| Course | DNP 820 Health Policy and Advocacy |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 7 |
| Paper type | Advocacy brief with rationale |
| Length | About 1,004 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | DNP |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DNP 820 Module 7
One Page, One Request: An Advocacy Brief for a State Hospital Sepsis Protocol Law and the Reasoning Behind It
Student Name
Doctor of Nursing Practice Program, Aspen University
DNP 820: Health Policy and Advocacy
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
One Page, One Request: An Advocacy Brief for a State Hospital Sepsis Protocol Law and the Reasoning Behind It
Legislators and their staff read quickly and have many competing demands. An advocacy brief must state the problem, the request and the evidence in a single page that can be read in two minutes. This paper presents a brief written by a doctoral nurse on behalf of the state nurses association, asking the chair of a composite state's senate health committee to sponsor legislation requiring hospitals to adopt evidence-based sepsis protocols and report on their use, and then explains the choices behind the brief.
The Brief
To: Chair, Senate Committee on Health. From: Policy Committee of the State Nurses Association. Re: Require hospital sepsis protocols to reduce preventable deaths.
The request: Sponsor legislation in the coming session requiring every acute care hospital in the state to adopt an evidence-based protocol for the early recognition and treatment of sepsis, train staff in its use, and report protocol performance to the Department of Health annually.
The problem: Sepsis is the body's life-threatening response to infection. In a study of 409 U.S. hospitals, sepsis was present in 6.0% of adult hospitalizations, and 15.0% of those patients died in the hospital (Rhee et al., 2017). In our state, that means thousands of hospitalizations and hundreds of deaths each year, many of them preventable with faster treatment.
The evidence: New York required hospitals to adopt sepsis protocols in 2013 after the death of a 12-year-old boy. Among 49,331 patients treated under the mandate, every additional hour before the first-stage bundle was finished, and every additional hour before antibiotics were given, was associated with 4% higher odds of in-hospital death (Seymour et al., 2017). Compared with patients in similar states, patients in New York had lower mortality than expected after the regulations; by the tenth quarter, adjusted mortality was 3.2 percentage points lower than expected (Kahn et al., 2019).
The cost: Most hospitals already have some sepsis program. The law would standardize expectations and reporting at modest cost, mainly staff training time and data reporting.
Who supports it: nurses, emergency physicians, sepsis survivors and families. Contact: the association's policy director, with the nurse author available to testify.
Why the Request Comes First
Many advocacy documents bury the request after pages of background. Legislative staff often decide within seconds whether a document is relevant, so the brief states the specific action wanted, sponsorship of a bill, in its second line. The request is precise about what the bill would require, adoption, training and reporting, which allows staff to judge feasibility and draft language.
The brief also names its sender clearly. A state nurses association represents constituents in every district, and a named nurse author willing to testify signals that the request comes from clinicians who treat sepsis, not only from an organization's staff.
Why These Numbers
The brief uses three kinds of numbers for different purposes. The national incidence and mortality figures establish the problem's size in terms the legislator can relate to the state. The New York time-to-treatment figure explains why protocols matter, faster treatment is associated with survival, in one intuitive statistic. The comparative mortality result answers the question a skeptical legislator will ask, whether a mandate actually worked. The brief cites only three studies, chosen for strength and relevance, because a longer list signals thoroughness to academics but overwhelms legislative readers.
The brief also avoids overstating. The New York comparison was observational, and part of the improvement might reflect other changes; the brief therefore says mortality was lower than expected, not that the law saved a precise number of lives.
Anticipating Objections
The hospital association may argue that a mandate adds reporting burden and that most hospitals already treat sepsis well. The brief addresses this by noting that most hospitals already have programs and that the law standardizes rather than creates them. In a follow-up meeting, the nurse would propose using existing federal sepsis measure data where possible to limit new reporting. Physicians may raise concerns that rigid protocols could lead to overtreatment, such as unnecessary antibiotics; the bill can require protocols to be evidence-based and updated, without specifying clinical details in statute.
Delivering the Brief
A brief works best as part of a relationship. The association's lobbyist will request a 15-minute meeting with the committee chair's health policy staff, attended by the nurse author and a sepsis survivor from the chair's district, whose story makes the numbers personal. The brief is left behind and emailed afterward. If the chair agrees to sponsor, the association will offer draft language, identify co-sponsors from both parties and prepare testimony for the committee hearing.
After the Meeting
Advocacy continues after the brief is delivered. Within a day, the nurse sends a thank-you email with the brief attached and answers to any questions raised in the meeting. If staff asked for state-specific data, the association works with the state hospital association or the health department to estimate sepsis admissions and deaths in the state, since local figures carry more weight than national ones. Members of the association in the chair's district are asked to send short personal messages supporting the bill, and the association tracks the bill's progress through committee, preparing testimony and responding quickly to proposed amendments.
The association also plans for the long term. If the bill does not advance this session, the relationships built and the data assembled prepare the ground for the next one, and the association can pursue voluntary measures in the meantime, such as a statewide hospital collaborative on sepsis care that demonstrates the benefits the law would bring.
Conclusion
An effective advocacy brief states one request first, supports it with a few strong and honestly described numbers, anticipates objections and is delivered through a relationship. The brief for a state sepsis protocol law draws on evidence from New York's mandate, which was followed by faster treatment and lower than expected mortality, to ask a legislator for a specific action that nurses are well placed to support.
