| Course | DNP 850A Project Planning |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 7 |
| Paper type | Stakeholder and feasibility paper |
| Length | About 1,029 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | DNP |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DNP 850A Module 7
Who Must Say Yes: Stakeholders, Site Support and Feasibility for a Nurse-Managed Home Blood Pressure Project
Student Name
Doctor of Nursing Practice Program, Aspen University
DNP 850A: Project Planning
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Who Must Say Yes: Stakeholders, Site Support and Feasibility for a Nurse-Managed Home Blood Pressure Project
A DNP project succeeds or fails on people and conditions that the literature cannot supply. An intervention with strong evidence can still stall if the medical director will not sign the protocol, the nurses have no time, or the portal cannot carry the readings. This paper examines those conditions for my project, in which two nurse care managers at a single health center clinic will review what patients record at home and titrate treatment by protocol during a 12-week run. It identifies the stakeholders and what each needs, reports the support the site has committed in writing, describes the committee, tests feasibility across eight areas and ends with a decision.
Stakeholders and Their Stakes
Eight groups have a stake in the project. The table lists each with its interest and the role it will play. Two principles shaped the list. The first was to include people with little formal power but large influence on daily work, such as the front-desk staff who schedule enrollment visits. The second was to treat patients as stakeholders in design, not only as participants. A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in patient-centered research found that engagement was reported most often at the start of projects, when questions are set, and far less often during implementation and dissemination (Concannon et al., 2014). This project plans for engagement at every stage, including a patient review of the teaching materials and a patient voice in how results are shared.
| Stakeholder | Main interest | Role in the project |
|---|---|---|
| Patients with uncontrolled hypertension | Fewer visits, affordable care, clear instructions | Participants; two patients review teaching materials |
| Registered nurse care managers | Workload, clear authority, safety | Deliver the intervention under protocol |
| Medical director | Patient safety, clinical standards | Signs the protocol; practice mentor |
| Primary care clinicians | Control of their patients' treatment | Receive nurse notes; override when needed |
| Medical assistants | Time and training | Standardized office measurement |
| Front desk and community health worker | Scheduling, language support | Enrollment visits; Spanish interpretation |
| Clinic manager and finance | Staff hours, device costs, billing | Protects nurse time; tracks costs |
| Health center quality committee | Organizational measures | Receives results; decides on spread |
Site Support Already Committed
The site's support is documented in a letter from the clinic manager and the medical director. It commits four things: two hours a week of protected time for each nurse care manager during the project, the medical director's signature on the titration protocol after pharmacy review, access to de-identified registry data for the comparison group, and use of the clinic's grant for 70 validated home cuffs. The letter also states what has not been committed. The health center has not agreed to continue the program after 12 weeks, which will depend on results, and it has not agreed to bill for remote monitoring during the project. Recording both sides protects the project and the site from later misunderstanding.
The Project Committee and Mentor
The project committee has three roles. The chair, a doctorally prepared nursing faculty member, guides the project's scholarly quality and its alignment with program requirements. A second faculty member with quality improvement expertise will review the design and analysis. The site mentor, the clinic's medical director, holds clinical authority for the protocol and knows how the clinic actually works. The committee was chosen so that design, clinical safety and site knowledge each have an owner. Meetings are planned monthly, with the site mentor also available for weekly questions during implementation.
Feasibility Across Eight Areas
Bowen et al. (2009) describe eight areas that feasibility work can examine, and the project was tested against each. Acceptability looks good: in the needs assessment, 28 of 42 interviewed patients were willing to measure at home once they had a device and some coaching, and staff readiness averaged 4.1 on a 5-point scale. Demand is clear, with more than a thousand registry patients and 45% uncontrolled. Implementation depends on the portal and nurse time, both of which have been tested in small trials of the workflow. Practicality is supported by the grant for cuffs and the protected hours.
Adaptation concerns whether a model proven with pharmacists will work with nurses; the protocol has been adapted, and the first cycles will test it. Integration asks whether the work fits the clinic's systems, and the nurse notes will be written in the record's existing template so clinicians see them where they already look. Expansion to the other two clinics is possible later but is not part of this project. Limited-efficacy testing is exactly what the 12-week project will provide. Harvey and Kitson (2016) argue that implementation succeeds when facilitation fits both the innovation and the context, and the feasibility check found that fit to be reasonable, with two exceptions.
What Could Stop the Project
Two risks could stop the project, and a third could weaken it. The first is protocol approval: pharmacy review has not yet been completed, and if the review requires major changes the start date would move. The second is nurse turnover: if one of the two nurses left, the project would lose half its capacity, so a third nurse will be oriented as a backup. The third risk, weaker enrollment than planned, would reduce the power of the comparison but not end the project. Each risk has an owner and a date for review in the project timeline.
Some conditions were considered and judged unlikely to stop the work. Device supply is secure because the grant money is already held by the clinic, and portal capacity was confirmed during a two-week trial in which the nurses received test readings from their own cuffs. Clinician resistance also seems low, since the primary care clinicians keep the right to override any change and will see every nurse note in the record they already use.
