| Course | NU813 DNP Project Implementation |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Fidelity monitoring plan |
| Length | About 840 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 2
Adherence as the Measure, Everything Else a Reason It Might Slip: A Fidelity Monitoring Plan for Standing-Order Diabetic Foot Exams, Built on Carroll and Colleagues' Framework From Sources the Health Center Already Keeps
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU813: DNP Project Implementation
Unit 2 Fidelity Monitoring Plan
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The health center, sources and figures are composite; thresholds and counts are bracketed.
The Framework
Carroll and colleagues proposed that implementation fidelity is best measured as adherence, meaning whether an intervention is delivered as designed, with subcategories of content, frequency, duration and coverage, and that other factors, including the complexity of the intervention, the strategies used to support it, the quality of delivery and participants' responsiveness, moderate how much adherence is achieved (Carroll et al., 2007). Implementation research treats fidelity as one of several implementation outcomes, distinct from outcomes for patients, and argues that measuring it helps explain why an intervention succeeded or failed (Proctor et al., 2011). This plan applies the framework to the five components of the foot exam project.
Adherence: Content
The question is whether each exam includes all required elements: visual inspection of both feet, monofilament testing at the required sites on each foot, vibration testing with the tuning fork and documentation of footwear. Source: the flowsheet, which has a field for each element. Measure: the share of completed flowsheets with every element filled, reviewed weekly for all exams. Threshold: [90] percent. Response: if below threshold, the nurse educator reviews incomplete flowsheets with the assistants involved.
Adherence: Coverage
The question is whether eligible patients receive the exam. Source: the care-gap report, which lists adults with diabetes whose last foot exam was more than twelve months ago, linked to the day's visits. Measure: the share of eligible visits at which the exam was completed, weekly by clinic. Threshold: [75] percent by the end of [week 6] at the main clinic. Response: if below threshold, the clinic manager reviews the huddle process for flagging patients.
Adherence: Frequency and Duration
Frequency means once per twelve months for each eligible patient; the care-gap report handles this by closing the gap on completion. Duration is the time the exam adds to rooming. Source: [ten] directly observed roomings a week, timed by the nurse educator. Measure: median added minutes. Threshold: no more than [four]. Response: if longer, the rooming sequence is reviewed.
Adherence: The Referral Component
The question is whether patients found to be at high risk are referred and seen. Source: the referral log and the podiatry practice's return reports. Measures: the share of high-risk patients with a referral placed within [one] week, and the share seen within [30] days. Thresholds: [90] and [70] percent. This component is monitored separately because referral follow-up across organizations is often where care breaks down; a review of specialty referrals in the United States found that primary care clinicians often lose track of referrals once sent, unsure whether the visit happened or what the specialist advised (Mehrotra et al., 2011).
Adherence tells the project whether the exam happened; the moderators tell it why it did not.
Moderator: Quality of Delivery
Whether the exam is done well, not just done. Source: the nurse educator's observation of [ten] exams a week, scored against a checklist of monofilament technique, such as applying the filament until it bends and avoiding calluses. Threshold: [90] percent of checklist items correct. Response: individual coaching.
Moderator: Patient Responsiveness
Whether patients accept the exam. Source: a flowsheet field for refusals with a reason. Measure: refusals as a share of offered exams. Threshold for review: above [10] percent. Response: review of reasons, such as time or discomfort removing footwear, and adjustment of the rooming script.
Moderator: Facilitation
Whether support strategies are in place. Source: training records and huddle attendance. Measures: the share of assistants signed off on technique, and the share of huddles at which foot-exam gaps were flagged. Thresholds: [100] percent signed off before independent practice, and [80] percent of huddles.
Moderator: Complexity
The intervention is simple for a single visit but spans two organizations for high-risk patients. Complexity is not measured weekly but recorded as context: the referral component, crossing into the podiatry practice, is expected to have lower adherence than the screening components, and results will be interpreted with that in mind.
Why Monitor Fidelity at All
Without fidelity data, a disappointing result could mean that foot exams do not help, or that they were not done, or that they were done badly, and the project could not tell which. With fidelity data, a flat foot exam rate paired with low coverage points to rooming and huddle problems, while a flat rate paired with high coverage points to problems in the denominator or the data. The plan's purpose is to make those distinctions possible from the first weeks, when there is still time to correct course.
Reporting
Fidelity measures will be reported weekly to the clinic manager and monthly to the medical director alongside outcome data, so that a gap in outcomes can be read against the fidelity that produced it.
