doctor of nurs ing practice (dnp) toolkitthe other in poster format as directed in the...

DOCCTORR OF N

Pa

NURSTOO

Febru

aage 1 of 53

SING POLKI

uary 20

PRACIT

016

CTICEE (DNNP)

of 53

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) Project

All students enrolled in the Doctor of Nursing Practice Program will complete an evidence-based practice DNP project as a requirement for graduation.

The DNP project is a culmination of the knowledge gained in the DNP courses. The experience is designed to put to use the knowledge and skills gained within the doctoral program in a specific practice area of the student’s choice. The project is chosen to make a contribution in the work place, the community or in the academic arena. As such, DNP experiences are characterized by intensive interactions between and among faculty, students, and the community in which the project is enacted. A DNP project is not intended to test new models, develop new theory, or test hypotheses.

The project includes planning, implementation, and evaluation components. All DNP Projects should:

a. Focus on a change that impacts healthcare outcomes either through direct or indirectcare.

b. Have a systems (micro, meso-, or macro level) or population/aggregate focus.

c. Demonstrate implementation in the appropriate arena or area of practice.

d. Include a plan for sustainability (e.g. financial, systems or political realities, not onlytheoretical abstraction).

e. Include an evaluation of processes and/or outcomes (formative or summative). DNPProjects should be designed so that processes and/or outcomes will be evaluated toguide practice and policy. Clinical significance is as important in guiding practice asstatistical significance is in evaluating research.

f. Provide a foundation for future practice scholarship. AACN (August 2015) The DNPCurrent Issues and Clarification Recommendations.

Types of DNP projects

System modification for quality improvement processes.

Analyze a state or national health care policy and propose a change in the modeland implement the policy within an organization(s).

Develop and implement information technologies to improve outcomes.

of 53

Compare care and teaching models, potential cost savings, and outcomes.

Design and evaluate health care or health education programs.

Lead consumer and professional coalition projects to develop, implement or evaluateprograms.

Documentation of Student Progress

The student and Doctoral Team Chair share responsibility for all documentation of the student’s progress toward completion of the DNP Project.

Doctoral Team Chair will file:

1. Committee Approval: Doctor of Nursing Practice Proposal Evaluation Form2. Committee Approval: DNP Project Final Approval Form

Student will file:

1. Certificate of Completion: Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI training) andrenewal if due to expire prior to completion of the DNP Project https://www.citiprogram.org/.

2. eIRB Proposal(s) submission after obtaining approval by Chair

a. IRB Notification(s) of Approvalhttps://eirb.rutgers.edu/eIRB/Rooms/DisplayPages/LayoutInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity%5BOID%5B57E51A467E91E34D8BBA2941270E7E59%5D%5D.

b. Final Study Report/Study Closure Form

https://eirb.rutgers.edu/eIRB/Rooms/DisplayPages/LayoutInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity%5BOID%5B57E51A467E91E34D8BBA2941270E7E59%5D%5D .

3. Four (4) bound copies of final (after all revisions completed) DNP Project Document.

4. A record of completion of 500 practice hours completed during DNP program of study.

Overview of DNP Project Steps

1. Upon completion of the Clinical Scholarship Course the student will identify a topic ofinterest and review faculty profiles posted on the Rutgers-School of Nursing (RUSN)website to begin identifying a potential Chair. The student should build their courseworkaround that topic as the student moves forward with the curricula.

2. Complete CITI training before entering Project Planning & Proposal Development Course.

3. Create a Project Team to consist of a full time RUSN faculty who will serve as the Chair andan outside mentor who holds a doctorate in nursing and who is approved to the Chair.

of 53

4. Review and follow appropriate DNP proposal guidelines.

5. During the Proposal Planning and Proposal Development Course, the Project Team shouldbe aware of and engaged in the draft proposal along with the course faculty.

6. Submit draft of the DNP Project Proposal to the Chair and Team for review and feedback.Allow 2-3 weeks for Doctoral Team review. Make recommended revisions (may requireseveral submissions).

7. Collaborate with the Chair and Project Team to schedule a presentation of the proposal.Submit the final/revised copy of the DNP Project Proposal at least 2 weeks in advance of thescheduled presentation.

8. Present your DNP Project Proposal to your Chair and Project Team. Once approved, theChair will file the DNP Proposal Evaluation form with the Office of the Associate Dean forAdvanced Nursing Practice. Student is responsible for bringing form to presentation.

9. Contact the Chair for assistance with filing of the eIRB application. The Chair needs to belisted as the faculty of record and is a co-investigator.

10. Submit eIRB application to the RBHS Rutgers-University Institutional Review Board(IRB) and allow 4-6 weeks for the IRB response. Incomplete or unsatisfactory proposalsmay require revision and resubmission and extend time for approval.

11. Project implementation or data collection may not begin until IRB approval is formallyobtained.

12. Implement and evaluate your approved project during the Implementation Course(s).

13. Submit the final draft of the DNP Project Document to Team for review and feedback. Allow2-3 weeks for review and make recommended revisions.

14. Present your project in two formats one DNP Project Presentation for the Project Team andthe other in poster format as directed in the Implementation Course.

15. Once the committee has approved your final product the Doctoral Team Chair will file theDNP Project Final Approval form with the Office of the Associate Dean for AdvancedNursing Practice. The student is responsible for bringing the form to the DNP ProjectPresentation.

16. Print out four (4) copies of “Title page – DNP” and bring to your final presentation forappropriate signatures, unless revisions are required.

17. Secure four (4) bound copies of final (after all revisions completed) DNP Project Documentand submit to the Office of the Associate Dean for Advanced Nursing Practice.

18. Submit the eIRB Final Study Report/Study Closure to the eIRB and provide documentationof submission to the Office of the Associate Dean for Advanced Nursing Practice.

of 53

DNP Project Chair Responsibilities

1. Assure eIRB compliance, mentor, student throughout the preparation of the DNP projectproposal, the project development, implementation, evaluation process, and the final writtenDNP Project Document.

