NUR 699 EBP proposal final paper: a planning guide
Seven sections already written and marked, and the final paper is not a compilation — it is the revision that makes them one document somebody could approve.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 10, 2026
What does the NUR 699 final proposal actually require?
The sentence that decides how to approach this is buried in the middle of the brief: the final paper consists of the completed project with revisions to all sections. You have already written A through G and had each returned with feedback. The work now is not assembly, it is reconciliation. Sections written eight weeks apart will disagree with each other — the problem described in B will have drifted from the solution in D, the change model in E will not be visible in the implementation plan in F, and the outcome measures in G will not be the ones the problem statement implied. Read all seven in one sitting before editing anything, and note the contradictions; that list is your actual task.
The second framing sentence matters as much: proposals are submitted in a format suitable for obtaining formal approval in the work setting. That is a real-world audience, not an academic one. A reader deciding whether to authorise this project needs to know what problem it solves, what it will cost, who has to do what, what could go wrong and how success will be judged. Every section should be legible to that reader. It is also why the appendices are not an afterthought — a budget, a timeline, data collection tools and approval forms are precisely the documents an approver asks for, and their absence is what makes a proposal look like coursework.
Section C is the one where graduate-level thinking is most visible and most often missing. Literature support is not a set of summaries; it is an argument that the evidence justifies this solution in this setting. That means saying how many studies, of what design, with what consistency of finding, and where the evidence is weak. A synthesis that reports agreement everywhere has usually been assembled from abstracts. Be explicit about transferability too: evidence generated in a large academic centre may or may not hold in your unit, and saying which is a judgement the approver actually needs.
Sections A, E and F form a chain and they should read as one. The organisational culture and readiness assessment in A tells you what will be hard; the change model in E is chosen because it addresses that difficulty; the implementation plan in F is that model made operational, with named roles, dates and resources. If A reports strong resistance and E selects a model that assumes cooperation, the proposal has a hole in it. This is the most common reconciliation failure and also the easiest to fix, because it usually needs a revised paragraph rather than new work.
Section G evaluates the process, not only the outcome, and the distinction is worth honouring. Outcome measures ask whether the problem improved; process measures ask whether the intervention actually happened as designed — how many staff were trained, what proportion of eligible patients received it, whether the documentation was completed. Without process measures a null result is uninterpretable, because you cannot tell whether the intervention failed or was never delivered. Say what data will be collected, by whom, on what schedule, and what would count as enough to conclude anything.
On mechanics: 3,500 to 5,000 words excluding cover sheet, abstract, references and appendices, with section headings and letters required, and responses in narrative form. Do the final pass for consistency rather than for prose — one problem statement, one population, one intervention name and one set of outcome measures used identically throughout. A proposal that calls the same thing three different names across seven sections reads as three people's work, and this is a benchmark, so the marker is assessing whether the depth of content reflects graduate-level critical thinking across all of it.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Reconcile documents written at different times into one internally consistent proposal.
- 02Write for an approver rather than for a marker.
- 03Synthesise literature into an argument for a specific setting rather than a set of summaries.
- 04Distinguish process measures from outcome measures in an evaluation plan.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
Name: Assignment Rubric 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 Important information for writing discussion questions and participation Hi Class, Please read through the following information on writing a Discussion question response and participation posts. Contact me if you have any questions. Important information on Writing a Discussion Question Your response needs to be a minimum of 150 words (not including your list of references) There needs to be at least TWO references with ONE being a peer reviewed professional journal article. Include in-text citations in your response Do not include quotes—instead summarize and paraphrase the information Follow APA-7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Participation –replies to your classmates or instructor A minimum of 6 responses per week, on at least 3 days of the week. Each response needs at least ONE reference with citations—best if it is a peer reviewed journal article Each response needs to be at least 75 words in length (does not include your list of references) Responses need to be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Responses of “I agree” or “great post” does not count for the word count. Follow APA 7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Remember to use and follow APA-7th edition for all weekly assignments, discussion questions, and participation points. Here are some helpful links Student paper example Citing Sources The Writing Center is a great resource Welcome to class Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to. I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you. Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted. If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations. Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements. Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week. I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course!
