DNP 840 Topic 3: care delivery or nursing model change
The audience is administrators, and that is a graded fact rather than a framing device. A clinically excellent case that never mentions cost or risk will not survive the room it is written for.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 15, 2026
Two parts, one audience, and the audience is administrators
Two things in the brief are easy to skim past and both are assessed. This is a two-part assignment, so check what each part requires separately rather than producing one artefact that half-satisfies both. And it is explicitly practice at presenting to administrators, which sets the register. Administrators are not persuaded by the same evidence as a nursing faculty audience. They will want to know what problem this solves in terms they own — length of stay, readmission penalties, agency spend, turnover, regulatory exposure, patient experience scores — and they will want the ask stated plainly and early rather than arrived at in the final slide. The two parts fail differently: the information part on vagueness, the presentation part on format — too many slides and no clear ask. Neither rescues the other. Budget time for both. Check whether speaker notes are expected, since an administrator-facing deck is sparse on the slide and detailed underneath.
So build the case in their currency without abandoning the clinical argument that motivated it. Lead with the problem quantified locally, not nationally: an administrator can dispute whether a national figure applies here and cannot dispute your own unit's numbers. State the proposed model concretely enough to be costed — roles, ratios, hours, what changes on which shift. Give the evidence, but give the strongest two studies rather than eight, because a long literature review reads as uncertainty to this audience. Name the resource ask explicitly, including the part you would prefer not to mention, since an unstated cost discovered later kills the proposal and the credibility together. And say how you would know it worked, with the measure and the review point, because a proposal without an evaluation plan sounds like a permanent commitment rather than a trial. Rehearse the objection you least want, since it is usually the first question asked.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Pitch a clinical proposal in terms an administrative audience owns.
- 02Quantify a problem with local rather than national data.
- 03Specify a model concretely enough to be costed.
- 04Include an evaluation plan with a review point.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
Name: Assignment Rubric DNP 840 Topic 3 Care Delivery or Nursing Model Change Grid View List View Excellent Good Fair Poor Summarize your interpretation of the frequency data provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, and family income from prior month. 32 (32%) – 35 (35%) The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, a summary of the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values in describing intervals that sufficiently provides an analysis that fully supports the categorization of each variable value. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. 28 (28%) – 31 (31%) The response accurately summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response accurately explains the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response accurately explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and explains extreme values in describing intervals that provides an analysis which supports the categorization of each variable value. The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. 25 (25%) – 27 (27%) The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and inaccurately or vaguely explains extreme values. An analysis that may support the categorization of each variable value is inaccurate or vague. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. 0 (0%) – 24 (24%) The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values, or it is missing. An analysis that does not support the categorization of each variable values is provided, or it is missing. The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the explanations provided for each of the areas described, or it is missing. Summarize your interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, race and ethnicity, currently employed, and family income from prior month. 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) The response accurately and clearly summarizes in detail the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response accurately and clearly evaluates in detail each of the variables presented, including an accurate and complete description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) The response accurately summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response accurately explains evaluates each of the variables presented, including an accurate description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response inaccurately or vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate or vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate and vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data, or it is missing. Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided. Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. Total Points: 100 Name: Assignment Rubric
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01Both parts of the assignment, each meeting its own requirement.
- 02A locally quantified problem statement.
- 03A concretely specified model change.
- 04The resource ask, stated in full.
- 05An evaluation plan with measure and review date.
Build the case, then present it to people who fund it
The problem in local numbers
Quantify the issue using your own organisation's data.
The proposed model
Specify roles, ratios and workflow changes concretely.
The evidence
Present the strongest supporting studies briefly.
The ask
State the resources required in full.
How you will know
Give the evaluation measure and review point.
Evidence an administrator would accept
Recommended databases
- Your organisation's quality and finance dashboards
- PubMed Central
- CINAHL
- AHRQ
Search sequence
- 1.Pull your unit's own figures for the problem before searching the literature.
- 2.Find the two strongest studies rather than a full review.
- 3.Ask finance what a fully loaded post costs before writing the ask.
- 4.Identify the metric your administrators are already accountable for.
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
Nurse staffing, burnout, and health care-associated infection
American Journal of Infection Control, 40(6), 486-490 · 2012
Links nurse staffing to infection rates, which is the kind of outcome-and-cost evidence an administrative audience responds to.
- 02
Nurse staffing models that rely on employment of temporary nurses: A realist review
International Journal of Nursing Studies · 2026
A realist review of temporary staffing models, useful for costing arguments about agency spend.
- 03
Reducing Hospital Readmissions
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2024
Covers readmission reduction, which is a penalty exposure administrators already own.
- 04
Section 4: Ways To Approach the Quality Improvement Process
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality · 2024
A structured improvement process, which is what turns a proposal into a trial with a review point.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Writing for a nursing audience when the brief names administrators.
- Using national statistics where local data would be unarguable.
- Leaving the cost implied rather than stated.
- Presenting the change as permanent rather than as a trial with a review.
Submission checklist
- Would an administrator recognise the problem in their own metrics?
- Is the model specific enough for finance to cost it?
- Is the full ask stated, including the awkward part?
- Is there a measure and a date for judging it?
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.