2. Collaborate with student to schedule the Doctoral Team meetings for proposal presentationand final DNP project presentation.

3. Lead Doctoral Team review and approval of the DNP Project Proposal, Final DNP ProjectReport and oral presentations.

4. Communicate effectively with committee members.

5. Provide feedback to student on written drafts in a timely manner.

6. Document student progress toward completion of DNP Project requirements.

7. Mentor new faculty who have not previously participated in a DNP Project.

Role of Faculty Doctoral Team Member and/or Outside Mentor (if applicable):

1. Critique drafts of the developing DNP Project proposal.

2. Participate in the Team review and approval of the Project Proposal, Final ProjectReport and presentations.

3. Provide feedback to student on written drafts in a timely manner.

4. Communicate concerns to student and Doctoral Team Chairperson in a timely manner.

Role of Student as Leader:

1. Maintain consistent and effective communication with committee Chair.

2. Collaborate with Doctoral Chairperson to schedule Team meetings for proposal presentationand final DNP Project Report.

3. Generate and submit all forms as required.

4. Submit work to the Doctoral Team that demonstrates a high level of leadership andscholarship.

Request to Change Doctoral Team Member

Changes to the membership of the Doctoral Team may occasionally be required during the time of projected completion. To change committee membership the DNP student will:

of 53

Complete a request to change Chair or member form. This form requires the signatures of the current and new Chair or member and the student. This form is submitted to the Associate Dean of Advanced Nursing Practice’s office.

Procedure: Initial DNP Project Proposal Approval

a. Review drafts of the Project Proposal for compliance with the Doctor of Nursing PracticeProposal Evaluation Framework.

b. Submit written draft to Doctoral Team Members for review. Amend report as recommendedby the Team.

c. Collaborate with Doctoral Team Chair to schedule the DNP Project Proposal presentationmeeting. The student(s), Doctoral Team Chair and members are required to be available forthe proposal meeting.

d. Submit the final draft of the DNP Project Proposal for presentation at least 2 weeks prior tothe scheduled presentation meeting.

e. Be prepared to discuss the entire proposal. The verbal presentation should include statementsof the problem, a brief review of salient literature, methods to be used, anticipated results,and potential implications of the study. PowerPoint slides may be used. The doctoralstudent(s) presents his/her/their completed project proposal (up to 1 hour)

f. The presentation will be evaluated by the Doctoral Team members according to Doctor ofNursing Practice Proposal Evaluation Framework.

g. Following the student presentation, the Doctoral Team will provide verbal feedback andrecommendations to the student regarding the presentation. At completion of the ProposalPresentation, the Doctoral Team Chairperson will summarize the major points raised by theDoctoral Team and solicit recommendations for approval.

h. The Doctoral Team may choose to:

1) Approve the proposal.Doctoral Team Chair will file approval of the DNP Project Proposal on behalf ofthe Doctoral Team. Once the DNP Project Proposal is approved, the student becomesa candidate and may write DNP(c) after his or her name until graduation atwhich time the DNP candidate will be granted the degree along with the rights andprivileges awarded by the degree.

2) Conditionally approve with minor revisions and no re-review.The student will file the revised Project Proposal to Doctoral Team Chair within onemonth of the Project Proposal presentation.

3) Require minor or major revisions and re-review.Revisions required: The student must develop a significantly revised or new as

of 53

recommended by the Doctoral Team. The Doctoral T e a m Chair will work with the student on the revision. The Team will review the new proposal and all prior steps will be repeated.

4) Reject the proposal.The student must develop a significantly revised or new proposal. The Doctoral TeamChair will work with the candidate on the revision. The Doctoral Team will review thenew proposal and all prior steps will be repeated.

Please note that no data collection or interventions related to the project can be started prior to approval by the Project Team and RBHS Rutgers-University Institutional Review Board (eIRB).

PROCEDURE: Final DNP Project Approval

1. Review draft of the final report for compliance with the DNP Project Final EvaluationFramework.

2. Submit drafts to Team members for review. Amend report as recommended by the Team.

3. Collaborate with Doctoral Team Chairperson to schedule the Project Presentationmeeting. The candidate, Doctoral Team Chairperson and Team members are required tobe available for the Project Presentation meeting.

4. Submit final draft of project report for presentation at least 2 weeks prior to the scheduledmeeting.

5. Be prepared to discuss the entire DNP Project and written report. The candidate shallpresent the DNP Project and otherwise satisfy the Doctoral Team that he or she isqualified to receive the degree of Doctor of Nursing Practice.

6. The project presentation will be evaluated by the Doctoral Team Members according tothe DNP Project Final Evaluation Framework.

7. The candidate may receive questions from the Doctoral Team members or other membersof the audience.

8. The Doctoral Team will convene in private to discuss and determine the approval,conditional approval or rejection of the Final DNP Project.

The Doctoral Team may choose to:

a. Approve the DNP Project.Doctoral Team Chair will file DNP Project Final Evaluation Framework on behalf of the Doctoral Team and forward to DNP Associate Director’s office. Once the DNP Project Proposal is approved, the student becomes eligible for graduation at which time the DNP candidate will be granted the degree along with the rights and privileges awarded by the degree. The Doctoral Team members complete the DNP Project Final Evaluation

of 53

Framework and sign four (4) copies of the DNP Title Page.

b. Conditionally approve the DNP Project with minor revisions.The student will file the revised Project Proposal to Doctoral Team Chair within twoweeks of the Project Proposal presentation.

c. Reject the DNP Project.The student must develop a significantly revised or new proposal. The DoctoralTeam Chair will work with the candidate on the revision. The Doctoral Team willreview the new proposal and all prior steps will be repeated.

