| Course | DNP 850B Project Proposal |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | Conceptual framework paper |
| Length | About 1,028 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | DNP |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DNP 850B Module 2
A Prepared Team and an Activated Patient: The Chronic Care Model as the Conceptual Framework for a Nurse-Managed Home Blood Pressure Program
Student Name
Doctor of Nursing Practice Program, Aspen University
DNP 850B: Project Proposal
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
A Prepared Team and an Activated Patient: The Chronic Care Model as the Conceptual Framework for a Nurse-Managed Home Blood Pressure Program
A DNP project needs two kinds of framework. A process framework explains how evidence is brought into practice; for this project that role belongs to the revised Iowa Model, chosen in the planning course. A conceptual framework explains why the intervention should change outcomes: what it alters in the way care is organized and how those alterations lead to better blood pressure control. This paper presents the Chronic Care Model as that conceptual framework. It describes the model, maps each element to a component of the project, shows how the model shapes what will be measured, explains how it sits beside the Iowa Model and names its limits for a small, single-clinic project.
The Chronic Care Model
The Chronic Care Model was developed to redesign primary care for people with long-term conditions, on the premise that acute-care habits, in which the patient arrives with a problem and the clinician responds, fail people whose illnesses need steady management between visits (Wagner et al., 2001). The model identifies six elements. Two sit at the level of the wider system: the health care organization, meaning leadership and incentives that make chronic care a priority, and community resources that patients can use. Four sit within the practice: self-management support, delivery system design, decision support and clinical information systems. When those elements are in place, the model expects better outcomes to flow from productive interactions, in which a patient who is informed and activated meets a practice team that is prepared and proactive (Bodenheimer et al., 2002).
The model's appeal for this project lies in its central claim. Uncontrolled hypertension at the project clinic is not mainly a problem of drugs that do not work or patients who do not care; the needs assessment found infrequent visits, distrusted office readings and missed chances to change treatment. Those are failures of organization, which is exactly what the model addresses.
Mapping the Elements to the Project
The table maps each element of the model to a component of the project.
| Element | Project component |
|---|---|
| Health care organization | Medical director signs the protocol; clinic manager protects nurse time; quality committee receives results |
| Community resources | Community health worker connects patients to low-cost pharmacies and food programs |
| Self-management support | Teaching on cuff use, reading schedule and what to do with a high reading, in English or Spanish |
| Delivery system design | Nurses review readings weekly and contact patients between visits; clear handoff to clinicians |
| Decision support | A stepped titration protocol with thresholds, laboratory checks and referral criteria |
| Clinical information systems | Portal receives readings from validated cuffs; registry flags patients whose averages remain high |
Three of the mappings carry most of the project's weight. Delivery system design is the core change: a planned weekly contact between visits replaces a system that waits about three months to act. Decision support is the protocol, which the evidence on nurse-led care identifies as the feature that makes such care effective. Clinical information systems make the other two possible, because without transmitted readings and a registry the nurses would have nothing to review. Self-management support ensures that the readings are accurate and that patients know what to do between contacts. The remaining two elements, organizational support and community resources, are thinner in this project, and that thinness is acknowledged rather than hidden.
How the Model Shapes the Measures
A conceptual framework should change what a project measures. The Chronic Care Model places productive interactions between the outcome and the elements, so the project will measure the interactions as well as blood pressure. Process measures will include the share of enrolled patients sending readings each week, the number of nurse contacts per patient and the days from a high weekly average to a medication change. These measures test the model's chain of reasoning. If blood pressure improves but interactions do not increase, something other than the model's mechanism is at work; if interactions increase but blood pressure does not, the protocol or its dosing steps may need review. A review of studies using the model found that practices adopting several of its elements together tended to improve care and outcomes, which supports measuring more than one element (Coleman et al., 2009).
Relation to the Process Framework
The two frameworks answer different questions and do not compete. The revised Iowa Model guides the steps of the project: identifying the trigger, confirming the topic is a priority, forming a team, judging the evidence, piloting the change and deciding on adoption (Iowa Model Collaborative, 2017). The Chronic Care Model explains the content of the change being piloted and why it should work. In chapter three, the Iowa Model will organize the project timeline, while the Chronic Care Model will organize the description of the intervention and the choice of process measures.
Limits of the Framework
The model was designed for redesigning whole practices and systems, and a 12-week project at one clinic will touch only part of it. The project will not change incentives, community programs or the wider health center's information systems. There is also a risk of stretching the model to fit, labeling every activity with an element name. To avoid that, the paper claims only the elements the project actually changes and reports the others as context.
A further limit concerns evidence. Most studies of the model tested several elements introduced together, so they cannot say which element produced the benefit. The project inherits that problem: if blood pressure falls, the change will reflect the combination of planned contact, protocol and transmitted readings, not any one of them. Chapter five will state this plainly when the results are interpreted.
