.
Slide 11: Limitations
Slide: Before-and-after design. Returns counted only at our hospital. Small numbers. A bundle that changed as it spread.
Notes: Each limitation could push the result either way, and I have said so in the paper rather than choosing the direction that flatters the project.
Slide 12: What the Project Contributes
Slide: A workable delivery model. A recorded set of adaptations. A question about correction scales.
Notes: The project does not prove the bundle lowers returns. It shows how to deliver it across very different units at low cost, and it raises a question published discharge studies have not asked directly.
Slide 13: Recommendations
Slide: Keep the bundle. Measure another year. Address cost after discharge.
Notes: The hospital has already approved the first two.
Slide 14: Thank You and Questions
Slide: The patients, the resource nurses, the hospitalists and pharmacy made this work.
Notes: I would welcome questions, especially about the result on slide 7.
Prepared Answers
If asked what the project accomplished without a significant result, the answer is on slides 6, 8 and 12: reliable, safe, inexpensive delivery and a finding others can test. Asked whether the bundle caused the fall, the honest reply is that a before-and-after design cannot settle that, and no unit showed a sharp break at its own start, so the claim stays at consistent with benefit. If asked what would be done differently, the answer is to plan for weekends and correction scales before go-live and to engage case management from the start.
References
Drincic, A., Pfeffer, E., Luo, J., & Goldner, W. S. (2017). The effect of diabetes case management and Diabetes Resource Nurse program on readmissions of patients with diabetes mellitus. Journal of Clinical & Translational Endocrinology, 8, 29-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcte.2017.03.003
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
Wexler, D. J., Beauharnais, C. C., Regan, S., Nathan, D. M., Cagliero, E., & Larkin, M. E. (2012). Impact of inpatient diabetes management, education, and improved discharge transition on glycemic control 12 months after discharge. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 98(2), 249-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2012.09.016
NU806 Unit 8 instructions, in plain terms
The Unit 8 prompt typically asks for the final defense presentation, written as slides with speaker notes, for faculty and often the practice site. The instructions will usually fix the minutes allowed and the number of slides. The defense should cover the problem, evidence, intervention, implementation, results, limitations, contribution and recommendations, in an order that lets the committee follow the argument. Instructors look for honest treatment of results, especially uncertain ones, and for preparation for hard questions. Slides should carry short points while the notes carry explanation and citations. Figures must match the final paper. Many prompts ask students to state the project's contribution to practice and the DNP Essentials. A closing slide thanking contributors and inviting questions is customary, and prepared answers often follow the slides.
Inside the NU806 Unit 8 example
The deck opens with a slide that gives the aim and the result together, and notes that promise to explain the interval. Problem and evidence slides follow, with citations in the notes. The bundle, the resource nurse and the spread take one slide each. Delivery comes before returns, so the committee sees the firmest finding first. The returns slide gives counts and the interval in plain words, with a highlighted line about earning trust on the weakest slide. Safety and cost, the payer gap and the correction-scale finding each get a slide, then limitations, contribution and recommendations. The last slide thanks the people who made the work happen and invites questions about the returns result. Prepared answers to three hard questions follow the slides.
Where the points sit in the NU806 Unit 8 rubric
Defense presentations are usually graded on content, organization, honesty and readiness for questions. Every major part of the project should appear, with figures matching the paper. Organization earns credit when the committee can follow the argument from problem to recommendation. Graders pay close attention to how uncertain results are presented, rewarding clear statements of what was and was not shown. Limitations and contribution slides are expected at the doctoral level. Notes should carry reasoning and citations, leaving slides readable. Preparation for difficult questions is often assessed directly. Timing within the limit and a professional close are expected. Correct APA 7 references for every study cited in the notes complete the rubric.
NU806 Unit 8 help: mistakes that cost points
Defense decks commonly hide the weakest result in a crowded slide near the end, which committees notice. Another frequent problem is spending most of the time on background and methods the committee already approved, leaving little for results and contribution. Some students present a non-significant outcome as a success, inviting the hardest questions. Others apologize for it so heavily that they undersell what the project did achieve. Slides packed with text, figures that differ from the paper and no prepared answers are common causes of a difficult defense. Before drafting, list the questions you would least like to hear and answer each in two sentences. Share your results and time limit, and a defense deck can be drafted for your committee.
Get an NU806 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Send your project, the time limit and the presentation instructions with the rubric. A custom presentation sets out slides and speaker notes for the defense. The first is free, delivered 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.
More NU806 papers and DNP samples
- NU806 Unit 1: DNP Dissemination Plan Post
- NU806 Unit 2: DNP Results Section
- NU806 Unit 3: DNP Discussion Section
- NU806 Unit 4: Structured QI Abstract
- NU806 Unit 5: DNP Contribution Seminar Reflection
- NU806 Unit 6: DNP Project Poster
- NU806 Unit 7: DNP Project Executive Summary
- NU806 Unit 9: Journal Selection and Cover Letter
- NU806 Unit 10: Program Reflection
- NU813 Unit 8: Site Communication Piece
- NU804 Unit 8: Unexpected Finding Discussion
- NU823 Unit 8: Presentation Script
- NU803 Unit 8: Statistical Analysis Write-Up
NU806 Unit 8 questions, answered
How long is a DNP defense?
Often 20 to 30 minutes with questions, but follow your program's instructions.
What should the last slide say?
The main finding, its limits and what should happen next.
How do I prepare for questions?
List the likely questions about design, results and limits and write a short answer to each.
Where can I find a free NU806 Unit 8 sample paper?
The complete NU806 Unit 8 final defense presentation is published here, with fourteen slides and notes defending an insulin discharge project whose main result was not statistically significant.
How does the NU806 Unit 8 sample answer the significance question?
By pointing to reliable, safe and inexpensive delivery, a fall in returns consistent with published work and a finding others can test, while stating that the design cannot prove the bundle caused the change.