Timelines for DNP Project and Graduation Approved Proposal and IRB Approval

Last Day for DNP Project Presentation Graduation Date

April August 31st October

August December 31st January

December April 30th May

of 53

Appendix 1

Doctor of Nursing Practice Proposal Evaluation Framework

Student’s Name:

Title of DNP Project:

_______________________________________________________________

Satisfactory as Presented

Satisfactory with the following

recommendations Unsatisfactory

Problem Background information./literature supports problem

Problem/change clearly identified

Scope of project realistic and appropriate

Other:

Analysis/Framework Need, feasibility and significance are clearly presented

Literature, benchmarks and supporting data provided and appropriate

Framework (theoretical/conceptual/practice) is evident and appropriate

Other:

Project Objectives Objectives stated in feasible and measurable terms

Evaluation measures linked to objectives

Other:

Action Plan/Method Appropriate for objectives

Clear rationale for actions/method

Setting and group clearly described

Tools/measures described

Resources/supports and risks/threats and benefits noted

of 53

Analysis/Evaluation plan delineated `

Timeframe is feasible

Approvals Informed Consent, if necessary, meets human subject requirements

All approvals are in place, including: (List approvals).

Writing and Organization APA format followed appropriately; clear writing

Proposal submitted to Turn-It-In; originality report attached

a. Accept the proposal.Doctoral Committee Chair will file approval of the DNP Project Proposal on behalf of theDoctoral Committee. Once the DNP Project Proposal is approved, the student becomesa candidate and may write DNP(c) after his or her name until graduation at which timethe DNP candidate will be granted the degree along with the rights and privileges awardedby the degree.

b. Conditionally accept with minor revisions and no re-review.The student will file a final/revised Project Proposal to Doctoral Committee Chair withinone month of the proposal defense meeting.

c. Require minor or major revisions and re-review.Revisions required: The student must develop a significantly revised or new proposal.The Doctoral Committee Chair will work with the student on the revision. TheCommittee will review the new proposal and all prior steps will be repeated.

d. Reject the proposal.The student must develop a significantly revised or new proposal. The DoctoralCommittee Chair will work with the candidate on the revision. The Doctoral Committeewill review the new proposal and all prior steps will be repeated.

Doctoral Committee Chair’s Signature:

Doctoral Committee Member’s Signature:

Doctoral Student’s Signature:

Date:

of 53

Appendix 2

Doctor of Nursing Practice Project Final Evaluation Framework

Student’s Name:

Title of DNP:

1 = Very poorly 2 = Poorly 3 = Good 4 = Very Good 5 = Excellent

1 (Fail)

2 3 4 5Comments

I. DNP Components The candidate addresses each DNP component:

Background and Significance Background information/literature demonstrates the focused need or problem.

Literature review supports significance/ relevance of problem/proposed project /intervention.

Need, feasibility and significance are clearly presented.

Problem Statement or Purpose Problem/purpose clearly described. Scope of project realistic and appropriate.

Theoretical Framework Framework (theoretical/conceptual/practice) is described/evident and applicable.

Project Description Literature, benchmarks and supporting data provided and organized into integrated synthesized summary

Objectives stated in feasible and measurable terms.

Congruence of organizations’ strategic plan to project is described.

Project Design Appropriate for objectives. Clear rationale for actions/method.

of 53

Setting and group clearly described. Implementation methods/tools/measures clearly described.

Resources/supports and risks/threats and benefits noted.

Time frame outlined.

Evaluation Plan Analysis/Evaluation plan coherent / consistent with project plan.

Evaluation measures linked to objectives.

Outcomes/evidence-based measures appropriate for objectives.

Tools/instruments described and linked to measures and objectives.

Method of analysis clearly described for each measurement.

Findings Findings organized in appropriate format.

Findings linked to problem statement, purpose objectives and evaluation plan.

Described the extent to which the objectives were achieved.

Addressed key facilitators and barriers that impacted the project’s objectives.

Described unintended consequences (both positive and negative).

Recommendations/Implications Recommendations/Implications addressed for problem statement, supporting organization, key stakeholders, other settings, and student.

Included recommendations related to identified facilitators / barriers and unintended consequences.

Addressed any ongoing activities or evaluations outside the scope of the DNP Project.

Writing and Organization APA format followed appropriately; writing is scholarly and clear; appropriate for doctoral level education.

II. Project Synthesis Extent to which candidate met goals/aims of project. If not, appropriate rationale and

of 53

a. Approve the DNP ProjectOnce the DNP Project Proposal is approved, the student becomes eligible for graduationat which time the DNP candidate will be granted the degree along with the rights andprivileges awarded by the degree.

b. Conditionally approve the DNP Project with minor revisionsThe student will file a final/revised Project Proposal to Doctoral Committee Chair within twoweeks of the proposal defense meeting.

c. Reject the DNP ProjectThe student must develop a significantly revised or new proposal. The Doctoral CommitteeChair will work with the candidate on the revision. The Doctoral Committee will review thenew proposal and all prior steps will be repeated.

Doctoral Committee Chair’s Signature:

Doctoral Committee Member’s Signature:

Doctoral Student’s Signature:

Date:

explanation provided. Extent to which candidate integrated scientific curiosity and inquiry in project completion.

Extent to which candidate analyzed issues and provided critique of advanced nursing practice within the project.

Extend to which candidate demonstrated practice inquiry skills including appraising and translating evidence.

Evidence of candidate’s ability to engage in collaborative partnership(s) in designing and implementing DNP project.

