| Course | EDN 820 Evidence-Based Practice and Quality Improvement |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | Comparison paper |
| Length | About 1,037 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Education |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for EDN 820 Module 1
Three Ways to Ask About a Cold Patient: Evidence-Based Practice, Quality Improvement and Research Compared
Student Name
Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University
EDN 820: Evidence-Based Practice and Quality Improvement
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Three Ways to Ask About a Cold Patient: Evidence-Based Practice, Quality Improvement and Research Compared
At Allerton Community Hospital, a composite 220-bed hospital, roughly one surgical patient in five is colder than 36 degrees Celsius on reaching the recovery room. Perioperative nurses have noticed shivering patients and extra blankets for years, and a new anesthesia chief has asked what the hospital should do. The question can be approached in three ways: through evidence-based practice, through quality improvement or through research. Each poses its own question, works by its own methods and ends in its own kind of product. This paper compares the three using the hospital's hypothermia problem, explains where they overlap and sets out how they will work together in the project that runs through the rest of this course.
Why the Distinction Matters
Leaders confuse the three activities often, with real consequences. A project labeled research may face months of review it does not need, while a project labeled improvement may enroll patients in an untested intervention without the protections research requires. Evidence-based practice applied without measurement cannot show whether a change helped, and quality improvement pursued without evidence can efficiently install the wrong practice. Knowing which activity is under way tells a leader what questions to ask, what approvals to seek and what claims can be made at the end.
Evidence-Based Practice
Evidence-based practice asks what the best available evidence says a clinician should do, combined with clinical expertise and patient preferences. For hypothermia, the question is whether warming patients before and during surgery prevents harm. The evidence is substantial. In a randomized trial of 200 patients having colorectal surgery, those kept warm had surgical wound infections in 6% of cases compared with 19% of those who received routine care, and their hospital stays were 2.6 days shorter (Kurz et al., 1996). Evidence-based practice finds, appraises and applies such evidence to a local decision.
Quality Improvement
Quality improvement asks how a particular system can perform better and whether a change made to it leads to improvement. It uses rapid, iterative tests, measurement over time and local data. At Allerton, the improvement question is not whether warming works in general, which the evidence answers, but how to make sure every eligible patient is warmed before surgery on a busy schedule, and whether temperatures on arrival in recovery actually rise. Quality improvement produces a better local process and data showing whether it worked.
Research
Research asks questions nobody can yet answer and aims for findings that hold in places other than the one that produced them. It uses designs that control bias, such as randomization, and requires review by an institutional review board when it involves human participants. If Allerton wanted to know whether a new warming device worked better than forced-air warming, a question the existing evidence does not answer, it would need research. Research produces new knowledge; it is not the right tool for implementing knowledge that already exists.
The Three Side by Side
The table summarizes the differences using Allerton's problem.
| Feature | Evidence-based practice | Quality improvement | Research |
|---|---|---|---|
| Question | What does the best evidence recommend? | How can our process deliver it reliably, and did it improve? | What is not yet known? |
| Example at Allerton | Does prewarming prevent hypothermia and its harms? | Can we prewarm every eligible patient for 20 minutes? | Is a new device better than forced air? |
| Methods | Search, appraisal, synthesis, practice change | Plan-do-study-act cycles, run charts, local data | Controlled designs, statistical testing |
| Product | An evidence-based recommendation or protocol | An improved process and results over time | Generalizable knowledge |
| Oversight | Practice council approval | Quality committee; ethics review if risk exceeds usual care | Institutional review board |
Where They Overlap
The boundaries are not sharp. Evidence-based practice ends in a practice change that must be implemented, which is where quality improvement begins. Quality improvement projects often generate data that others want to publish, which raises questions usually associated with research. And research may test an improvement method itself. The practical test is purpose: is the activity mainly trying to apply known evidence, improve a local process, or produce new generalizable knowledge?
Ethics and Oversight
Quality improvement is not ethically neutral simply because it is not research. Lynn et al. (2007) argued that improvement activities are part of the normal operations of a health care organization and often do not need institutional review board review, but that they still carry ethical obligations: the change should be expected to improve care, risks and burdens to patients should be minimal, and patients' privacy should be protected. When a project tests an intervention that departs from established practice, adds meaningful risk or randomizes patients, it needs additional review. Allerton's project, which implements a well-supported practice and measures it, falls within ordinary improvement oversight.
How the Three Work Together
For Allerton, the three activities fall into sequence. Evidence-based practice comes first: a clinical question, a search and an appraisal that establish what the hospital should do. Quality improvement follows: a plan, measures and test cycles that make the practice reliable and show whether temperatures improve. Research remains in reserve for any question the evidence cannot answer. Reporting the work according to the SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines, which set standards for describing the context, interventions, measures and results of improvement work, will let others judge and learn from it (Ogrinc et al., 2016).
