| Course | DNP 810 Evidence-based Practice for Quality Improvement |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | EBP model selection paper |
| Length | About 1,037 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | DNP |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DNP 810 Module 3
A Model That Expects a Pilot: Selecting the Revised Iowa Model to Guide a Second-Dose Antibiotic Redosing Project
Student Name
Doctor of Nursing Practice Program, Aspen University
DNP 810: Evidence-based Practice for Quality Improvement
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
A Model That Expects a Pilot: Selecting the Revised Iowa Model to Guide a Second-Dose Antibiotic Redosing Project
Evidence-based practice models give structure to the steps between recognizing a problem and sustaining a change. Choosing one is not a formality: models differ in how they begin, how they treat weak evidence, and how much they say about implementation. This paper compares three widely used models for a project on timely second antibiotic doses for admitted septic patients who remain in the emergency department, explains why the revised Iowa Model was selected, and maps its steps to the project.
Criteria for Choosing
An overview of six widely discussed evidence-based practice models concluded that nurses struggle to choose among them because of varied terminology and organizational challenges, and it evaluated each for usefulness in facilitating the process in practice settings (Schaffer et al., 2013). Drawing on that work, the project set four criteria. The model should start from a problem identified in practice, since the trigger here was nurses noticing late doses. It should explicitly address what to do when the evidence for an intervention is limited, since the appraisal found only one intervention study. It should include a pilot before wider adoption. And it should give practical guidance on implementation across disciplines, since the change requires nurses, pharmacists and informatics staff to act together.
Three Candidates
The Johns Hopkins model organizes work into three phases, practice question, evidence and translation, with detailed tools for appraising and grading evidence. Its strength is rigor in appraisal; its translation phase is less detailed about piloting and implementation strategies. The ARCC model, built around evidence-based practice mentors, focuses on building an organizational culture of evidence-based practice through mentors, which is valuable for sustaining practice but less directly suited to guiding a single project. The revised Iowa Model begins with triggering issues, which may be clinical problems or new knowledge, asks whether the topic is a priority, forms a team, assembles and appraises evidence, asks whether the evidence is sufficient, and if so pilots the change before deciding whether to adopt it, then integrates and sustains it and disseminates results.
Why the Revised Iowa Model
The Iowa Model met all four criteria. It explicitly begins from problem-focused triggers. Its decision point on sufficiency of evidence allows a project to proceed to a pilot when evidence is promising but limited, rather than stopping or treating a single study as proof. Its pilot step is central. And the 2017 revision expanded guidance on piloting, implementation, patient engagement and sustaining change, after a survey of 431 users identified topic priority, critique, pilot and institute change as the most problematic steps (Iowa Model Collaborative, 2017). The model's authors have also published an application-oriented resource of implementation strategies matched to phases of adoption, which helps nursing leaders select strategies for creating awareness, building knowledge and commitment, promoting action and pursuing integration (Cullen & Adams, 2012).
The model's weaknesses are also clear. Its steps can appear linear, while real projects loop back, and it offers less detail on appraisal tools than some alternatives. The project will therefore use a structured appraisal tool alongside the model.
Mapping the Steps to the Project
Triggering issue: emergency nurses and the audit identified major second-dose delays in 38% of sepsis admissions. Priority: the problem aligns with the hospital's sepsis quality goals, and the emergency department and pharmacy directors agreed it was a priority. Team: an emergency nurse champion, an emergency pharmacist, an informatics analyst, a hospitalist and the doctoral student as lead. Evidence: the appraisal graded evidence for the problem as strong and for the intervention as low to moderate. Sufficiency: judged sufficient to pilot, given low risk and meaningful potential benefit. Pilot: a three-month pilot on the emergency department's main treatment area, with the pharmacist entering second doses at the time of first-dose administration and the nurse prompted when due. Adoption decision: based on the pilot's effect on major delays and on feasibility. Integration and sustainment: order set changes, staff orientation, and monthly monitoring. Dissemination: results shared with the sepsis committee and emergency staff.
Implementation Strategies by Phase
The Iowa Model's implementation guidance organizes strategies by the phase of adoption. For creating awareness and interest, the team will present the audit findings at emergency department and pharmacy staff meetings, using two brief patient stories with details removed, and post a simple run chart of monthly delays in the staff areas. For building knowledge and commitment, the emergency pharmacist and nurse champion will hold ten-minute huddle sessions on each shift explaining why time-dependent antibiotics need on-time doses and how the new process works, and will ask staff to suggest improvements before the pilot begins.
For promoting action and adoption, the electronic record will generate a task for the nurse 30 minutes before the second dose is due, and the pharmacist will check at the start of each shift for boarders whose first dose was given in the preceding hours. Audit and feedback will show each shift its own on-time rate during the pilot. For pursuing integration and sustained use, the redosing step will be written into the emergency department sepsis order set and pharmacy workflow, included in new staff orientation, and reported monthly to the sepsis committee, so that the change does not depend on the original champions.