Ability of candidate to articulate state of current knowledge as it relates to advanced practice nursing in the health care system.

of 53

Adapted from: DNP Project Guidelines Graceland University School of Nursing. Retrieved January 15, 2011, from https://my.graceland.edu/ICS/icsfs/DNPProject_Guidelines_Fall2011.pdf?target=2cef182d- 3011-4aad-bc54-03a0e98eac35

of 53

Appendix 3

DNP Proposal Guidelines

Full Title of the Proposal

Author’s Name (no professional initials)

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey-School of Nursing

DNP Chair: Type your advisor’s name here

DNP Team Member(s): Type your Team member’s name here

Date of Submission: Month, Day, Year

of 53

SHORTENED VERSION OF PROPOSAL

Table of Contents Abstract

Background and Significance

Problem Statement

Needs Assessment

Objectives and Aims

Review of Literature

Theoretical Framework

Methodology

Setting Study Population Study Interventions Outcome Measure Risks or Harms Subject Recruitment Consent Procedure Subject Costs and Compensation Project Timeline Resources Needed/Economic Consideration

Evaluation Plan

Data Maintenance/Security

Data Analysis

Findings

Recommendations and Discussion

Economic/Cost Benefit Impact on Healthcare Quality and Safety Policy Implications Translation Dissemination Professional Reporting

References

Appendices

IRB Approval

Tools

Evidence Table

of 53


Instructions DNP Project Proposal

This is a guide for writing a DNP Project Proposal in APA Style, 6th edition; not for a

systematic review proposal. It provides the necessary sections, headings, and subheadings

required in a proposal. Your proposal should be formatted with one inch top, bottom, left, and

right margins; Times New Roman font in 12 point; double-spaced; aligned flush left; and

paragraphs indented 5-7 spaces. The page number appears one inch from the right edge on the

first line of each page.

Abstract

An abstract is a brief (approximately 250 words) one-paragraph summary of the contents of

the proposal. The abstract, typically written last, includes an overview of the proposed

project's background and review of literature, purpose, method, results, and conclusion. It is

non-evaluative, that is, does not contain personal comments. It is not indented nor does it

contain citations. Keywords, such as those below, are words you used to perform database

searches for the proposal. For more information about APA Style, see the Publication Manual

of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.), the APA Style web site found at

http://www.apastyle.org, and the Purdue Owl Writing Center website found at

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/.

Keywords: APA style, sixth edition, publication manual

of 53


Background and Significance

In this introductory section, write a few paragraphs that give an overview of your topic

and background information. Tell why the study problem is important. Build a case for the

need for the project that you propose to perform. Support this with findings from the

literature, include relevant statistics, and cite them according to APA Style, 6th ed. As

O'Leary (2010) says, "the main job of this section is "to ... convince your readers that the

problem you want to address is significant and worth exploring" (p. 64).

This is required in the e-IRB as well where you a providing a succinct review of the

relevant scientific literature to justify the proposed study.

Problem Statement

Your introduction section should smoothly transition into your problem statement. It

should flow logically from the information you provided. Include your inquiry question that

will provide direction for your work. Explain your approach to the problem and how your

approach will address it.

Needs Assessment

This section should describe how you determined a need for this project in the site(s) that you

have selected. This should include a national perspective if appropriate and then narrow to the

organization you have selected. Publically available data for the organization if available

should be used.

Objectives and Aims

Explain the aims and objectives of the project. According to O'Leary (2010), proposals

have one overarching aim that captures what you hope to achieve through your project;

whereas, a set of objectives, which are a set of more specific goals, supports that aim. Aims

of 53


and objectives are often written in bullet points as 'to' statements, such as, 'to' develop, 'to'

identify, 'to' measure, 'to' explain, 'to' compare. In the e-IRB clearly state the overall purpose of

the study. (Note: IRB reviewers come from a diversity of backgrounds. Therefore avoid the use

of acronyms and highly technical language).

Review of Literature

The goal of a review of literature is to present an in-depth, current state of knowledge

about your particular topic. Rather than just summarizing and listing research studies

performed on your topic, summarize and then synthesize the key concepts of the literature

you have read.

Identify any major trends, patterns, or gaps you may have found in the literature and

identify any relationships among studies. In general, there is a five-year span from the present

for the date of literature you should use except for an older, landmark study, which should be

identified as such. In this section you should begin by describing how the literature was

searched. Create evidence tables as an appendix.

Think of a review of literature as a puzzle that you will put together with individual

pieces from various sources of literature in order to reveal a whole picture of the state of

knowledge about your topic. The review of literature for your proposal should provide the

context for your proposal and your future DNP Project.

When you begin to write your narrative, define your topic and provide relevant

statistical information, followed by historical and current background information.

of 53


Build a strong case for your topic's importance and the need for a DNP Project that

will address the issues surrounding it. Explain how you propose to address these issues with

your DNP Project. Support your case with citations from the literature.

Next, write your findings from the literature central to your topic. Avoid describing a

series of studies. Use quotes sparingly and only to emphasize or explain an important point.

Also, do not make broad statements about the conclusiveness of research studies, either

positive or negative. Be objective in your presentation of the facts. Each paragraph should

begin with a thesis statement and describe only one key point. The idea in the next paragraph

should logically flow from the content of its predecessor.

Conclude the review of literature with a concise summary of your findings and provide

a rationale for conducting your DNP Project, based on your findings.

Theoretical Framework

In this section, name and define the theoretical or conceptual framework that underpins your

proposal and future DNP Project. Place a diagram of the model in. Explain how this

theoretical framework connects to your project.

Methodology

In this section, clearly explain your project design (type of study) and the method you will use to

obtain the desired outcomes of your project. Use the future tense to explain what you will do in

your DNP. Convince the reader that your approach is practical and will lead to credible answers

to your posed inquiry question. Write a paragraph describing each of the following subheadings

as they apply to your project. eIRB wants you to described your procedures in this section

clearly.

of 53


Setting

Describe where the project will take place.

Study Population

Describe the study participants, all people involved, and the role they will play, as well

as the sampling, the sampling size, and selection of sample or recruitment strategies, if

applicable. Report the eligibility and exclusion criteria. Describe the groups with emphasis on

characteristics (variables) that may have bearing on the interpretation of results.

In the eIRB document you will be required to identify what your sample size is and

how subjects were selected including inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Study Interventions

Describe any interventions that are being incorporated into your project and how they

will be conducted.

Outcome Measures

Describe all study instruments such as questionnaires, or other tools you will be using.

Include copies of all questionnaires or tools being used to extract information from chart, if

applicable. Justify why you are collecting this information.

