| Course | NU823 DNP Project Dissemination |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Final project report |
| Length | About 1,240 words, 7 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 NU823 Unit 2
One Document, One Tense: A Final Project Report Joining the Proposal, Implementation and Evaluation Chapters of a Standing-Order Diabetic Foot Exam Project, With Deviations Moved Into Methods and Bridges Written Between Chapters
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU823: DNP Project Dissemination
Unit 2 Final Project Report
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The project, health center and every figure are composite; the full report runs to about [60] pages, and this sample gives the abstract, the joining passages and condensed chapters.
Abstract
Background: At a community health center serving about [2,346] adults with diabetes, [54] percent had a documented foot exam in the prior twelve months, below the annual standard. Aim: To increase annual foot exams by making the exam part of rooming. Methods: A twelve-week quality improvement project at two clinics. Under a standing order, trained medical assistants performed a monofilament test, vibration test and inspection for eligible patients during rooming; providers assigned a risk category, and those at high risk were sent on to a podiatry practice under a referral agreement. Fidelity was monitored with a conceptual framework for implementation fidelity; weekly coverage was plotted on a run chart. Results: [598] patients were examined. Protocol coverage at the main clinic was [84] percent; the run chart showed a shift above the baseline median of [41] percent. Across the registry, the share examined within a year went from [54] to [66] percent, a change that outreach calls and outside podiatry reports also fed. Referral follow-up within [30] days was [70] percent against an [80] percent target. Conclusions: Rooming-based foot exams were feasible and widely delivered; referral access, especially for uninsured patients, limits what the exam can achieve.
Chapter 1: The Problem
The problem chapter, first written as part of the proposal, keeps its evidence but changes its tense. Where it once said the project will address a gap, it now says the project addressed one. The gap itself is restated with the cleaned registry figure: [54] percent of [2,346] adults with diabetes had a documented foot exam in the past year, and providers completed the exam at about [41] percent of scheduled diabetes visits in the quarter before launch. The chapter's purpose statement and three objectives are kept in their original wording, because the results chapter answers them one by one.
Chapter 2: The Evidence, Trimmed
The literature review was the longest chapter of the proposal, and it is the chapter most cut. Three separate introductions to diabetic neuropathy, one in each of the first three chapters, became a single paragraph here. The review now carries only the sources the argument uses: the yearly exam itself, as the current standards set it out (American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee, 2024); a task force description of the comprehensive foot exam and monofilament technique (Boulton et al., 2008), and the international risk classification that sets referral and follow-up (Schaper et al., 2024). Studies of foot care education, cited in the proposal but never used in the project, were removed.
Chapter 3: Framework and Protocol
Carroll and colleagues' conceptual framework for implementation fidelity organizes the evaluation, with adherence as the measure and quality of delivery, participant responsiveness, facilitation and complexity as moderators (Carroll et al., 2007). The protocol is presented as approved, with its five components: huddle flag, exam at rooming, provider risk classification, referral and documentation. A bridge opens the chapter: having shown that the exam matters and how it should be done, the report now sets out how the project planned to make it routine.
Chapter 4: Methods, as Run
The methods chapter changed most. In the proposal it described a plan; in the final report it describes what happened, including every departure from the plan, each with its date. Four departures are reported here rather than in separate memos. First, eligibility was widened in [week 5] by the medical director to any visit by an eligible patient, and coverage is therefore reported on both the approved and the wider rule. Second, the satellite clinic launched in [week 6] rather than [week 5] because its equipment was backordered. Third, from [week 3] to [week 6], float medical assistants could not see the flowsheet, and [41] exams recorded in free text were recovered and entered. Fourth, from [week 8] to [week 11], the satellite ran a split exam, inspection by the new assistant and sensory testing by the nurse practitioner, after its trained assistant resigned.
A methods chapter that described the approved plan while the results reflected the altered one would contradict itself on every page that followed.
Measures, data sources and analysis follow: the flowsheet extract, the care-gap registry and the referral log; run chart rules set in advance (Perla et al., 2011); and the separation of in-clinic exams from outside reports. A bridge closes the chapter by telling the reader which objective each part of the results chapter answers.
Chapter 5: Results
Results are organized by the three objectives in their original wording.
Objective one, to complete a foot exam at [75] percent or more of eligible scheduled visits at the main clinic by week six: met. Protocol coverage was [82.5] percent in week six and [84] percent over twelve weeks. On the run chart, every one of the twelve implementation weeks sits above the baseline median, a shift by the rule set in advance.
Objective two, to complete every required element in [90] percent or more of exams: met from [week 7]. Content adherence was [84] percent in weeks three to six and [93] percent afterward, after vibration testing was reviewed at huddle.
Objective three, to ensure [80] percent of high-risk patients without a podiatrist are seen within [30] days: not met. [21] of [30] were seen, [70] percent; [8] of [14] before the booking change in [week 11], and [13] of [16] after.
As a secondary measure, the annual exam rate across the registry climbed from [54] to [66] percent, with [503] patients examined by medical assistants, [95] by providers on the flowsheet and [71] through outside podiatry reports. Balancing measures, rooming time and deferrals, are reported in a table.
