NURS 839 Week 6 Discussion Board Forum 2 on Proposal Results and Discussion/Dissemination Example

Discussion Board Forum 2: Results, Discussion and Dissemination

NURS 839 Proposal Development, Discussion Board Forum 2

Thread by [Student Name]

The project's results are planned, not yet collected; the hospital and classmates are composites, and the textbooks and articles cited are real.

Last week's SPSS exercise taught me something I want to build into my results section before I have a single real data point. On the practice file, the chi-square test was significant, but the sentence that mattered was the risk difference: injuries fell by 15 percentage points, with a confidence interval from about 3.5 to 26.5. That interval tells a nurse manager both that the protocol helped and how uncertain we are about how much. My results section will lead with effect sizes and intervals, with p values in support.

For structure, I will follow SQUIRE 2.0, the revised reporting standards for quality improvement work, under which a report should set out the setting, what was really done and what resulted, including unintended consequences (Ogrinc et al., 2016). My results section will therefore report, in order: the number of eligible patients and how they compared across periods; implementation as delivered, including penetration and fidelity; the primary outcome with the risk difference, relative risk and confidence interval; secondary outcomes; results by skin tone; and any skin reactions to the dressings. Run charts will show weekly penetration and injuries over time. Moran et al. (2017) emphasize that a DNP project's evaluation must connect outcomes to the original problem, so each table will be introduced by the question it answers.

The discussion will interpret results against the literature and acknowledge the limits of a pre-post design: other changes in the operating rooms, changes in detection and a small number of expected events. I am also planning for a disappointing result. If injuries do not fall, the implementation data will show whether the dressings failed or were not consistently applied, and the discussion will say which. A discussion written only for success is a discussion the committee will not trust.

Dissemination will reach four audiences, each needing something different from the same results: operating room staff through huddles and the unit dashboard, surgeons at the department meeting, hospital leaders through a report to the board quality committee and the profession through a poster at a regional perioperative conference and a manuscript structured by SQUIRE 2.0. Roush (2019) treats dissemination as part of the scholarly product, not an afterthought, and my timeline will reserve the final month for it, with the board report scheduled first so that leaders hear the results before anyone outside the hospital does.

Reply to Erin

Erin, your plan assumes your sepsis screening project will reduce time to antibiotics, and your discussion section only describes what you will say if it does. I would add a paragraph for the other possibility. SQUIRE 2.0 explicitly asks authors to report the intervention as delivered and to discuss why outcomes may differ from expectations (Ogrinc et al., 2016). If time to antibiotics does not improve, your screening completion rate will tell you whether the problem was the screen or its use. Moran et al. (2017) note that evaluation should show the project's actual contribution, which an honest null result can do. What implementation measure will you collect alongside your outcome?

Reply to Caleb

Caleb, your dissemination plan names a poster and a staff in-service, which is a good start. You might strengthen it by naming a reporting guideline for the manuscript you mentioned wanting to write later. SQUIRE 2.0 is designed for quality improvement reports like ours and gives a checklist that journals often expect (Ogrinc et al., 2016). Using it from the proposal stage means your data collection will already capture what reviewers will ask for, such as the context and the intervention as delivered. Roush (2019) also suggests planning the target audience for each product early. Which journal readership do you most want to reach?

References

Moran, K., Burson, R., & Conrad, D. (Eds.). (2017). The doctor of nursing practice scholarly project: A framework for success (2nd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

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

Roush, K. (2019). A nurse's step-by-step guide to writing your dissertation or capstone (2nd ed.). Sigma Theta Tau International.