| Course | DNP 899 DNP Project Capstone |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Collaboration analysis |
| Length | About 1,007 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | DNP |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DNP 899 Module 3
A Pediatrician, a Social Worker and a Front Desk: Interprofessional Collaboration in a Maternal Depression Screening Project
Student Name
Doctor of Nursing Practice Program, Aspen University
DNP 899: DNP Project Capstone
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
A Pediatrician, a Social Worker and a Front Desk: Interprofessional Collaboration in a Maternal Depression Screening Project
Screening mothers for depression at their infants' visits is not a task any one profession can do alone. Medical assistants hand out the questionnaire, clinicians review it, a behavioral health clinician meets the mother, front-desk staff schedule follow-up and outside clinicians take over care. My DNP project depended on all of them. This paper examines that collaboration: who was involved and what each contributed, what worked, what did not, how problems were handled, and what the evidence on interprofessional collaboration suggests about the lessons.
The Roles Involved
Eight roles shaped the project. Their contributions appear in the table.
| Role | Contribution |
|---|---|
| Medical assistants | Gave the questionnaire at check-in in English or Spanish and entered the score |
| Pediatricians and pediatric nurse practitioners | Reviewed scores during the visit and raised them with the mother |
| Licensed clinical social worker | Met mothers who screened positive, assessed safety and arranged care |
| Registered nurse | Made follow-up calls at two weeks and tracked connection to care |
| Front-desk staff | Scheduled social worker visits and confirmed contact details |
| Practice manager | Protected staff time and managed the confidential chart field |
| Obstetric and family medicine clinicians | Received referrals and managed treatment when mothers chose them |
| Project lead | Coordinated, trained staff, kept the log and analyzed data |
What Worked
Three practices made the collaboration work. The first was a shared protocol, written with the social worker, two pediatricians and the nurse, that set out exactly what happened after each score: who spoke to the mother, what they said, when the social worker was called and what counted as an emergency. The national pediatric recommendation on perinatal depression calls for practices to build systems for screening and referral rather than leaving each clinician to improvise (Earls et al., 2019), and the protocol was that system. The second was a warm handoff script, a few sentences each clinician used to introduce the social worker as part of the team, which made mothers more willing to stay for the conversation. The third was a 20-minute weekly case huddle where the social worker, nurse and a pediatrician reviewed positive screens and follow-up, which kept anyone from falling through the gaps.
What Did Not Work at First
Three problems appeared. The social worker was on site three days a week, and warm handoffs were far less common on the other two. Of the 118 positive screens, 81 received a same-day handoff, but most of the 37 who did not were seen on days without the social worker. The practice added a same-day video visit option on those days, which raised handoffs in the final six weeks. Communication with obstetric offices was the second problem: referrals sent by fax were sometimes not acknowledged for a week or more. The nurse began calling the obstetric office directly for any mother with a score of 13 or higher, which shortened the delay. The third problem was one pediatrician's discomfort with screening a person who was not the patient, raised as a concern about scope and follow-up responsibility. A conversation with the practice's medical director, using the professional recommendation and the agreed protocol, settled that the pediatrician's role was to recognize and hand off, not to treat, and the concern eased.
The Mothers' Part in the Team
The mothers were not part of the staff team, but the collaboration had to work for them. Two mothers from the practice's family advisory group reviewed the questionnaire's introduction and the handoff script before launch. They asked that clinicians explain why a pediatric office was asking about the mother's mood, since some mothers worried that a high score might be reported to child protective services. The script was revised to say plainly that the questions were about support for the mother and that answers would not be shared outside the care team without her agreement, except in an emergency. Those sentences, added at the mothers' suggestion, may have done more for participation than any staff training.
How Conflicts Were Handled
None of the problems became a dispute, partly because each was raised early in the huddle rather than discovered later. The project lead's approach was to treat each concern as information about the system rather than resistance: the pediatrician's discomfort revealed that the protocol had not made the limits of the pediatric role clear, and the protocol was revised to state them. Giving the social worker a central voice in designing the handoff also mattered, since behavioral health staff are sometimes treated as a service to be called rather than as partners.
What the Evidence Says
The evidence on formal interprofessional collaboration interventions is weaker than enthusiasm for them might suggest. A Cochrane review found only nine studies of practice-based interventions such as team meetings, rounds and checklists, judged the certainty of evidence low to very low, and concluded that there was not enough evidence to draw clear conclusions about their effects (Reeves et al., 2017). By contrast, collaborative care, where primary care clinicians share a structured plan with a care manager and a mental health specialist, has stronger evidence for improving depression outcomes in adults (Archer et al., 2012). The project borrowed from collaborative care in its structure: a shared protocol, a coordinating nurse and a behavioral health clinician embedded in the practice.
Lessons
Three lessons stand out. Collaboration depended more on clear roles and routines than on goodwill. The profession with the least formal authority in the practice, social work, needed the most visible place in the design. And problems surfaced early only because there was a regular, short meeting in which they could be raised without blame.