References
Kahn, J. M., Davis, B. S., Yabes, J. G., Chang, C.-C. H., Chong, D. H., Hershey, T. B., Martsolf, G. R., & Angus, D. C. (2019). Association between state-mandated protocolized sepsis care and in-hospital mortality among adults with sepsis. JAMA, 322(3), 240-250. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.9021
Rhee, C., Dantes, R., Epstein, L., Murphy, D. J., Seymour, C. W., Iwashyna, T. J., Kadri, S. S., Angus, D. C., Danner, R. L., Fiore, A. E., Jernigan, J. A., Martin, G. S., Septimus, E., Warren, D. K., Karcz, A., Chan, C., Menchaca, J. T., Wang, R., Gruber, S., . . . Klompas, M. (2017). Incidence and trends of sepsis in US hospitals using clinical vs claims data, 2009-2014. JAMA, 318(13), 1241-1249. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.13836
Seymour, C. W., Gesten, F., Prescott, H. C., Friedrich, M. E., Iwashyna, T. J., Phillips, G. S., Lemeshow, S., Osborn, T., Terry, K. M., & Levy, M. M. (2017). Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis. New England Journal of Medicine, 376(23), 2235-2244. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1703058
DNP 820 Module 7 instructions, in plain terms
The Module 7 prompt for DNP 820 is posted only in the Aspen classroom; this example follows the course description on assessing legislative influence on health care delivery, with a focus on advocacy. An advocacy assignment often asks you to write a brief, letter or testimony aimed at a policy maker and to explain the choices behind it. Check whether your prompt limits the brief to one page, requires a specific audience, or asks for a separate rationale paper. Some instructors want you to contact a real legislator's office. Read the source requirements, since a brief usually cites fewer sources than a paper while the rationale is expected to support each claim, so plan the evidence for both parts.
How the DNP 820 Module 7 example is put together
The paper is about 1,005 words in seven sections. It begins with the brief itself, set out in a fixed order: the request, the problem, the evidence, the cost and the supporters. The next section explains why the request comes first, since legislators and their staff often stop after the opening lines. Why these numbers explains the choice of state-level burden and New York's outcome data over national estimates. Anticipating objections covers cost and hospital autonomy. Delivering the brief describes the meeting with staff, and after the meeting describes follow-up and tracking. The conclusion restates the principles behind the brief. Each section of the rationale points back to a line in the brief, which keeps the two parts tied together.
Reading the DNP 820 Module 7 grading rubric
A rubric for this assignment will look at the brief's persuasiveness and the rationale's reasoning. The example earns persuasion points by leading with a clear request and supporting it with a few strong numbers rather than many weak ones. The margin notes explain why a brief must be readable in two minutes. The rationale earns analysis points by justifying each choice with evidence on how policy makers use information. Addressing objections shows critical thinking. Organization follows the brief's own fixed order and then the logic of delivery. Citation marks depend on handling the New York studies and the burden estimates in both the brief and the rationale, which is easy to get wrong when the brief is short.
Common DNP 820 Module 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most common mistake is writing a brief that reads like a literature review, with long paragraphs and no request until the end. Put the ask in the first line. Students also overload briefs with statistics; choose two or three numbers that matter to the audience, such as state deaths or costs. Another problem is ignoring the other side, which leaves a legislator unprepared for the first objection they hear. Some papers skip the rationale or make it a summary of the brief rather than an explanation of choices. Finally, do not forget the follow-up. Advocacy rarely succeeds in one meeting, and a plan for the next contact shows that you understand how legislative work actually moves.
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 820 and DNP sample papers
- DNP 820 Module 1: A Policy Process Model Applied
- DNP 820 Module 2: Health Care Economics and Cost Drivers
- DNP 820 Module 3: A Federal Law and Advanced Practice
- DNP 820 Module 4: Full Practice Authority Debate
- DNP 820 Module 5: The Regulatory Process and a Public Comment
- DNP 820 Module 6: Ethics of Allocating a Scarce Resource
- DNP 820 Module 8: Complete Policy Analysis With Recommendation
- DNP 805 Module 2: Assessing Readiness for Change
- DNP845 Module 2: Philosophy of Science Paper
- DNP885 Module 3: Operating Budget Analysis
- DNP 851B Module 1: Cleaning the Data and Handling Missing Values
DNP 820 Module 7 questions, answered
What does DNP 820 Module 7 usually ask for?
Aspen's DNP 820 description focuses on advocacy, so writing an advocacy brief or letter to a legislator is a typical assignment. Check your classroom for the prompt and length.
What should an advocacy brief include?
A clear request stated first, the problem with a few strong numbers, evidence that the proposal works, costs, supporters and a contact, all on one page.
Did New York's sepsis mandate reduce deaths?
A comparative study found that mortality in New York fell more than expected compared with similar states after the regulations, though as an observational study it cannot prove the law caused the decline.
Where can I find a free DNP 820 Module 7 sample paper?
Right on this page. The full advocacy brief for a state sepsis protocol law is printed with its rationale, title page, references and margin notes, all readable without an account. To have a brief written for your own issue and legislator, use the request form above.
How long should a DNP 820 Module 7 advocacy brief be?
One page is the usual limit for a brief to a legislator, and many staff prefer less. Keep it to a request, the problem, a few key numbers, the cost and who supports it. Put the reasoning and full citations in a separate rationale if your prompt asks for one.