If you are doing a chart review-- Explain the parameters you will be using to select charts

and where you will review these charts to abstract data. Provide an excel spread sheet with the

relevant variables you plan to collect. Explain when and how identifiers will be removed from

the data collected. If a waiver of consent is granted, identifiers should be destroyed with no

possibility of linking the data with these identifiers as soon as possible after data are transcribed

and verified for accuracy.

of 53

Benefits/Risks

Describe the physical, psychological/emotional, social, and economic risks of harm that

are possible to affect subjects as a result of study interventions and/or outcomes. Address how

these risks of harm will be minimized. Even if your project has minimal risk all have the

potential of loss of the subject’s privacy and confidentiality of data collected or produced.

Subject Recruitment

Describe how and when individuals will be recruited to participate in the Project.

Specify who and how you will be involved in subject recruitment and the consent process.

Explain how individuals will be approached, what collateral materials will be used to recruit

them such as flyers, letters, etc. Provide copies of all recruitment materials in an appendix and

follow guidelines recommended by the eIRB for development of these materials.

Consent Procedures

Describe the consent procedures to be followed, including how, when, where, and by

whom informed consent will be obtained and documented. A copy of the consent should be

placed in the appendix.

Subject Costs and Compensation

List all costs, if any, that subjects will likely incur and any compensation that will

provided to the subjects if applicable.

Project Timeline

Develop a Gantt chart to outline key steps in the process for the entire procedure.

Resources Needed/Economic Considerations

Create a budget for your project. What are the costs that will be incurred in this project.

of 53

Evaluation Plan

Data Maintenance/Security

Provide a data analysis plan. The plan should include how data and where data will be

stored, who will have access, and how subject’s privacy and confidentiality of health information

will be protected during collection, storage, use or transmission such as flash drives. Document

when the link between personal health identifiers and data will be destroyed, if ever.

Data Analysis

Describe the statistical methods to be employed. Most projects include demographic data

analysis which is descriptive inclusive of means or medians and frequencies. A repeated

measures ANOVA is often used.

Findings

This is where you provide the statistical analysis of your intervention. Only identify

the findings related to the objectives of your study. They should tie back to the outcomes you

are measuring.

Recommendations and Discussion

In this section you should be describe how your project impacts on the following areas:

Economic/cost benefits of your project

Impact on healthcare quality and safety

Policy implications

Translation

How will your project be able to be translated to a broader group?

Dissemination

Describe your plan for notifying subjects of the results of your project if appropriate or

how you disseminate back to the sites. Data is to be provided in aggregate format not

of 53

individual.

Professional Reporting

Describe your plan to share the results of your project with the professional community.

This includes scholarly publications, presentations at conferences, poster presentations etc.

References

Must be in APA format.

Appendices

A. IRB approval

B. Copy of Tools inclusive of surveys, demographic forms, excel spreadsheets for

collecting data as appropriate.

C. Evidence Tables

of 53

Appendix 4

Systematic Review Proposal Outline

Developing a Protocol for a Systematic Review

Important Points

1. A systematic review as a DNP project must include both the review and an evidence

transfer component (See description below.).

2. Any student doing a systematic review must have a project advisor who has completed a

systematic review.

3. Any student doing a systematic review is required to complete a course in systematic

review approved by the Rutgers School of Nursing.

4. For proposals using the Joanna Briggs Institute review process, the proposal must be

written in Australian English (English, AU) and in Vancouver format.

5. At a minimum a primary and secondary reviewer is required for a systematic review.

The project advisor or other project team faculty member cannot act as a secondary

reviewer. All project chairs must have completed a systematic review course.

6. Systematic reviews done by two currently enrolled students must include at least two

complementary questions. Each student(s) will assume primary reviewer role for one

or both of the questions.

7. A DNP graduate who has completed a systematic review as a project can serve as a

secondary reviewer with the approval of the project chair.

8. The format for a systematic review proposal differs from other proposal outlines defined

in this toolkit (format follows).

of 53

Format for Systematic Review Proposals and Completed Reports

Title of Systematic Review Protocol

The title of the protocol should precisely describe the review to be undertaken. It

should not be more than ten-twenty words. One simple sentence that includes the aims and

outcomes of the study should suffice. The title should include the term “systematic review

protocol”.

Title examples:

“The effectiveness of smoking cessation strategies for adolescents in a residential facility: a systematic review”

“The experiences of families of patients in an intensive care unit: a qualitative systematic review protocol”

“The cost effectiveness of three different methods of intravenous dressing change: a systematic review protocol”

Reviewers

At a minimum, a primary and secondary reviewer as well as the chair and committee members

are required and all shall complete a course on systematic review. The primary reviewer is

responsible for the overall conduct of the review and for keeping reviewers on track and

moving toward completion of the review. Both reviewers should have a good understanding of

research design and the ability to critique research studies. The doctoral student completing

the project shall be the primary reviewer. The secondary reviewer must be either another

doctoral student completing his or her own independent systematic review project, or another

individual who has completed an approved systematic review course. Permission of the chair

is required for approval of the secondary reviewer as a member of the project team. Identifying

a third reviewer at the beginning of the review is critical in the event there is disagreement

between the primary and secondary reviewer. The third reviewer will assist in resolving any

of 53

differences. For a systematic review as a doctoral study project, the chair or committee

member will serve as the third reviewer and wil l help resolve any differences.

Background

The background should describe the issue under review in sufficient detail so that the

necessity for conducting the review is clear and unambiguous. It should lay a broad base for

the issue that led to the review. A description of the target population, the interventions or

phenomenon to be reviewed, and the potential uses of the findings should be presented. Use of

statistics can aid in understanding the significance of the review. The background should

indicate why the review is necessary and its contribution to health care. The background

provides the foundation for development of the review objectives and aims. In writing the

background section, attempts should be made to determine if a systematic review already exists

on the topic of interest. This is accomplished by searching the Cochrane, Campbell, and Joanna

Briggs Institute databases. If a review is found that matches the one under consideration, a

decision needs to be made to either forego the review or expand on it in some manner. For

example, years can be extended, databases can be added, or a new population or setting can be

added. Questions that need to be addressed in the background include:

Who will benefit?

What are the specific issues to be addressed?

What is the target population?

What is the intervention and what are its comparators?