Conclusion
The project brought eight roles together around a shared protocol, a warm handoff script and a weekly huddle. Three early problems, behavioral health coverage, obstetric communication and a clinician's concern about scope, were solved by adjusting the system rather than persuading individuals. The evidence on collaboration interventions is limited, but the structure used here reflects the collaborative care models that have the strongest support.
References
Archer, J., Bower, P., Gilbody, S., Lovell, K., Richards, D., Gask, L., Dickens, C., & Coventry, P. (2012). Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012(10), Article CD006525. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006525.pub2
Earls, M. F., Yogman, M. W., Mattson, G., Rafferty, J., & Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2019). Incorporating recognition and management of perinatal depression into pediatric practice. Pediatrics, 143(1), Article e20183259. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-3259
Reeves, S., Pelone, F., Harrison, R., Goldman, J., & Zwarenstein, M. (2017). Interprofessional collaboration to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017(6), Article CD000072. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000072.pub3
What the DNP 899 Module 3 instructions ask for
Interprofessional collaboration is one of the elements the Aspen catalog names for DNP 899, together with clinical significance and scholarship; the module prompt is available only to enrolled students, so the example follows that catalog wording. An assignment on collaboration usually asks you to describe the professions involved in your project, how they worked together, what went well and badly, and what you learned. A collaboration framework or competency set may be required by your chair. Some programs want evidence such as meeting notes or protocols. Check the length and sources, and include the patients or families whose voices shaped the work, since collaboration is not limited to staff. Minutes from huddles or team meetings, stripped of identifying details, can support what you describe.
How this DNP 899 Module 3 example is built
About 1,000 words are organized in nine sections. The introduction explains why screening mothers depends on many roles. A table lists eight roles and their contributions. What worked describes the protocol, the handoff script and the huddle, with the professional recommendation that underpins them. What did not work at first explains three problems and their fixes. A section on mothers' part in the team describes how a family advisory group changed the script. How conflicts were handled explains treating concerns as information about the system. What the evidence says contrasts reviews of collaboration interventions and collaborative care. Lessons and a conclusion close the paper.
Where the marks sit in the DNP 899 Module 3 rubric
Faculty grade a collaboration paper on specificity, balance and use of evidence. Specificity comes from naming roles, practices and problems concretely, and the margin notes show the protocol tied to a professional recommendation. Balance shows in reporting three problems alongside three successes and in including the families' role. Use of evidence is careful: the paper notes that a Cochrane review found low-certainty evidence for formal collaboration interventions while collaborative care has stronger support. Lessons are drawn from the project's experience rather than general statements about teamwork. The final marks go to organization, the APA table and correct citations for three sources.
DNP 899 Module 3 help from the desk
The most frequent weakness is a paper that praises teamwork in general terms without describing how any two roles actually worked together. Name the practices. Students also leave out problems, which makes the account less credible. Describe what went wrong and how it was fixed. Another common gap is omitting patients or families, whose input often changes a program more than staff meetings do. Include them. Some papers overstate the evidence for collaboration interventions; read the reviews and report their certainty. Finally, give the least powerful profession in your project a clear place in the account, since their contribution is easiest to overlook. Describe collaboration as it happened, including the awkward moments, because that is where the learning sits.
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 899 and DNP sample papers
- DNP 899 Module 1: Revising the Final Chapter After Feedback
- DNP 899 Module 2: Clinical Significance Beyond P Values
- DNP 899 Module 4: The Project as Scholarship
- DNP 899 Module 5: Leadership Development: Decisions and Conflicts
- DNP 899 Module 6: A Toolkit for the Organization and a Brief for the Profession
- DNP 899 Module 7: The Defense Presentation
- DNP 899 Module 8: Final Reflection on Growth
- DNP870 Module 5: Policy Stakeholder Map
- DNP 805 Module 5: System Quality Initiative With a Driver Diagram
- DNP 830 Module 3: Bioterrorism Preparedness
- DNP845 Module 3: Grand vs Middle-Range Theory Paper
DNP 899 Module 3 questions, answered
What does DNP 899 Module 3 usually ask for?
Aspen's DNP 899 description asks students to demonstrate interprofessional collaboration, so a paper on how collaboration worked during the project is a typical assignment. Check your classroom for the prompt.
How do I write about interprofessional collaboration in a DNP project?
Name each role and its contribution, describe specific practices that made collaboration work, report what did not work and how it was handled, and connect the lessons to evidence.
Is there good evidence for interprofessional collaboration interventions?
A Cochrane review judged the evidence on formal collaboration interventions low to very low in certainty. Structured collaborative care for depression has stronger evidence.
Where can I find a free DNP 899 Module 3 sample paper?
You can read the whole collaboration paper here, roles table and annotations included, free. It is the third sample in the DNP 899 series on the maternal depression screening capstone.
What should DNP 899 Module 3 cover?
The roles involved and their contributions, specific practices that made collaboration work, problems and how they were resolved, the part patients or families played and what the evidence on collaboration suggests.