Engaging Patients and Families
The 2017 revision of the model added patient engagement throughout the process. For this project, engagement is modest but real: patients and families waiting in the emergency department will receive a card explaining that antibiotics are given on a schedule and inviting them to ask the nurse if a dose seems late. Two former patients who sit on the hospital's patient and family advisory group will review the card and the pilot plan, which helps ensure that the language is clear and that the change reflects what patients notice during long waits.
Conclusion
Comparing evidence-based practice models against criteria drawn from the project's features led to the revised Iowa Model, whose problem-focused start, explicit sufficiency decision, central pilot step and expanded implementation guidance suit a practice-identified problem with limited intervention evidence. Mapping its steps to the project shows a clear path from the nurses' observation to a tested and sustained change.
References
Cullen, L., & Adams, S. L. (2012). Planning for implementation of evidence-based practice. Journal of Nursing Administration, 42(4), 222-230. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0b013e31824ccd0a
Iowa Model Collaborative. (2017). Iowa Model of evidence-based practice: Revisions and validation. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 14(3), 175-182. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12223
Schaffer, M. A., Sandau, K. E., & Diedrick, L. (2013). Evidence-based practice models for organizational change: Overview and practical applications. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(5), 1197-1209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06122.x
What the DNP 810 Module 3 instructions ask for
The DNP 810 Module 3 prompt is posted only to Aspen students; the sample follows the course description about creating methodology to validate and implement change in professional practice. In a model selection paper you will typically be asked to review two or more evidence-based practice models, pick one for your project and justify the choice. Some prompts ask you to apply every step of the chosen model; others want a comparison table. Check whether your instructor requires a specific set of models, whether a figure of the model is expected, and the minimum number of scholarly sources. Keep your PICOT question from Module 1 at hand as you plan.
Inside the DNP 810 Module 3 example
This roughly 1,040-word example moves from criteria to choice to application. It opens by setting four criteria taken from the project: fit with limited evidence, a built-in pilot, attention to sustainment and ease of use by bedside teams. Three models are then compared briefly. The next section explains why the revised Iowa Model fits best, citing its validation study and naming its weaknesses. A mapping section walks through each Iowa step and the project task that matches it. Implementation strategies are then grouped by phase, and a short section covers how patients and families are included. The conclusion restates the reasons for the choice.
Where the marks sit in the DNP 810 Module 3 rubric
A rubric for this paper will give its largest share to the justification, and that is where the example concentrates: every criterion is tied to a feature of the chosen model, with a source. The margin notes show how naming a weakness and a remedy strengthens the argument rather than weakening it. Applying the model step by step earns the application points, since it proves the model will actually be used. The comparison of three candidates supports the analysis criterion. Organization flows from criteria to comparison to choice to application. APA points depend on citing each model's original or revised publication correctly.
DNP 810 Module 3 help: mistakes that cost marks
A common error is describing three models at length and then choosing one with a single sentence. Spend most of your words on why the chosen model fits your project. Students also pick a model without criteria, which makes the choice look arbitrary; write the criteria first and test each model against them. Another problem is citing an old version of a model when a revised one exists, and both the Iowa and Johns Hopkins frameworks now exist in revised editions. Some papers never connect the model to the actual project steps. Map at least the main phases. And avoid claiming one model is the best in general; it is the best fit for this project. Graders read that distinction as a sign of mature judgment, so state it plainly in your justification.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More DNP 810 and DNP sample papers
- DNP 810 Module 1: From Practice Problem to PICOT
- DNP 810 Module 2: Appraising and Grading the Evidence
- DNP 810 Module 4: PDSA Design and Family of Measures
- DNP 810 Module 5: Methodology and Data Collection Plan
- DNP 810 Module 6: Reading a Control Chart
- DNP 810 Module 7: Implementation Framework and Barriers
- DNP 810 Module 8: Complete EBP Quality Improvement Proposal
- DNP 825 Module 6: Privacy, Security and a Breach
- DNP885 Module 4: Variance Analysis Paper
- DNP880 Module 8: Dissemination Presentation
- DNP 835 Module 8: Complete Project Management Plan
DNP 810 Module 3 questions, answered
What does DNP 810 Module 3 usually ask for?
Aspen's DNP 810 description centers on implementing change in practice, so selecting and applying an evidence-based practice model is a typical assignment. Check your classroom for the prompt.
Which evidence-based practice model is best?
None is best for every project. Choose by criteria such as how the project was triggered, the strength of the evidence, the need for a pilot and the implementation support required.
What does the Iowa Model do when evidence is limited?
Its decision point on sufficiency allows a team to pilot a promising change and evaluate it, or to conduct research, rather than adopting it outright or abandoning it.
Where can I find a free DNP 810 Module 3 sample paper?
On this page, in full. The model selection paper that settles on the revised Iowa Model for an antibiotic redosing project is reproduced from its title page to its references, annotated as it goes, and you pay nothing to read it. Send your own project details through the form if you want one written for you.
Which EBP models are usually compared in DNP 810 Module 3?
The Johns Hopkins model, the Iowa Model and the ARCC model are common choices, along with the Stetler model and the PARIHS framework. Pick models that suit your project type, and justify your final choice with criteria drawn from the project itself.