| Course | NU823 DNP Project Dissemination |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Poster draft |
| Length | About 930 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 NU823 Unit 6
One Chart in Three Layers: A Poster Draft for a State Nurse Practitioner Conference Showing Who Produced the Rise in Diabetic Foot Exams at a Composite Health Center, With the Referral Cascade Given Equal Weight
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU823: DNP Project Dissemination
Unit 6 Poster Draft
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The project and every figure are composite; board size, word limits and conference details are bracketed until the current template is read.
Board and Layout
The board follows the conference template, bracketed at [48] by [36] inches, in three vertical panels. The middle panel, about half the width, holds the chart. The left panel holds the problem and the change; the right panel holds the referral cascade and the take-home message. A footer of about [60] words gives setting, design and definitions. Total text is held to about [450] words, so the board can be read in the two or three minutes a visitor typically spends at a poster.
Headline
"Medical Assistants Doubled Foot Exam Coverage; Outreach and Outside Reports Also Raised the Yearly Rate." The headline states the result and its main limit in one line, so a reader who stops there still leaves with an accurate picture. Author names, credentials and the university appear below it in smaller type; the health center is described, not named.
Left Panel: The Problem and the Change
One large number, [54%], with a single line beneath it: adults with diabetes at the health center who had a foot exam in the past year, before the project. Below it, a simple line drawing of the rooming step: a patient seated with shoes off, a medical assistant holding a monofilament to the sole of the foot, and three labels, inspect, monofilament, tuning fork. Two short sentences explain the change: under a standing order, trained medical assistants now do the exam while rooming, and the provider assigns risk and refers. A note at the bottom of the panel cites the annual exam standard (American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee, 2024).
Middle Panel: The Chart
The chart is a stacked area chart of the registry's yearly foot exam rate, week by week, from [12] weeks before launch to the end of implementation. Three layers are stacked: patients whose most recent exam was by a medical assistant under the standing order, by a provider using the flowsheet, and by an outside podiatrist whose report was scanned into the chart. The baseline layer, exams done before the project that are still within twelve months, sits underneath in light gray. The top line climbs from [54] to [66] percent.
Four vertical markers are labeled at the week they occurred: main clinic launch, wider eligibility, satellite launch, and the quarterly outreach calls in [week 8]. A visitor can see that the outside-report layer thickens after the outreach marker, and that the medical assistant layer accounts for most of the rise.
A single line would have credited the project with exams that outside podiatrists performed; splitting the rate by source makes the result smaller and more believable.
Gridlines, the legend box and tick marks beyond the axis labels are removed. Each layer is named directly on the chart in the same color as its fill. The medical assistant layer is the darkest and the outside layer is cross-hatched, so the layers stay distinct in grayscale and for viewers with color vision deficiency.
Right Panel: The Referral Cascade
A horizontal bar for each step: [598] examined; [44] classified high risk; [30] referred to podiatry without an existing podiatrist and past the [30]-day mark; [21] seen within [30] days. The final bar is marked [70%] beside the [80%] target, and a short label notes what changed in [week 11], appointments made at checkout plus two held podiatry slots a week, after which [13] of [16] were seen. One line names the remaining barrier: two uninsured patients did not book after hearing the self-pay price.
The cascade gets the same visual weight as the rise in screening. Clinicians reading the poster are the people who refer, and a board showing only the screening gain would leave them with half the story.
Take-Home Message and Footer
Beneath the cascade, one sentence in larger type: "Rooming staff can do the foot exam every visit; getting high-risk patients to podiatry needs its own plan." The footer gives the setting, a two-clinic community health center, and the design, a twelve-week quality improvement project read on a run chart against a [12]-week baseline median with rules fixed in advance (Perla et al., 2011). It also defines the three layers and carries a QR code linking to a one-page summary.
Checks Before Printing
The draft was printed at letter size and read at arm's length, a rough stand-in for reading the full board from about two meters. Every color pairing was checked in grayscale. Each number on the board was traced to the final report so the poster, report and manuscript agree. A colleague who had not seen the project was asked to look at the board for thirty seconds and say what it showed; her answer, that exams went up and some of the rise came from elsewhere, matched the headline, which was the test the layout was meant to pass. Imagery tends to draw visitors to a poster more than its subject, and surveyed poster presenters held that a poster needs its author standing by to get its content across (Rowe & Ilic, 2009), so the draft includes a one-minute spoken summary for the author to give at the board.
