| Course | NU813 DNP Project Implementation |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 1 |
| Paper type | Implementation timeline |
| Length | About 890 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 NU813 Unit 1
Built Backward From Four Arrivals: An Implementation Timeline for Standing-Order Diabetic Foot Exams at a Composite Community Health Center, Main Clinic in Week 3 and the Satellite Two Weeks Later
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU813: DNP Project Implementation
Unit 1 Implementation Timeline
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The health center, its clinics, vendors and dates are composite; weeks and counts are bracketed.
The Project in Brief
The project will make an annual comprehensive foot examination a standard part of rooming for adults with diabetes at [Riverside Community Health Center]'s main clinic and its satellite. Under a standing order, medical assistants will ask patients with an open foot-exam care gap to remove shoes and socks, perform a monofilament test and a visual inspection, and record the results in a new flowsheet; the provider will complete the risk assessment and refer patients at high risk to podiatry. The approach follows guidance that every adult with diabetes receive at least an annual comprehensive foot evaluation including monofilament testing (American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee, 2024). The health center's registry lists about [2,400] adults with diabetes, and the rolling twelve-month foot exam rate is [54] percent.
The Four Arrivals
The first arrival is equipment. Each exam room needs a 10-gram monofilament and a 128-Hz tuning fork, [22] rooms in all. Purchasing is handled by the operations department through the health center's group purchasing contract, with a standard lead time of [ten] business days.
The second is the flowsheet. Informatics must build a foot exam flowsheet with fields for inspection, monofilament sites and vibration sense, link it to the care-gap report so a completed exam closes the gap, and place it in the rooming navigator. The informatics queue is [three] weeks long.
The third is the standing order. The medical director must sign a standing order authorizing medical assistants to perform the screening components, and the health center's board quality committee must approve it as policy, meeting on the [first Tuesday] of the month.
The fourth is the referral agreement. The health center has no podiatrist, so a written agreement with [Lakeview Foot and Ankle], a community practice, must set how referrals are sent, how quickly high-risk patients are seen and how results come back. The practice's owner has agreed in principle; the agreement needs signatures from both organizations.
Every item on the critical path belongs to someone other than nursing, which is why the timeline is drawn from their calendars rather than from the project's.
Working Backward
The standing order is the latest possible item, because the board quality committee meets only monthly. If the order is submitted by [week minus 4], it will be approved at the meeting in [week minus 2]. The flowsheet, with a three-week queue, must be requested by [week minus 4] to be ready by [week minus 1], leaving a week for testing. Equipment ordered in [week minus 3] arrives by [week minus 1]. The referral agreement must be signed by launch, since the first high-risk patient could be found on day one.
Training
Medical assistants will be trained in the two weeks before launch: [one] hour of instruction on the monofilament and inspection technique, and [three] supervised examinations each, signed off by a nurse. The technique follows a published task force report on comprehensive foot examination and risk assessment in diabetes, which describes monofilament testing at defined sites and a visual inspection for deformity, callus and skin breakdown (Boulton et al., 2008). Providers will receive a [20]-minute briefing on the risk categories and referral pathway, using the international foot group's risk classification, which sorts patients from very low to high risk and sets how often each should be examined (Schaper et al., 2024).
Why Medical Assistants
The project places the screening with medical assistants rather than providers for a practical reason. Providers already have many tasks in a fifteen- or twenty-minute visit, and a foot exam that depends on the provider remembering it has, on the health center's own data, been done for only about half of patients. Medical assistants already room every patient, take vital signs and close other care gaps under standing orders, such as vaccines. Adding shoes and socks off and a monofilament test to rooming uses a step every visit already has.
Launch Sequence
The main clinic will launch in [week 3], counted from the start of the project term, with the satellite following in [week 5]. The two-week gap allows problems at the main clinic, such as flowsheet errors or rooming delays, to be fixed before the satellite begins, and allows the one nurse educator to be present for the first days at each site.
What Could Delay Launch
The likeliest delay is the flowsheet, since informatics priorities can change. If it is not ready, the fallback is a structured note template, but exams recorded that way will not close care gaps automatically, and the project will count them by chart review until the flowsheet arrives. A delay in the referral agreement would not stop screening but would leave high-risk patients waiting; the fallback is referral to the county hospital's podiatry clinic, which has a longer wait.
Review Points
The project lead will review the timeline weekly with the clinic manager, and at the end of [week 6] with the medical director, when both clinics should be running.