What is the context of the investigation?

Why is it necessary to review and pool studies on this topic? Why is this work

important? What primary research studies have already been published?

Are there any published systematic reviews related to aspects of this topic? If so, how

of 53

will this review be different?

How will this build on published literature, inform practice, and/ or formulate policy?

Objectives and Review Question

The review objectives are grounded in the review question, the latter of which provides

the basis for development of the inclusion criteria. The rationale for the objectives should be

found in the background. Review objectives are written in measurable terms and need to

address the target population, intervention or phenomenon and outcomes. The review question

should follow the recommended PICO framework and should be tailored to the type of

evidence (i.e. qualitative, quantitative or economic). An overall objective for the review is

provided first, followed by sub-objectives, as appropriate. Some questions to ask as the

proposal objectives are written:

Does the overall objective clearly describe the review’s purpose and direction?

Are the objectives realistic and feasible in relation to the completion date selected?

Do the objectives match what is described in the background?

Are the objectives stated in measurable terms?

Criteria for Inclusion of Studies in the Review

Inclusion criteria

Systematic reviews are distinguished by the transparency with which they are

conducted. One of the features that allow this transparency is the pre-specification of the

review’s inclusion and exclusion criteria, that is, those criteria that make a study eligible for

inclusion in the review. Eligibility criteria include parts of the review question and the types of

studies that will be sought. The types of study designs, types of participants, types of

interventions or phenomenon of interest, and the types of outcomes or context expected are

addressed in the eligibility criteria for the review.

of 53

Types of studies

This section describes the type of studies that will be considered for review. Always

start this section by saying:

The systematic review will consider randomized controlled trials that investigated…..

OR

This systematic review will consider studies using a qualitative design, such as

phenomenology, grounded theory, narrative review…..

In those instances where the reviewer believes that it might be difficult to find the preferred

study, the type of study or other literature that will be used instead should also be described. For

example:

In the absence of randomized controlled trials, descriptive studies such as ….

Types of Participants

Participants in a systematic review refer to the subjects used in the primary studies that

will be included in the review. Criteria for selection of these participants must be very clear and

specific as key words for searching are developed using these criteria. Participants should be

defined in three ways. First, the disease or condition of interest, such as urinary tract infection,

breast cancer or type 2 diabetes should be specified. Second, the population of interest must be

described in as few words as possible. This step involves deciding on the characteristics or

attributes of the population, such as age, race, ethnicity, and educational level. Finally, the type

of setting, such as acute care hospital, community mental health center, and ambulatory surgery

is described. For example, in a study of the effectiveness of warming methods on operative

hypothermia:

“Adults ≥18 years of age, who underwent any type of surgery will be included. Patients

who were subject to deliberate hypothermia such as those for cardiac or neurosurgical

of 53

interventions will be excluded.”

In this example, the condition of interest is hypothermia, the population of interest is

any adult aged 18 years or older, and the setting of interest is surgery.

Types of Interventions/Phenomenon of Interest

Next, a description of the types of interventions or phenomenon of interest is necessary.

If the proposal is for a review of interventions, the primary and comparison interventions need

to be fully described. Following a description of the primary intervention of interest, a

decision needs to be made regarding the comparisons, for example, a placebo, another

intervention, nothing or

usual care. Observational systematic reviews (such as those about risk factors) and qualitative

reviews do not have a comparator. Instead, in observational reviews, the proposal should

describe the two exposure groups being compared (e.g. Exposed to the risk factor, and not

exposed to the risk factor). Qualitative studies do not address variables, rather target a

phenomenon of interest, such as “the experience of diagnosis with a life threatening illness”.

Types of Outcomes/Context

Explicit criteria for establishing the presence of appropriate outcomes and if necessary,

their combinations must be specified. The background should provide enough information to

justify the outcomes included and potentially those that were not included. Each outcome

should be described and the way in which it was measured should be provided. For example:

Length of stay, which will be inclusive of day of admission to day of discharge, will be

measured in days.

Qualitative questions do not generally identify outcomes. Rather, the context in which the

phenomenon is taking place is described. For example, in the sentence “the experience of

caregivers of HIV/AIDS patients in Africa”, Africa is the context.

of 53

Search strategy for identification of studies

The search for articles and papers to be included in the review can be compared to

enrolling patients into a primary research study. The articles selected as a result of the search

process are, in essence, the subjects for the review. Keywords and phrases provide the

foundation for searching, and are derived from the review question. The search generally

includes both published and unpublished work.

A concept map is useful in expanding on key words. For example, the phrase critical

care can be mapped to include intensive care, intensive care unit, critical care unit, or ICU as

well as identified by specialty area, for example, coronary care unit, pediatric intensive care

unit, and surgical intensive care unit. By mapping each of the key words and phrases, a more

comprehensive search c a n be conducted. The phases of the search strategy should be very

detailed including the initial search and the subsequent expanded search.

The search should be described in stages. Stage 1 is the first attempt at the search in

which the reviewers use a limited set of key words to find potentially relevant studies. These

studies are reviewed in an effort to expand key words and phrases for a more in-depth search.

At a minimum, Medline, CINHAL, and the Virginia Henderson Library of Sigma Theta Tau

International should be searched during this first stage.

Stage 2 expands the databases used and searches these using the full list of key words

developed in Stage 1.

Stage 3 involves searching the reference lists of identified articles for any relevant

references and hand searching appropriate journals. Additionally, an author search should be

conducted on the names of authors known to have conducted research on the review question.

A list of all databases and grey literature and the full list of key words used in the search

should be provided. The timeframe for searching each database must be included. If a decision

of 53

is made not to search the entire database (i.e., from inception) and a narrower timeframe is

used, such as 2000-2011, a valid justification needs to be provided. Narrowing the search

timeframe simply to identify the latest literature on a topic is not a valid justification.

