DPI Project Chapter 1: introduction to the project
Draft Chapter 1, Introduction to the Project, of a Direct Practice Improvement Project proposal on the impacts of medication administration error on three-to-four-year-old leukemia patients, using the DPI Proposal Template and covering all twelve required sections.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 14, 2026
Chapter 1 is an argument, not twelve separate answers
Chapter 1 is graded as a single argument even though the template lists twelve sections, and the argument runs along a chain that has to hold at every link. The background establishes that medication administration error is a known and measured problem; the problem statement narrows it to something specific, local and actionable — not medication errors in general but administration errors reaching paediatric oncology patients aged three to four in a named setting; the purpose says what your project will do about it; and the clinical question asks it in answerable form, usually PICOT. If a reader can find your clinical question and your problem statement disagreeing about population, intervention or outcome, the chapter has failed regardless of how well the individual sections read on their own. Write those four sections together and revise them as a single set rather than in template order.
The topic itself gives you real material, and using it is what separates a completed template from a proposal. Weight-based dosing, dilute concentrations, chemotherapy protocols with narrow therapeutic windows and a patient who cannot report a symptom together make this age group a high-harm setting, so your significance section can argue harm rather than merely count events. Rationale for methodology and nature of the project design are where doctoral proposals most often slip into research language: a Direct Practice Improvement project implements existing evidence in one setting and measures the change, so justify a quality improvement design and say plainly that this is not a study seeking generalisable knowledge. Definition of terms should define what you will measure — what counts as an administration error, what counts as harm — because the assumptions, limitations and delimitations section then has something concrete to bound. Write delimitations as choices you made, not as weaknesses you regret.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Construct a problem statement that is specific, local and actionable.
- 02Align purpose, clinical question and problem statement so they describe one project.
- 03Justify a quality improvement methodology rather than a research design.
- 04Define measurable terms and bound the project with stated delimitations.
- 05Argue significance from harm and evidence rather than from event counts alone.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
You must proofread your paper. But do not strictly rely on your computer’s spell-checker and grammar-checker; failure to do so indicates a lack of effort on your part and you can expect your grade to suffer accordingly. Papers with numerous misspelled words and grammatical mistakes will be penalized. Read over your paper – in silence and then aloud – before handing it in and make corrections as necessary. Often it is advantageous to have a friend proofread your paper for obvious errors. Handwritten corrections are preferable to uncorrected mistakes. Use a standard 10 to 12 point (10 to 12 characters per inch) typeface. Smaller or compressed type and papers with small margins or single-spacing are hard to read. It is better to let your essay run over the recommended number of pages than to try to compress it into fewer pages. Likewise, large type, large margins, large indentations, triple-spacing, increased leading (space between lines), increased kerning (space between letters), and any other such attempts at “padding” to increase the length of a paper are unacceptable, wasteful of trees, and will not fool your professor. The paper must be neatly formatted, double-spaced with a one-inch margin on the top, bottom, and sides of each page. When submitting hard copy, be sure to use white paper and print out using dark ink. If it is hard to read your essay, it will also be hard to follow your argument.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01Chapter 1 introduction and background of the project.
- 02A problem statement and a purpose statement that agree with each other.
- 03Clinical question or questions in answerable form.
- 04Advancing scientific knowledge and significance of the project.
- 05Rationale for methodology and nature of the project design.
- 06Definition of terms, assumptions, limitations, delimitations and a summary.
Build the chain: problem, purpose, question, significance
Introduction and background
Establish medication administration error as a measured problem with known harm.
Problem statement
Narrow to this population and this setting in one testable sentence.
Purpose and clinical questions
State what the project will do and ask it in answerable form.
Advancing knowledge and significance
Argue what changes in practice if the project succeeds.
Rationale for methodology and project design
Justify an improvement design and describe how change will be measured.
Terms, assumptions, limitations, delimitations and summary
Define what is measured, bound the project and close the chapter.
Evidence for paediatric medication error and its harm
Recommended databases
- CINAHL
- PubMed
- StatPearls via NCBI Bookshelf
- Institute for Safe Medication Practices
- Your own site's incident reporting data
Search sequence
- 1.Find current paediatric medication administration error rates and harm data.
- 2.Read why weight-based dosing and chemotherapy protocols raise risk in this age group.
- 3.Locate one implemented intervention with a measured before-and-after result.
- 4.Write the problem statement, purpose and clinical question together, then check they agree.
- 5.Confirm your site's own baseline data exists before promising to measure a change.
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
Medication Dispensing Errors and Prevention
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Error taxonomy and prevention strategies, which the background and definition of terms both need.
- 02
Medical Error Prevention and Root Cause Analysis
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Frames why administration errors happen systemically, which is what the intervention must address.
- 03
Quality Improvement Methods (LEAN, PDSA, SIX SIGMA)
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2024
Supports the rationale for an improvement methodology rather than a research design.
- 04
Nursing Professional Development Evidence-Based Practice
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2024
The distinction between generating and applying knowledge, which the methodology section must state.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Treating the template as twelve independent sections instead of one argument.
- A problem statement broad enough to cover any hospital, which nothing can then address.
- A clinical question whose population or outcome differs from the problem statement's.
- Justifying a research design when a DPI project implements existing evidence.
- Defining terms that are never measured and leaving the measured ones undefined.
- Writing delimitations as apologies rather than as scope decisions.
Submission checklist
- All twelve template sections are present and in order.
- Problem, purpose and clinical question name the same population and outcome.
- The methodology rationale distinguishes improvement from research.
- Every measured term is defined.
- Limitations and delimitations are separated.
- APA style is applied throughout and the file is submitted to LopesWrite.
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.