| Course | NU813 DNP Project Implementation |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Site communication piece |
| Length | About 730 words, 5 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 8
Shoes Off, Gaps Closed: A One-Page Site Communication Piece for Medical Assistants, Front Desk Staff and Providers at a Composite Community Health Center Halfway Through Standing-Order Diabetic Foot Exams, With a Cover Note to Faculty
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU813: DNP Project Implementation
Unit 8 Site Communication Piece
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The health center, staff and figures are composite; counts and weeks are bracketed, and no figure on the page is small enough to point to a patient.
The Page: Headline
[367] of our patients with diabetes have had their feet checked since [Month], without needing a separate appointment.
What It Meant for Patients
Every one of those exams happened during a visit the patient was already making. For [31] people, the exam found a foot at high risk, from lost feeling in the toes, a deformity or an old ulcer, and each of them now has a plan with the podiatry team. For a few, the exam found a problem that needed care that same day. Diabetes can take away the feeling in a person's feet so slowly that they do not notice, and a check at rooming is often the only way it gets found before a wound does.
Your Ideas Changed the Process
Two things work differently because you told us they were not working. You said patients were struggling to reach their own feet in two rooms, so step stools went into every room. You said some patients arrive too sick or too swollen to take their shoes off, so the flowsheet now has a deferral box: tick it, add the reason, and the exam waits for the next visit without counting against anyone. Thank you for speaking up, and keep doing it.
Two Things We Are Asking
At huddle, flag every patient with an open foot-exam gap, including walk-ins and patients coming in for something else. The huddle sheet now lists them all.
When the provider marks a patient high risk, hand the patient the blue podiatry card before they leave and tell them the referral coordinator will call within two working days. Patients who know the call is coming answer it.
What Comes Next
The satellite's training day is in [week 11]. The final results will be shared at the all-staff meeting in [Month]. Questions go to [Name], nurse educator, or [Name], project lead, both on the staff contact list.
Cover Note to Faculty: Audience and Reading Level
The page is meant for staff who will read it standing up, often in under a minute, so it is written at about a sixth-grade reading level, in short sentences, with headings that tell the reader what each block is for. It names no individual, because the exams were done by a team and singling out one assistant would invite comparison. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research places reflecting on and evaluating progress, including feedback to the people doing the work, among the processes that shape whether an innovation takes hold (Damschroder et al., 2009), and the page is that feedback in its plainest form.
Cover Note to Faculty: What Was Left Out
The weekly run chart and the three coverage figures from the midpoint report were left off deliberately. Staff do not need a denominator to know whether the habit is working, and a percentage that falls when eligibility widens would read as failure at a glance. The single total, [367], rises with every exam and is true under every rule. The figure of [31] high-risk patients is large enough that no reader could link it to a person; a count of two same-day problems, which a front desk worker might connect to a face, was replaced with "a few."
A number that a coworker could match to a patient they remember is a privacy risk, however small the page.
Cover Note to Faculty: Why These Two Requests
Each request targets a weak point in the midpoint data. The huddle flag addresses coverage at acute and walk-in visits, where most missed exams now occur. The podiatry card addresses referral follow-up, the component furthest below target, at [57] percent seen within [30] days. Carroll and colleagues treat facilitation strategies such as feedback and prompts as ways to support delivery as designed (Carroll et al., 2007). Asking for more than two changes on one page would dilute both.
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
Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4, Article 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
The Purdue Global NU813 Unit 8 instructions
Unit 8 asks you to report back to the people delivering the intervention, in language written for them rather than for faculty. Most versions want a short piece suitable for the site, such as a flyer, newsletter item or huddle handout, plus a brief rationale explaining the choices behind it. The site piece is usually one page; the rationale runs from half a page to two pages. Instructors look for a piece that leads with what staff did and what it meant for patients, credits the team rather than the student, asks for a small number of concrete actions, and protects privacy. The rationale should connect those choices to reading level, audience and the project's current data.
How this NU813 Unit 8 example is built
The page opens with a one-line headline giving the total number of patients examined. A block on what it meant for patients turns the high-risk count into people with a plan and explains, in plain words, why a rooming check finds problems patients cannot feel. The next block credits staff feedback for two changes, step stools and the deferral box. Two requests follow as bullets, each tied to a reason a staff member would accept. A short block gives the next dates and contacts. The cover note to faculty then explains audience and reading level, why the run chart and percentages were left out, how small counts were handled for privacy, and why only two requests appear.
Reading the NU813 Unit 8 grading rubric
Communication pieces in NU 813 are usually graded on fit to audience, accuracy, clarity of the requests, and the strength of the rationale. Audience fit earns credit when language, length and layout suit staff reading between patients. Accuracy rewards figures that match the project's own data and are free of any count small enough to identify a patient. Clear requests score well when they are few, concrete and tied to the next shift. The rationale is judged on whether it explains each design choice, including what was deliberately left out, with support from an implementation framework where relevant. Smaller portions of the grade cover professional appearance and APA 7 citations in the cover note.
NU813 Unit 8 help from the desk
Drafts often read like a shortened version of the midpoint report, with rates, medians and a chart that staff will skip. Others thank the student's preceptor or the student's own effort and never mention the assistants who did the exams. A third problem is a list of six or seven requests, which dilutes every one of them. Small counts tied to recent events, such as two patients treated on one day, can let a coworker recognize a patient. Write for a reader with one minute, lead with what staff achieved for patients, credit the group, ask for no more than two things, and use the cover note to defend every omission.
Get an NU813 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Tell us which staff will read this, where it will be posted or spoken, and what you want them to do next; add the Unit 8 prompt and rubric. Expect a page at staff reading level that credits the people who did the work, paired with a short note explaining its choices. Your first custom sample is free, 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 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 9: Seminar Reflection
- NU813 Unit 10: Implementation Summary
- NU803 Unit 8: Statistical Analysis Write-Up
- NU703 Unit 8: Professional Organization Analysis, ONS
- NU800 Unit 8: Evaluation Plan, Thresholds Set Early
- NU713 Unit 8: Secondary Data Appraisal, CDC WONDER
NU813 Unit 8 questions, answered
Where can I find a free NU813 Unit 8 sample paper?
This page holds the full NU813 Unit 8 site communication piece, with its headline, patient impact, credit for staff ideas, two requests and next steps, followed by a three-part cover note to faculty, with two references. You can request a staff-facing piece for your own project.
Should an NU813 Unit 8 piece include the project's data?
Only what staff can use at a glance. The sample gives one running total and the number of high-risk patients with a plan, and leaves the run chart and coverage percentages to faculty and leadership documents, where denominators can be explained.
Why does the sample leave out the run chart?
A chart needs a denominator to read correctly, and a percentage that falls when eligibility widens would look like failure to a busy reader. A single rising total is true under every counting rule and tells staff the habit is working.
How many requests should a staff communication piece make?
Usually one or two. The sample asks staff to flag every due patient at huddle and to hand high-risk patients the podiatry card, each aimed at a weak point in the midpoint data, because more requests would dilute both.
How is patient privacy protected on a one-page staff flyer?
By leaving out any count small enough that a coworker could connect it to a face. The sample replaces two same-day foot problems with the words "a few" and names no individual staff member or patient.