Databases to search:

1. Stage 1: Medline, CINAHL, Virginia Henderson Library

2. Stage 2: Medline, CINAHL, Academic Search Premiere, Web of Science,

DARE. Other…include those databases that have relevance to your review

objective, e.g., PsyINFO, ERIC

3. Grey Literature: Virginia Henderson Library, MEDNAR (which includes

Google Scholar), New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature Report,

Scirus.com, Proquest Dissertations. Other…. Include professional organizations

relevant to the review objective to search for reports, guidelines, unpublished

research, e.g., American Heart Association.

Methods of the review

Assessment of methodological quality

A description of how the quality of each paper will be determined is necessary for the

proposal. The appropriate critical appraisal tool(s) to be used should be included in the

appendices. A pre-review determination needs to be made regarding the scoring of each of the

tools to be used.

Data extraction

A description of how data will be extracted and managed must also be included. The

data extraction tool to be used should be included in the appendices. The appropriate data

extraction sheet to be used should also be included in the appendices.

Data synthesis

of 53

The appropriate data synthesis method should be described here.

Evidence Transfer Project Description

Each systematic review conducted as a DNP project will not be considered complete

without inclusion of an evidence transfer component based on the findings of the review. The

primary reason to conduct a systematic review is to find and evaluate evidence that can be

translated or transferred to practice situations. Evidence transfer, also known as knowledge

translation is a term increasingly used to represent a process of moving what we learned

through systematic review to the actual applications of such knowledge in a variety of practice

settings and circumstances. Examples of an evidence transfer/knowledge translation component

include:

Development of Evidence Based Teaching tool

A module or simulation activity for inclusion into a nursing program

Development of a pilot study to implement recommendations

Development of clinical audit criteria

Development or update of an existing practice policy

Development of an evidence based practice protocol to incorporate the findings and

recommendations from the systematic reviews.

An evaluation of the evidence transfer component of the systematic review is required. The

plan for the evaluation will be jointly determined with the project chair.

References

Vancouver style for JBI reviews. APA for all others.

Acknowledgements

If you received help in developing the proposal from anyone, it should be

of 53

acknowledged here. If the proposal is for a doctoral project, the project committee should be

acknowledged here.

Appendices

Reference: Holly C, Salmond S, Saimbert MK (2012). Comprehensive Systematic Review for

Advanced Nursing Practice. NY: Springer Publishing.

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports

Page 1Created by XMLmind XSL-FO Converter.

# Insert review title#: a systematic review protocol

Primary reviewer name1

Secondary reviewer name2

1 Primary reviewer affiliation

2 Secondary reviewer affiliation

Corresponding author:

Reviewer name

Email: [email protected]

Review question/objective

The quantitative objective/s is/are to identify the effectiveness of #state intervention# on #state

outcome#

More specifically, the objectives are to identify the effectiveness of #insert text# on #insert text# in

#insert text#

The qualitative objective/s is/are to identify the meaningfulness/appropriateness of #modify text as

appropriate# of #phenomena of interest#.

The textual objective/s is/are to identify the findings of #describe#

The economic objective/s of this review is/are to identify the cost effectiveness, cost benefit, cost

minimization, cost utility #modify text as appropriate# of #state intervention# on #state outcome#

More specifically, the objectives are to identify the evidence on:

The cost effectiveness, cost benefit, cost minimization, cost utility #modify text as appropriate# of

#insert text# compared to #insert text# on #insert text# in #insert text#

Background

#Insert text; approximately 1000 words#

Subheadings (if required)

Keywords

List each keyword separated with a semi colon and space

of 53



Inclusion criteria

Types of participants

This review will consider studies that include #describe participants#

Types of intervention(s)/phenomena of interest

This review will consider studies that evaluate #insert text#

Types of outcomes

This review will consider studies that include the following outcomes #insert text#

Types of studies

The quantitative component of the review will consider both experimental and epidemiological study

designs including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental

studies, before and after studies, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case control studies

and analytical cross sectional studies #modify text as appropriate# for inclusion.The quantitative

component of the review will also consider descriptive epidemiological study designs including case

series, individual case reports and descriptive cross sectional studies #modify text as appropriate# for

inclusion.

The qualitative component of the review will consider studies that focus on qualitative data including,

but not limited to, designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, action research

and feminist research.

In the absence of research studies, other text such as opinion papers and reports will be considered.

If you wish to include opinion papers and reports select textual evidence and the NOTARI analytical

Module and then select to insert set text now. The textual component of the review will consider

expert opinion, discussion papers, position papers and other text.

The economic component of the review will consider cost effectiveness, cost benefit, cost

minimization, cost utility #modify text as appropriate# studies.

Search strategy

The search strategy aims to find both published and unpublished studies. A three-step search

strategy will be utilized in this review. An initial limited search of MEDLINE and CINAHL #change as

appropriate# will be undertaken followed by an analysis of the text words contained in the title and

abstract, and of the index terms used to describe article. A second search using all identified

keywords and index terms will then be undertaken across all included databases. Thirdly, the

reference list of all identified reports and articles will be searched for additional studies. Studies

published in #insert language(s)# will be considered for inclusion in this review. Studies published

#insert dates# will be considered for inclusion in this review.

The databases to be searched include:

#insert text#

The search for unpublished studies will include:

#insert text#

of 53



Initial keywords to be used will be:

#insert text#

Assessment of methodological quality

Papers selected for retrieval will be assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological

validity prior to inclusion in the review using standardized critical appraisal instruments from the

Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-

MAStARI) (Appendix I). Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through

discussion, or with a third reviewer.

Qualitative papers selected for retrieval will be assessed by two independent reviewers for

methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using standardized critical appraisal instruments

from the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-QARI)

(Appendix I). Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through


Textual papers selected for retrieval will be assessed by two independent reviewers for authenticity

prior to inclusion in the review using standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna

Briggs Institute Narrative, Opinion and Text Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-NOTARI)

(Appendix I). Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through


Economic papers selected for retrieval will be assessed by two independent reviewers for

methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using standardized critical appraisal instruments

from the Joanna Briggs Institute Analysis of Cost, Technology and Utilization Assessment and Review

Instrument (JBI-ACTUARI) (Appendix I). Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be

resolved through discussion, or with a third reviewer.