Seven sections, appendices and the word limit
- 01A 3,500–5,000 word proposal excluding cover sheet, abstract, references and appendices.
- 02All seven sections, A through G, revised rather than merely compiled.
- 03Section headings and letters, with responses in narrative form.
- 04Title page, abstract and reference list.
- 05Appendices including a conceptual model, handouts, data and evaluation collection tools, a budget, a timeline, resource lists and approval forms.
- 06APA formatting per the course guidelines.
Reconciling the sections into one document
Reconciling A to D
Align the readiness assessment, problem description, literature support and solution so each follows from the last.
Strengthening the literature support
Turn section C into a synthesis that states design, consistency, weakness and transferability.
Change model and implementation
Ensure the model chosen in E addresses the barriers identified in A and is made operational in F.
Evaluation and appendices
Set out process and outcome measures with collection methods, and assemble the appendices an approver requires.
Strengthening the literature support section
Recommended databases
- The NUR-699 implementation plan guide, format document and student example
- CINAHL and PubMed Central
- Your organisation's own quality or approval process documents
- Change management and implementation science literature
Search sequence
- 1.Re-read all seven sections and your instructor's feedback in one sitting before searching anything; the revision list comes from that reading, not from new sources.
- 2.Search the change management literature for evidence on which models suit which conditions, so section E's choice is justified rather than familiar.
- 3.Search for evaluation frameworks that distinguish process from outcome measures, which is the fastest way to strengthen section G.
- 4.Check your organisation's own approval requirements, since the brief asks for a format suitable for formal approval in the work setting and those requirements vary.
Sources for change models and implementation
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
Where Do Models for Change Management, Improvement and Implementation Meet? A Systematic Review of the Applications of Change Management Models in Healthcare
Journal of Healthcare Leadership · 2021
Thirty-eight studies across ten countries, with Kotter and Lewin dominating and the models working as flexible frameworks rather than prescriptions. The evidence for justifying section E's choice against the conditions section A describes.
- 02
The Iowa Model Revised: Evidence-Based Practice to Promote Excellence in Health Care©
University of Iowa Health Care · 2017
The revised model with its decision points and feedback loops, and a permission process for reproducing it. Useful for the conceptual model appendix as well as for section E.
- 03
Implementation strategies for large scale quality improvement initiatives in primary care settings: a qualitative assessment
BMC Primary Care · 2023
Practices reporting initiative fatigue and staff already overwhelmed, with onsite facilitation valued over remote support. Directly useful for the readiness assessment and for making the implementation plan realistic about staff capacity.
- 04
Medical Subject Headings - Home Page
National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health · 2026
The controlled vocabulary for re-running your literature search precisely when you strengthen section C. Worth using even at this stage, since a synthesis is only as good as the search that produced it.
Before you submit
Common mistakes
- Pasting the seven sections together without reconciling their contradictions.
- Leaving the problem in section B narrower or broader than the solution in section D.
- Choosing a change model in E that the readiness assessment in A has already ruled out.
- Writing section C as consecutive study summaries rather than as a synthesis with a verdict.
- Ignoring transferability, so evidence from a different setting is treated as directly applicable.
- Evaluating outcomes only, leaving a null result uninterpretable.
- Treating the appendices as optional, when the budget, timeline and tools are what an approver reads first.
- Using different names for the same intervention or population across sections.
- Writing for an academic marker when the brief specifies a format suitable for workplace approval.
Submission checklist
- All seven sections appear with their letters and headings.
- The problem, population and intervention are named identically throughout.
- The change model in E is justified by findings in A.
- Section F names roles, dates and resources rather than intentions.
- Section C states study designs, consistency of findings and where evidence is weak.
- Transferability to your setting is addressed explicitly.
- Section G includes both process and outcome measures.
- All required appendices are present, including budget, timeline and approval forms.
- Word count sits between 3,500 and 5,000 excluding the excluded elements.
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.