Chapter 6: Discussion
The discussion interprets rather than restates. Its central question is how much of the rise in the annual rate the project produced. Quarterly outreach calls in [week 8] and the scanned outside reports that followed contributed to the rise, and there was no comparison clinic, so the chapter credits the project with the in-clinic exams, which no outreach could produce, and does not claim the whole rise. The referral gap is discussed as the protocol's weak link and linked to cost for uninsured patients, a problem a scheduling change cannot solve. Limitations are specific to this project: a single health center, a composite of approved and widened eligibility, a data error for three and a half weeks and a short period that cannot show any effect on ulcers. The conclusion stops at what was shown: the exam can be moved to rooming and delivered reliably, and the pathway after the exam needs funding as much as the exam itself. The report follows SQUIRE 2.0's expectation that limitations and context be stated alongside the findings (Ogrinc et al., 2016).
Appendices
The appendices hold the standing order, the training checklist, the observation checklist for monofilament technique, the fidelity monitoring plan, the protocol deviation memo and the analysis steps. Practicum hours and preceptor evaluations belong to the student's program file, so none of them appear here.
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
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
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
Perla, R. J., Provost, L. P., & Murray, S. K. (2011). The run chart: A simple analytical tool for learning from variation in healthcare processes. BMJ Quality & Safety, 20(1), 46-51. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs.2009.037895
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
NU823 Unit 2 instructions, in plain terms
Unit 2 asks you to turn chapters written across several courses into one finished report. Most prompts expect an abstract, the problem and purpose, the evidence review, the framework and intervention, methods, results and discussion, with references and appendices, often close to sixty pages in APA 7. The work this unit adds is joining: one tense throughout, repeated background cut, bridges between chapters, and every change made during implementation reported in methods. Faculty look for results organized by the objectives exactly as first written, each with a verdict, and a discussion that interprets rather than repeats. The abstract should be written from the finished report, not copied from the proposal.
How the NU 823 Unit 2 example is put together
The structured abstract leads, giving background, aim, methods, results and conclusions in one paragraph. Chapter one keeps its evidence and changes tense. Chapter two is cut to three sources, with unused education studies removed. Chapter three presents the fidelity framework and the five protocol components, opening with a bridge. Chapter four changes most: wider eligibility, the late satellite launch, the hidden float-profile exams and the satellite's split exam are each reported with dates, with the highlighted line on why methods must match the results. Chapter five answers three objectives by name. Chapter six weighs the outreach calls, names specific limitations and stops at what was shown, and the appendices list the supporting documents.
Where the points sit in the NU823 Unit 2 rubric
A final project report in this course is commonly marked on coherence, completeness, accuracy of results, and quality of interpretation. Coherence earns credit when tense is consistent, background is not repeated and each chapter leads into the next. Completeness rewards reports in which every deviation and adaptation appears in methods with its date. Results are judged on whether each objective is answered in its original wording with a clear verdict and figures that agree with earlier documents. Interpretation points go to discussions that weigh confounders, credit the project only with what it can defend and name limitations particular to the site. Abstract quality and APA 7 formatting account for the remainder.
NU823 Unit 2 help from the desk
Reports often come back because chapters still read as separate papers, with three introductions to the same condition and a methods chapter still in the future tense. Another frequent issue is leaving deviations in appendix memos, so methods describe one project and results another. Some reports rewrite objectives to match the results, which faculty notice at once. Others restate results in the discussion instead of interpreting them. Unify the tense, cut repeated background to one paragraph, move every change into methods with a date, answer each objective in its original words, and let the discussion argue about what the results mean before writing the abstract last.
Get an NU823 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Collect your earlier chapters, the memos documenting any deviations and the Unit 2 instructions with rubric, and send them together. From those, the sample report unifies tense, moves every departure into methods, cuts repeated background and interprets results against known confounders. It is ready in 24-48h, and the first custom sample is free. 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 NU823 papers and DNP samples
- NU823 Unit 1: Venue Selection Rationale
- NU823 Unit 3: Discussion Board Post
- NU823 Unit 4: Manuscript Draft
- NU823 Unit 5: Author Guideline Audit
- NU823 Unit 6: Poster Draft
- NU823 Unit 7: Executive Summary
- NU823 Unit 8: Presentation Script
- NU823 Unit 9: Sustainability Plan
- NU823 Unit 10: Dissemination Reflection
- NU703 Unit 2: DNP and PhD Role Comparison
- NU813 Unit 2: Fidelity Monitoring Plan
- NU713 Unit 2: Social Determinants Profile
- NU803 Unit 2: Readiness Assessment, Nine Conditions
NU823 Unit 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free NU823 Unit 2 sample paper?
This page holds the full condensed NU823 Unit 2 final project report, with a structured abstract, six chapters joined in one tense, deviations in methods, results by objective and an interpretive discussion, with six references. We can prepare a report from your own chapters if you send them.
What changes between the proposal and the NU823 Unit 2 final report?
Tense moves from future to past, repeated background is cut, and every change made during implementation moves into methods. In the sample, wider eligibility, a late satellite launch, hidden free-text exams and a split exam at the satellite are reported there with dates.
Should deviations go in the methods chapter or an appendix?
In methods. A methods chapter describing the approved plan while the results reflect the altered one would contradict itself. The original memos can still sit in an appendix for reference.
How are results organized in a DNP final report?
By the objectives in their original wording, each with a verdict. The sample reports two objectives met, coverage and exam completeness, and one not met: podiatry saw 21 of 30 referred patients within a month, short of the four in five the plan set.
When should the abstract be written?
Last, from the finished report. An abstract carried over from the proposal will describe plans rather than results, and it often misses changes made during implementation that the final document now reports.