Data extraction

Quantitative data will be extracted from papers included in the review using the standardised data

extraction tool from JBI-MAStARI (Appendix II). The data extracted will include specific details about

the interventions, populations, study methods and outcomes of significance to the review question

and specific objectives.

Qualitative data will be extracted from papers included in the review using the standardised data

extraction tool from JBI-QARI (Appendix II). The data extracted will include specific details about the

interventions, populations, study methods and outcomes of significance to the review question and

specific objectives.

Textual data will be extracted from papers included in the review using the standardised data

extraction tool from JBI-NOTARI (Appendix II). The data extracted will include specific details about



Economic data will be extracted from papers included in the review using the standardised data

extraction tool from JBI-ACTUARI (Appendix II). The data extracted will include specific details about

of 53





Data synthesis

Quantitative data will, where possible be pooled in statistical meta-analysis using JBI-MAStARI. All

results will be subject to double data entry. Effect sizes expressed as odds ratio (for categorical data)

and weighted mean differences (for continuous data) and their 95% confidence intervals will be

calculated for analysis #modify text as appropriate#. Heterogeneity will be assessed statistically using

the standard Chi-square and also explored using subgroup analyses based on the different study

designs included in this review. Where statistical pooling is not possible the findings will be presented

in narrative form including tables and figures to aid in data presentation where appropriate.

Conflicts of interest

#insert text#

Acknowledgements

#insert text#

of 53



References—examples of Vancouver format

1. Rorabeck CH. The treatment of compartment syndromes of the leg. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1984;66(1):93-7.

2. McQueen MM, Court-Brown CM. Compartment monitoring in tibial fractures. The pressurethreshold for decompression. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(1):99-104.

3. Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH. Compartment syndromes of the lower leg. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1989(240):97-104.

4. Sheridan GW, Matsen FA, 3rd. Fasciotomy in the treatment of the acute compartment syndrome.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976;58(1):112-5.

5. Finkelstein JA, Hunter GA, Hu RW. Lower limb compartment syndrome: course after delayedfasciotomy. J Trauma. 1996;40(3):342-4.

6. McQueen M. Acute compartment syndrome. Acta Chir Belg. 1998;98(4):166-70.

7. Fitzgerald AM, Gaston P, Wilson Y, Quaba A, McQueen MM. Long-term sequelae of fasciotomywounds. Br J Plast Surg. 2000;53(8):690-3.

8. Giannoudis PV, Nicolopoulos C, Dinopoulos H, Ng A, Adedapo S, Kind P. The impact of lowerleg compartment syndrome on health related quality of life. Injury. 2002;33(2):117-21.

9. Velmahos GC, Theodorou D, Demetriades D, Chan L, Berne TV, Asensio J, et al. Complicationsand nonclosure rates of fasciotomy for trauma and related risk factors. World J Surg.1997;21(3):247-52; discussion 53.

10. Blackman PG. A review of chronic exertional compartment syndrome in the lower leg. Med SciSports Exerc. 2000;32(3 Suppl):S4-10.

11. Rorabeck CH, Fowler PJ, Nott L. The results of fasciotomy in the management of chronicexertional compartment syndrome. Am J Sports Med. 1988;16(3):224-7.

12. Ojike NI, Roberts CS, Giannoudis PV. Compartment syndrome of the thigh: a systematic review.Injury. 2010;41(2):133-6.

Insert page break

of 53

JBI Data

Appen

MAStAR

abase of Sys

ndix I: App

RI appraisal

stematic Rev

praisal ins

instrument

views & Imple

Created by X

struments

t

ementation R

XMLmind XSL-F

Reports

FO Converter.

Page 6

of 53

JBI Dataabase of Sysstematic Revviews & Imple

Created by X

ementation R

XMLmind XSL-F

Reports

FO Converter.

Page 7

of 53


Created by X

ementation R

XMLmind XSL-F

Reports

FO Converter.

Page 8

of 53

JBI Data

QARI ap

abase of Sys

ppraisal inst

stematic Rev

trument

views & Imple

Created by X

ementation R

XMLmind XSL-F

Reports

FO Converter.

Page 9

of 53

JBI Data

ACTUA

abase of Sys

RI appraisa

stematic Rev

l instrument

views & Imple

Created by X

t

ementation R

XMLmind XSL-F

Reports

FO Converter.

Page 10

of 53

JBI Data

NOTAR

abase of Sys

RI appraisal i

stematic Rev

instrument

views & Imple

Created by X

ementation R

XMLmind XSL-F

Reports

FO Converter.

Page 11

of 53

JBI Data

Appen

MAStAR

abase of Sys

ndix II: Dat

RI data extra

stematic Rev

ta extracti

action instru

views & Imple

Created by X

ion instrum

ument

ementation R

XMLmind XSL-F

ments

Reports

FO Converter.

Page 12

of 53


Created by X

ementation R

XMLmind XSL-F

Reports

FO Converter.

Page 13

of 53

JBI Data

QARI da

abase of Sys

ata extractio

stematic Rev

on instrume

views & Imple

Created by X

ent

ementation R

XMLmind XSL-F

Reports

FO Converter.

Page 14

of 53


Created by X

ementation R

XMLmind XSL-F

Reports

FO Converter.

Page 15

of 53

JBI Data

ACTUA

abase of Sys

RI data extr

stematic Rev

raction instr

views & Imple

Created by X

rument

ementation R

XMLmind XSL-F

Reports

FO Converter.

Page 16

of 53


Created by X

ementation R

XMLmind XSL-F

Reports

FO Converter.

Page 17

of 53

JBI Data

NOTAR

abase of Sys

RI data extrac

stematic Rev

ction instru

views & Imple

Created by X

ment

ementation R

XMLmind XSL-F

Reports

FO Converter.

Page 18

of 53


Created by X

ementation R

XMLmind XSL-F

Reports

FO Converter.

Page 19

of 53

doctor of nurs ing practice (dnp) toolkitthe other in poster format as directed in the...

Documents