References
American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. (2024). 12. Retinopathy, neuropathy, and foot care: Standards of care in diabetes 2024. Diabetes Care, 47(Suppl. 1), S231-S243. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc24-S012
Boulton, A. J. M., Armstrong, D. G., Albert, S. F., Frykberg, R. G., Hellman, R., Kirkman, M. S., Lavery, L. A., LeMaster, J. W., Mills, J. L., Sr., Mueller, M. J., Sheehan, P., & Wukich, D. K. (2008). Comprehensive foot examination and risk assessment: A report of the Task Force of the Foot Care Interest Group of the American Diabetes Association, with endorsement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. Diabetes Care, 31(8), 1679-1685. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc08-9021
Schaper, N. C., van Netten, J. J., Apelqvist, J., Bus, S. A., Fitridge, R., Game, F., Monteiro-Soares, M., Senneville, E., & IWGDF Editorial Board. (2024). Practical guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetes-related foot disease (IWGDF 2023 update). Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews, 40(3), Article e3657. https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.3657
NU813 Unit 1 instructions, in plain terms
Unit 1 asks for the sequence that turns an approved project plan into a working change on a real site. Most versions want each task listed with its owner, the dependencies between tasks made explicit, a launch date, and some account of what happens if a step arrives late. Three to five pages is a common length, sometimes with a chart or table attached. Instructors look for a timeline that admits which steps belong to other departments, since a vendor shipment or a committee vote follows its own calendar. Training is expected to appear as a scheduled step with a sign-off rather than a single line, and a staggered launch across sites should come with a reason. Practicum hours and preceptor records do not belong in the timeline.
How this NU813 Unit 1 example is built
The paper opens with the project in brief, citing the guidance that every adult with diabetes needs at least an annual foot evaluation with monofilament testing. A section on the four arrivals names each item, the department that owns it and its lead time. Working backward then dates each prerequisite from launch, so a slip shows at once what it delays. Training follows, with one hour of instruction, three supervised exams per assistant and a provider briefing on the international foot group's risk categories. A short section defends giving the exam to medical assistants rather than providers. The launch sequence explains the two-week gap between clinics, and the delay section pairs each risk with a fallback before weekly review points close the plan.
NU813 Unit 1 rubric: what earns full points
Points for an implementation timeline usually gather around four areas: a complete task list, dependencies that are visible and correct, realistic dates with owners, and a credible response to delay. Completeness earns credit when equipment, data systems, policy approval, training and partner agreements all appear. Dependencies score well when the reader can trace which step gates which, especially along the critical path. Realism is judged on whether dates respect committee calendars and vendor lead times rather than the student's wishes. Contingency points go to timelines that name a fallback for the likeliest delays instead of promising that nothing will slip. Clear writing and APA 7 citations for the clinical standard carry a smaller share of the rubric.
Common NU813 Unit 1 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most frequent reason a Unit 1 timeline comes back with comments is that it is written forward from the student's own start date, as if every department will act on request. Another is a training line with no sign-off, which leaves faculty unsure who is competent on launch day. Some timelines launch every site at once without explaining why, and others list owners only as "team." Many skip contingency entirely. A stronger draft begins with the slowest item you do not control, dates everything backward from launch, and names a fallback beside each risk. Keep weeks as project weeks rather than course units, and leave hours and logs to your own records.
Get an NU813 Unit 1 example written to your instructions
Along with the Unit 1 prompt and rubric, include the plan your program approved, the site's clinic schedule and a note on who controls equipment and data there. The timeline written back draws the gating chain first, names owners beyond the student and states slack in days. It is free the first time and arrives in 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 NU813 papers and DNP samples
- NU813 Unit 2: Fidelity Monitoring Plan
- NU813 Unit 3: Status Report
- NU813 Unit 4: Barrier Analysis
- NU813 Unit 5: Discussion Board Post
- NU813 Unit 6: Protocol Deviation Memo
- NU813 Unit 7: Midpoint Data Report
- NU813 Unit 8: Site Communication Piece
- NU813 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
- NU813 Unit 10: Implementation Summary
- NU803 Unit 1: Change Model Application, Lippitt
- NU703 Unit 1: Discussion Post, What the DNP Adds
- NU800 Unit 1: Problem Statement, Steroid Glucose
- NU713 Unit 1: Discussion Post, Eviction and Diabetes
NU813 Unit 1 questions, answered
Where can I find a free NU813 Unit 1 sample paper?
This page carries the complete NU813 Unit 1 implementation timeline for diabetic foot exams, from the four arrivals and the backward dating through training, the clinic stagger, fallbacks and review points, with three references. A custom timeline for your own DNP project can be requested.
What is the critical path in an NU813 Unit 1 timeline?
It is the chain of tasks with no slack, where any delay moves the launch. In the sample it runs through the standing order, because the board quality committee meets only once a month, so that approval has to be submitted about four weeks before go-live.
Why do medical assistants do the foot exam in this sample?
Medical assistants already room every patient and close other care gaps under standing orders, while providers have little time left in a short visit. Adding shoes and socks off and a monofilament test to rooming uses a step every visit already has.
How far ahead should a DNP implementation timeline start?
Far enough to cover the slowest dependency. Here that means about four weeks before launch for the standing order and the informatics request, with equipment ordered three weeks out. Your own site's committee calendars and vendor lead times set the real starting point.
Should my NU 813 timeline include a fallback for each risk?
Yes, at least for the delays most likely to happen. The sample pairs a late flowsheet with a structured note template counted by chart review, and a late referral agreement with the county hospital's podiatry clinic, so screening can still start on time.