DNP 820 Week 2: the 10 strategic points milestone
The ten points are graded as a system: each has to be defensible on its own and consistent with the other nine, and misalignment is the failure that sends a document back.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 15, 2026
Ten points that have to agree with each other
The ten strategic points exist to compress a whole project into a document short enough that its internal contradictions become visible, which is exactly what a reviewer is looking for. They run from the broad topic through the literature review, the problem statement, the clinical question, the variables, the methodology and design, the purpose statement, the data collection approach, the data analysis approach and the ethical considerations. Draft each in the template's own language rather than in prose, and keep them short — a strategic point is one or two sentences, and a page of discussion at any point is a sign the thinking is not yet settled enough to state. The document is short by design: it exists so that contradictions between the points become visible to a reviewer who has ten minutes. Ten short statements are easier to check against each other than ten pages of prose.
Alignment is what the document is actually graded on, so read it twice: once for whether each point is defensible on its own, and once for whether it agrees with the other nine. The chain that has to hold is specific. The problem statement must be the problem the literature review established rather than one you brought with you. The clinical question must ask about that problem. The variables must be the ones the question names. The methodology must be capable of answering that question, the data collection must produce those variables, and the analysis must suit that data. A quantitative design paired with an outcome you can only reach through interviews is the commonest misalignment, and a purpose statement describing a broader ambition than the question is the second. Ethical considerations are routinely thin: name the actual issues — quality improvement or research for review purposes, consent, data protection, and whether staff may decline — rather than promising approval.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Compress a project into ten short, defensible statements.
- 02Check alignment across the points rather than only within them.
- 03Match methodology, data collection and analysis to the question.
- 04Address ethical considerations specifically rather than procedurally.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A drafted statement for each of the ten strategic points.
- 02Statements written in the template's format and kept short.
- 03Internal alignment across all ten.
- 04Specific ethical considerations, and the practice hours statement.
Draft, then check the alignment across all ten
Topic, literature and problem
Establish the first three points so the problem follows from the evidence.
Question and variables
State the clinical question and the variables it names.
Methodology, design and purpose
Choose an approach capable of answering the question and state the purpose narrowly.
Collection, analysis and ethics
Show data collection producing the variables, analysis suiting the data, and real ethical issues.
Confirming feasibility before drafting
Recommended databases
- The 10 Strategic Points resource
- CINAHL
- PubMed Central
- Your institution's IRB guidance
Search sequence
- 1.Read the ten strategic points resource before drafting anything.
- 2.Confirm the literature supports the problem statement you intend to write.
- 3.Check the data you name is actually collected in your setting.
- 4.Read your institution's guidance on the quality improvement and research distinction.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Asking Focused Questions
Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford · 2024
The standard the clinical question has to meet before the rest of the chain can be built on it.
- 02
Evidence-Based Medicine
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2024
Which designs answer which questions, which is where methodological alignment is decided.
- 03
Ethical oversight in quality improvement and quality improvement research: new approaches to promote a learning health care system
BMC Medical Ethics · 2015
Ethical oversight of quality improvement, which is the distinction the ethics point actually turns on.
- 04
Research Ethics
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Research ethics stated in full, useful for naming real considerations rather than promising approval.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Writing a paragraph where a strategic point is wanted.
- A problem statement that predates the literature review rather than following from it.
- A methodology that cannot produce the named variables.
- A purpose statement broader than the clinical question.
- Ethical considerations reduced to a promise to obtain approval.
Submission checklist
- Is each point one or two sentences?
- Does the problem statement follow from the literature review?
- Can your methodology actually answer your question?
- Do collection and analysis produce and suit your variables?
- Are the ethical considerations specific to this project?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.