Decision
The project is feasible and will proceed to proposal, on two conditions: pharmacy review of the protocol must be completed before the proposal defense, and the backup nurse must be oriented before enrollment starts. The stakeholders who must say yes have been identified, most have already said yes in writing, and the remaining approvals have owners and dates.
References
Bowen, D. J., Kreuter, M., Spring, B., Cofta-Woerpel, L., Linnan, L., Weiner, D., Bakken, S., Kaplan, C. P., Squiers, L., Fabrizio, C., & Fernandez, M. (2009). How we design feasibility studies. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(5), 452-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.002
Concannon, T. W., Fuster, M., Saunders, T., Patel, K., Wong, J. B., Leslie, L. K., & Lau, J. (2014). A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 29(12), 1692-1701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-2878-x
Harvey, G., & Kitson, A. (2016). PARIHS revisited: From heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice. Implementation Science, 11, Article 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0398-2
Reading the DNP 850A Module 7 assignment instructions
Module 7 of Project Planning deals with people and conditions. The public catalog describes DNP 850A as the planning phase in which students also select their project committee, and since the actual prompt is posted only in the course, that description is the basis for this sample. A paper of this kind usually asks you to identify stakeholders and their interests, describe site support and approvals, introduce your committee or mentor, and show that the project is feasible with the time, staff and money available. Your faculty may require a stakeholder grid, a copy of the site letter as an appendix, or a named feasibility framework. Confirm how long the paper should be and how many sources it needs, and keep any site letter free of identifying details if it will be shared.
Inside the DNP 850A Module 7 example
About 1,030 words, the example is organized in seven sections. The introduction explains why evidence alone does not guarantee a project can run. Stakeholders and their stakes presents eight groups in a table and explains two principles behind the list: include people with little formal power but large daily influence, and treat patients as partners in design. Site support already committed reports four commitments from the site letter and two things the site has not agreed to. The committee section names three roles and why each was chosen. Feasibility across eight areas works through a published framework using data from the needs assessment. What could stop the project names two serious risks and several unlikely ones, and the decision section states the conditions for going ahead.
Reading the DNP 850A Module 7 grading rubric
Rubrics for this paper tend to reward completeness in the stakeholder analysis, evidence of real site support and a feasibility judgment backed by data. The table meets the first by assigning every group a role, and the margin notes explain why that turns analysis into a plan. Site support is shown through specific written commitments, which graders trust more than general statements that the site is supportive. The feasibility section earns analysis marks by using a named framework and citing numbers from earlier modules, such as the share of patients willing to monitor at home. Naming risks with owners shows project management skill. The decision section addresses the application criterion. The last marks go to organization and APA style, including correct citation of the framework sources.
Common DNP 850A Module 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most frequent weakness is a stakeholder list that names only leaders and clinicians. Add the people who will carry the daily work and the patients the project serves. Students also describe site support vaguely; state exactly what the site has committed in writing and what it has not. Another common gap is feasibility asserted rather than tested. Use a framework and support each area with data. Some papers bury risks or leave them out, which makes the project look fragile when a committee finds them. Name them first. Finally, check that your committee roles match your program's rules, since some programs require a site mentor with specific credentials, and a mismatch found late can delay your proposal defense.
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 850A and DNP sample papers
- DNP 850A Module 1: Selecting and Testing a DNP Project Topic
- DNP 850A Module 2: Problem Statement and Purpose Statement
- DNP 850A Module 3: The PICOT Question and Its Definitions
- DNP 850A Module 4: Needs Assessment of the Project Site
- DNP 850A Module 5: Preliminary Literature Search
- DNP 850A Module 6: Choosing the Project Design
- DNP 850A Module 8: Draft of Chapter One
- DNP 830 Module 4: The Health Effects of a Disaster
- DNP870 Module 7: Legislative Testimony
- DNP875 Module 8: Population Intervention Plan
- DNP 800 Module 6: Synthesis Matrix
DNP 850A Module 7 questions, answered
What does DNP 850A Module 7 usually ask for?
Aspen's DNP 850A description covers the planning phase, including selecting the project committee, so a paper on stakeholders, site support and feasibility is a typical assignment. Check your classroom for the prompt.
What should a DNP site support letter include?
What the site commits, such as staff time, data access, space or equipment, who signs for it and any limits, including what has not been agreed. Stating both sides prevents misunderstandings later.
How do I show that a DNP project is feasible?
Test it against named areas, such as acceptability, demand, implementation, practicality, adaptation and integration, and support each with site data. Then name the risks that could still stop the project and who owns them.
Where can I find a free DNP 850A Module 7 sample paper?
A full stakeholder, site support and feasibility paper is reproduced here, stakeholder table and margin notes included, and anyone can read it. It follows the same composite clinic as the other DNP 850A samples, so the planning can be traced from Module 1 to Module 8.
How many stakeholders should DNP 850A Module 7 include?
Include every group whose support or daily work the project depends on, which is often six to ten. This example lists eight, including front-desk staff and patients, because leaving out the people who do the work is a common reason projects stall.