NU823 Unit 1 Venue Selection Rationale Example

Readers Before Venues: A Venue Selection Rationale for Disseminating Standing-Order Diabetic Foot Exams From a Composite Community Health Center to Primary Care Clinicians, Nurse Practitioners, Health Center Leaders and the Medical Assistants Who Did the Work

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

NU823: DNP Project Dissemination

Unit 1 Venue Selection Rationale

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The project, health center and figures are composite; conference dates, word limits and calls for abstracts are bracketed, and nothing is described as submitted.

The Finding to Be Shared

Over twelve weeks, medical assistants at a community health center's two clinics examined the feet of [598] adults with diabetes during rooming under a standing order, and the share of the diabetes registry with an exam in the past year rose from [54] to [66] percent. Five of six protocol components met their targets; podiatry follow-up for high-risk patients reached [70] percent against an [80] percent target, with cost a barrier for uninsured patients. The annual foot exam is a long-standing recommendation for every adult who has the disease (American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee, 2024), so the news is not that the exam matters. It is a workable way to get it done in a busy clinic, and an honest account of where the pathway after the exam still breaks.

Who Could Use It

Four groups could change what they do because of this project. Primary care clinicians of every discipline manage most adults with diabetes in the United States, and they decide whether the exam stays with the provider or moves to rooming. Nurse practitioners, who often lead clinics and supervise rooming staff, are the group whose role in the protocol was largest: writing and supervising the standing order, assigning risk and managing referrals. Health center leaders decide whether medical assistant time, equipment and podiatry access are funded after the project ends. And the medical assistants and nurses at the site need to hear the results first, because they produced them and will sustain them.

A rationale that begins with journals ends up writing for editors; one that begins with readers ends up writing for the people who might copy the change.

Matching Each Group to a Venue

Each venue below was chosen because its own published description says it reaches the group in question. Scope statements were read on the publishers' websites on [date] and are paraphrased, with the date kept beside them, since journals revise their aims.

1. Primary care clinicians: Clinical Diabetes, the American Diabetes Association's journal written for primary care clinicians. Its published scope, as read on [date], includes practical reports on improving diabetes care in primary care settings. Format: a quality improvement report of [length per instructions]. Message: moving the exam to rooming roughly doubled the reach of a step providers were completing for about half of patients.

2. Nurse practitioners: JAANP, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners' peer-reviewed title. Format: an original quality improvement article. Message: a nurse practitioner can design and supervise a standing order that shifts a screening task to rooming staff without losing technique, if training includes signed-off exams and observation continues.

3. Nurse practitioners and nurses in the region: a poster at the [state] nurse practitioner association's annual conference, call for abstracts closing [date]. Format: a three-panel poster. Message: the result, with its confounders shown on the chart.

4. Health center leaders: an executive summary addressed to the chief medical officer and chief operating officer. Format: one page. Message: what it will cost each year to keep the exam in rooming and to close the referral gap.

5. Site staff: a one-page summary and a ten-minute talk at the all-staff meeting in [Month]. Message: what their work did for patients and what happens next.

Ranking the Manuscript Options

Clinical Diabetes leads the manuscript options even though the author is a nurse practitioner. The change belongs to primary care as a whole: any clinic, whether led by physicians, nurse practitioners or physician assistants, could move the foot exam to rooming. A journal read across those disciplines reaches the largest group of potential adopters. The journal's readers are also the people who manage the risk categories and referrals that follow the exam, so the referral gap is directly relevant to them.

JAANP is kept as the alternative. A version for that journal would need a different emphasis: more on the nurse practitioner's role in drafting the standing order, establishing competency and supervising medical assistants, and less on clinic-level coverage. That revision is outlined in a short note so it can be done quickly if the first journal declines the manuscript.

A third option, a diabetes education journal, was considered and set aside. Its readers are mainly diabetes care and education specialists, and the project's change sits in rooming, a part of the visit those specialists rarely control.

Different Messages for Different Readers

The same results are framed differently for each audience, without changing the figures. Clinicians need the detection and referral pathway: how many high-risk patients were found, how many reached podiatry, and why the referral step lagged. Nurse practitioners need the workflow and fidelity: the standing order, training with three signed-off exams, content adherence and observed technique. Leaders need cost and staffing: [3.5] added minutes per rooming, equipment replacement and the price of podiatry access for uninsured patients. Staff need what their work meant for patients. Writing for a broader audience asks the author to choose the message for each reader rather than shorten one message for all of them (Brownson et al., 2018).

Reporting Standards Across Venues

Whatever the venue, the manuscript will follow SQUIRE 2.0, the reporting guideline for quality improvement work, which asks authors to describe context, the intervention, how it was studied and what limits the conclusions (Ogrinc et al., 2016). Following it from the start keeps the poster, summary and talk consistent with the manuscript, since all of them draw on the same results section.

Sequence

The venues are reached in an order set by who should hear first. Site staff hear the results before anyone outside the health center, at the all-staff meeting in [Month], because the work was theirs and because a result they first read about in a journal would sour the relationship the sustainability plan depends on. The executive summary goes to the officers in the same month, since the funding decision for medical assistant time falls in the next budget cycle. The poster abstract follows the conference's call in [Month], and the manuscript is drafted alongside it, so the poster can be revised against the manuscript's tighter results section before printing. Each later product draws on the same final numbers, which prevents the small inconsistencies that appear when a poster is made from midpoint data and a manuscript from final data.

What Is Not Claimed

Nothing in this rationale has been submitted, accepted or scheduled. Conference dates and word limits are bracketed until the current call is read. Whether and when to submit is the author's decision, made with any coauthors at the site.

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

Brownson, R. C., Eyler, A. A., Harris, J. K., Moore, J. B., & Tabak, R. G. (2018). Getting the word out: New approaches for disseminating public health science. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 24(2), 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000673

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