References
Carroll, C., Patterson, M., Wood, S., Booth, A., Rick, J., & Balain, S. (2007). A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implementation Science, 2, Article 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-2-40
Mehrotra, A., Forrest, C. B., & Lin, C. Y. (2011). Dropping the baton: Specialty referrals in the United States. The Milbank Quarterly, 89(1), 39-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00619.x
Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., & Hensley, M. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
NU813 Unit 2 instructions, in plain terms
Unit 2 asks how you will know the intervention is being delivered as designed. A typical prompt wants a named fidelity framework, the components of the intervention, a measure and data source for each, thresholds that trigger action, and a reporting plan. Four to six pages is common. Faculty expect the framework to organize the plan rather than sit in an opening paragraph, so each measure should map to one of its elements. Data sources should be ones the site already produces, such as flowsheets, observation logs or training records, because a plan that depends on new forms tends to stall. Thresholds should be stated as numbers, and every threshold needs a response that names who acts when it is missed.
How the NU 813 Unit 2 example is put together
Carroll and colleagues' framework opens the paper, with adherence as the core and four moderators, and implementation outcomes are separated from patient outcomes. Content adherence follows, checking whether each flowsheet records inspection, monofilament sites, vibration and footwear, with a ninety percent threshold. Coverage uses the care-gap report linked to the day's visits and a 75 percent target at the main clinic by week six. Frequency and duration follow, then the referral component, monitored apart from screening because the two can fail independently. Quality of delivery rests on the nurse educator's weekly observations against a technique checklist. Patient responsiveness counts refusals with reasons, facilitation tracks sign-offs and huddle flags, and complexity is recorded as context before the reporting schedule.
Where the points sit in the NU813 Unit 2 rubric
A fidelity monitoring plan in this course tends to be graded on fit of framework, completeness of components, quality of measures, and the link between data and action. Framework fit earns points when every measure traces to an element of the chosen model. Completeness rewards plans that cover each component of the intervention, including any step handled by a partner organization. Measures are judged on whether each has a defined source, a numerator and denominator, a frequency and a threshold. The data-to-action criterion looks for a named response and a named person for every threshold. Smaller shares of the rubric go to explaining why fidelity matters for interpreting results and to APA 7 formatting of the sources cited.
NU813 Unit 2 help from the desk
Plans in Unit 2 often lose points by describing fidelity in general terms without a single numeric threshold. A second common gap is measuring only whether the intervention happened, leaving out quality of delivery, so a rushed exam counts the same as a careful one. Some drafts invent new data collection forms that the site will never fill in. Others monitor the main component and forget the hand-off to a partner, which in many projects is the weakest link. Fixing these means one framework applied element by element, sources the site already keeps, a number and a responder beside each measure, and a separate line for any step that crosses into another organization.
Get an NU813 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
What does the intervention look like when it is done right, and who could watch it happen on site? Put that in a paragraph, attach your approved protocol with the Unit 2 prompt and rubric, and the plan comes back defining adherence component by component. First custom sample free; turnaround 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 1: Implementation Timeline
- 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 2: Readiness Assessment, Nine Conditions
- NU703 Unit 2: DNP and PhD Role Comparison
- NU800 Unit 2: PICOT Worksheet, Steroid Hyperglycemia
- NU713 Unit 2: Social Determinants Profile
NU813 Unit 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free NU813 Unit 2 sample paper?
The complete NU813 Unit 2 fidelity monitoring plan is on this page, covering Carroll and colleagues' framework, four adherence measures with sources and thresholds, four moderators, the reason for monitoring and the reporting schedule, with three references. A plan built around your own intervention can be requested.
What fidelity framework does the NU813 Unit 2 sample use?
It uses the conceptual framework for implementation fidelity published by Carroll and colleagues in 2007, which treats adherence as the measure of fidelity and lists quality of delivery, participant responsiveness, facilitation strategies and complexity as moderators.
Why is the referral step monitored separately?
Screening and referral can succeed or fail independently. A clinic could examine nearly every eligible patient and still leave high-risk patients unseen by podiatry, so the sample gives the referral its own measure rather than folding it into coverage.
How many exams should be observed for quality of delivery?
Enough to see each clinic regularly, which matters more than a large total. The sample has the nurse educator observe about ten exams a week against a technique checklist, with individual coaching when fewer than ninety percent of items are correct.
What data sources work best for a DNP fidelity plan?
Sources the site already keeps. In this NU 813 sample they are the flowsheet, the care-gap report, training records, huddle sheets and the referral coordinator's log, so monitoring continues even on days the student is not at the clinic.