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
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
Rowe, N., & Ilic, D. (2009). What impact do posters have on academic knowledge transfer? A pilot survey on author attitudes and experiences. BMC Medical Education, 9, Article 71. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-9-71
NU823 Unit 6 instructions, in plain terms
Unit 6 asks for a draft of a conference poster presenting the project. Prompts usually want the poster text and layout, a description of the main figure, and a short rationale for design choices, sized to the conference template. Faculty look for a board a passerby can understand in two or three minutes: a headline that states the result, one dominant figure, little text and clear labels. The figure should show the result honestly, including any confounder, rather than leaving limits to a paragraph few will read. Accessibility matters too, so the design should work in grayscale and for viewers with color vision deficiency. Every number should match the final report, and a short spoken summary for the author to give at the board is worth preparing alongside it.
How the NU 823 Unit 6 example is put together
The draft sets out the board size and three-panel layout, then a headline that carries the result and its main limit in one line. The left panel's single number and line drawing show the problem and the change. The middle panel describes the stacked chart in detail, its baseline layer, its four markers and the highlighted line on why splitting by source makes the result more believable, then removes gridlines and legend for direct labels. The right panel's cascade runs from 598 examined to 21 seen within a month, with the week eleven change noted. A take-home sentence, the footer with its QR code and the pre-print checks, including a thirty-second test with a colleague who had not seen the project, close it.
NU823 Unit 6 rubric: what earns full points
Poster drafts in NU 823 are generally evaluated on clarity of message, honesty and quality of the main figure, layout and readability, and consistency with the project's data. Message points go to a headline and take-home line that state the result accurately. The figure is judged on whether it can stand alone, shows confounders and limits visually and uses direct labels. Layout and readability reward a clear reading order, restrained text and accessible color choices. Consistency is credited when every figure matches the final report. Some rubrics also weigh adherence to the conference template and a prepared spoken summary for the author to give at the board. Poster sessions reward authors who can explain the chart in under a minute.
NU823 Unit 6 help: mistakes that cost points
Posters lose points when they reproduce the paper in small type, with dense paragraphs no visitor will read. A single line chart that credits the project with every gain, including ones produced by outside events, is another common weakness. Some boards show only the successful component and leave out the weak one. Others rely on a legend and color alone, which fails in grayscale. Put one figure at the center, split the result by source if others contributed, label each layer on the chart itself, give the weakest step its own panel, hold text to a few hundred words, and test the board at arm's length. Ask someone outside the project what it shows before you print.
Get an NU823 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Share the poster template or size your venue sets, your central figure or the data behind it, and the Unit 6 prompt and rubric. One chart, annotated to stand alone, becomes the center of the draft, with the weak link shown at the same weight as the gain. Free the first time, delivered 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 NU823 papers and DNP samples
- NU823 Unit 1: Venue Selection Rationale
- NU823 Unit 2: Final Project Report
- NU823 Unit 3: Discussion Board Post
- NU823 Unit 4: Manuscript Draft
- NU823 Unit 5: Author Guideline Audit
- NU823 Unit 7: Executive Summary
- NU823 Unit 8: Presentation Script
- NU823 Unit 9: Sustainability Plan
- NU823 Unit 10: Dissemination Reflection
- NU703 Unit 6: Writing Seminar Reflection
- NU813 Unit 6: Protocol Deviation Memo
- NU713 Unit 6: Disparities Analysis, Heart Failure
- NU803 Unit 6: Baseline Data Summary
NU823 Unit 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free NU823 Unit 6 sample paper?
You can see the complete NU823 Unit 6 poster draft here, covering layout, headline, three panels, the layered chart, the referral cascade, the footer and pre-print checks, with three references. Send your results and we can draft a poster to your conference template.
Why does the NU823 Unit 6 poster split the exam rate into layers?
Outside podiatry reports and outreach calls also raised the rate. A single line would credit the project with exams others performed; the layers show that medical assistant exams account for most of the rise without hiding the rest.
What goes in the right panel of this poster?
The referral cascade: patients examined, those at high risk, those referred and past the 30-day mark, and those seen within a month, with the 70 percent result shown beside the 80 percent target and the week eleven booking change.
How much text should a DNP poster have?
The sample holds the board to about 450 words, with a 60-word footer, so a visitor can read it in two or three minutes. The chart carries the result, and the text supports it.
How do I make a poster readable in grayscale?
Use different shading and patterns as well as colors, and label each data layer directly on the chart. The sample prints a letter-size proof, checks every color pair in grayscale and reads it at arm's length.