Conclusion
The Chronic Care Model provides a clear explanation of why nurse-managed home monitoring should improve blood pressure control at the project clinic: it rebuilds delivery system design, decision support and clinical information systems around planned contact between visits, supported by patient self-management. The model also shapes the project's measures by directing attention to the interactions it predicts. Alongside the Iowa Model, it gives chapter three both the content and the process of the change.
References
Bodenheimer, T., Wagner, E. H., & Grumbach, K. (2002). Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness. JAMA, 288(14), 1775-1779. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.14.1775
Coleman, K., Austin, B. T., Brach, C., & Wagner, E. H. (2009). Evidence on the chronic care model in the new millennium. Health Affairs, 28(1), 75-85. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.28.1.75
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
Wagner, E. H., Austin, B. T., Davis, C., Hindmarsh, M., Schaefer, J., & Bonomi, A. (2001). Improving chronic illness care: Translating evidence into action. Health Affairs, 20(6), 64-78. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.20.6.64
Reading the DNP 850B Module 2 assignment instructions
This module asks for the theory behind the project. Aspen's catalog summary for DNP 850B speaks of framing the project in the literature and settling its methods, and with the module prompt itself kept in the classroom, that summary is what this sample follows. A framework assignment typically asks you to name a theory or model, describe its concepts, show how they relate to your intervention and outcomes, and justify the choice. Some programs require a diagram; others want a table linking concepts to project components. Your chair may prefer a nursing theory, a practice model or a change theory, so ask early which is expected. Check the page limit, and plan to cite the original source of the model along with any updated versions.
Inside the DNP 850B Module 2 example
The paper holds about 1,020 words in nine sections. It opens by distinguishing conceptual and process frameworks. The model section describes the Chronic Care Model's six elements and its central prediction, then connects that prediction to the clinic's needs assessment findings. A table maps each element to a project component, and the following paragraph ranks those mappings by how much weight they carry. The measures section explains how the model's idea of productive interactions leads to specific process measures, with a review of studies using the model as support. A section on the relation between the two frameworks shows how each will be used in chapter three. The limits section covers partial coverage and the difficulty of isolating any single element, and the conclusion restates the model's role.
DNP 850B Module 2 rubric: what earns full marks
Faculty usually grade a framework section on accuracy, fit and application. Accuracy comes from describing the model's elements and prediction correctly and citing its original authors. Fit is argued by linking the model's central claim to the clinic's own findings, and the margin notes show where that link is made. Application is the strongest part of this example: each element is mapped to a project component, the mappings are ranked, and the model changes what will be measured. That last step is often missing from student papers and earns analysis marks when present. Acknowledging limits shows judgment. The table must be formatted in APA style, and the four sources must be cited consistently in the text and the reference list.
Common DNP 850B Module 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The usual mistake is describing a theory at length and then never using it. Every concept you introduce should appear later in the intervention or the measures. Students also force every activity into a framework element, which makes the mapping look artificial; claim only the elements your project actually changes. Another common error is confusing a conceptual framework with a process model such as the Iowa or Johns Hopkins model. If your program expects both, explain the job each does. Papers also cite the model from a textbook rather than its original publication. Find the source. Finally, show how the framework affects measurement, since a committee will ask how you will know whether the mechanism the theory describes actually happened.
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 850B and DNP sample papers
- DNP 850B Module 1: Literature Synthesis for the Intervention
- DNP 850B Module 3: Setting, Population and Sample
- DNP 850B Module 4: The Intervention and Its Timeline
- DNP 850B Module 5: Measures and Instruments
- DNP 850B Module 6: Data Analysis Plan
- DNP 850B Module 7: Ethics, Human Subjects Training and Review
- DNP 850B Module 8: Final Proposal: Literature and Methods
- DNP880 Module 2: Evidence Synthesis and Framework
- DNP 835 Module 4: Project Charter, WBS and Timeline
- DNP860 Module 6: PDSA vs One-Shot Implementation Discussion
- DNP 840 Module 7: Variance Analysis and Benchmarking
DNP 850B Module 2 questions, answered
What does DNP 850B Module 2 usually ask for?
Aspen's DNP 850B description covers framing the project in the literature and solidifying its methods, so a paper on the theoretical or conceptual framework is a typical assignment. Check your classroom for the prompt.
What is the difference between a conceptual and a process framework?
A conceptual framework explains why the intervention should change outcomes. A process framework, such as the Iowa Model, guides how evidence is brought into practice step by step. Many DNP projects use one of each.
Why is the Chronic Care Model used for hypertension projects?
Because uncontrolled hypertension often reflects how care is organized between visits. The model addresses delivery design, decision support, information systems and self-management, which match common causes of poor control.
Where can I find a free DNP 850B Module 2 sample paper?
The complete conceptual framework paper, with its element-to-project table and margin notes, is shown on this page and is free to read. Because every DNP 850B sample follows one project, the framework can be traced forward into the methods.
Which framework fits a DNP 850B Module 2 paper?
Choose one that explains why your intervention should work. The Chronic Care Model suits chronic disease programs in primary care, while change theories or nursing theories suit other projects. Many programs also expect a separate process model for implementation.