The Plan for This Course
The remaining modules follow the project step by step: a searchable clinical question and an evidence search in Module 2, appraisal of the evidence for applicability in Module 3, analysis of the hospital's own outcome data in Module 4, the choice of an improvement method in Module 5, a quality improvement plan with measures in Module 6, test cycles in Module 7 and evaluation of results in Module 8.
Conclusion
Evidence-based practice, quality improvement and research are distinct activities with different questions, methods, products and oversight, and a clear view of the differences prevents both over-regulation of improvement and under-protection of patients. Allerton's hypothermia problem shows how they connect: the evidence says to keep surgical patients warm, improvement work can make that happen reliably, and research is needed only for questions the evidence has not answered. The course project will use each where it belongs.
References
Kurz, A., Sessler, D. I., & Lenhardt, R. (1996). Perioperative normothermia to reduce the incidence of surgical-wound infection and shorten hospitalization. New England Journal of Medicine, 334(19), 1209-1216. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199605093341901
Lynn, J., Baily, M. A., Bottrell, M., Jennings, B., Levine, R. J., Davidoff, F., Casarett, D., Corrigan, J., Fox, E., Wynia, M. K., Agich, G. J., O'Kane, M., Speroff, T., Schyve, P., Batalden, P., Tunis, S., Berlinger, N., Cronenwett, L., Fitzmaurice, J. M., . . . James, B. (2007). The ethics of using quality improvement methods in health care. Annals of Internal Medicine, 146(9), 666-673. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-146-9-200705010-00155
Ogrinc, G., Davies, L., Goodman, D., Batalden, P., Davidoff, F., & Stevens, D. (2016). SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Quality & Safety, 25(12), 986-992. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411
EDN 820 Module 1 instructions, in plain terms
Aspen describes EDN 820 as giving health professionals tools to judge whether evidence-based practice fits their setting and to fold patient outcomes into improvement work, and the first module lays the ground by separating the activities involved. Because the Module 1 prompt is issued in the classroom, this example compares evidence-based practice, quality improvement and research using one clinical problem. Define each activity by the question it answers, not only by its methods. Show what each produces and what oversight it needs. Use a single example throughout so the differences are concrete. Be honest that the boundaries blur, and give a practical test for telling them apart. Close by explaining how the three activities could work in sequence on your chosen problem.
How this EDN 820 Module 1 example is built
The paper introduces a hospital whose recovery nurses keep finding cold, shivering patients, and a new anesthesia chief asking what to do. It explains why confusing the three activities matters, then gives each its own section with an example drawn from the same problem, including a 1996 trial of 200 colorectal patients that tied warming to fewer wound infections and shorter stays. A five-column table compares question, example, methods, product and oversight. Sections follow on where the activities overlap, on the ethics of improvement work and when extra review is needed, and on how evidence-based practice, improvement and, if needed, research fit together. The paper closes by previewing the modules that follow, from the practice question in Module 2 to the evaluation in Module 8.
Reading the EDN 820 Module 1 grading rubric
Instructors reward a comparison that defines the three activities accurately, applies them to one real problem, handles the blurred boundaries honestly and addresses ethics. This example earns the application marks by giving each activity a concrete question about the same cold patients. Its APA sources are three: the 1996 randomized trial of perioperative normothermia, an Annals of Internal Medicine article on the ethics of using improvement methods in health care and the SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines for reporting improvement work. The table allows a reader to compare the activities feature by feature. Using purpose as the practical test for classification, and naming when an improvement project needs review beyond ordinary oversight, shows the judgment expected of a doctoral leader.
Common EDN 820 Module 1 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many students write definitions of the three activities from a textbook and never show them working on a single problem. Choose one issue from your workplace and write a question for each activity about it; the contrast will make the differences clear. Another frequent error is claiming that quality improvement never needs ethical review. It usually does not, but projects that test untested changes, add risk or randomize patients do. Check your organization's policy on when improvement work goes to the review board. Avoid saying research is superior; each activity has its own job. When the boundaries feel slippery, a tutor can help you apply the purpose test to your example before you draft.
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 EDN 820 and Doctor of Education sample papers
- EDN 820 Module 2: Practice Question and Evidence Search
- EDN 820 Module 3: Appraising Evidence for Applicability
- EDN 820 Module 4: Reading Patient Outcome Data
- EDN 820 Module 5: Choosing an Improvement Method
- EDN 820 Module 6: Quality Improvement Plan and Measures
- EDN 820 Module 7: Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycles
- EDN 820 Module 8: Evaluating Improvement Results
- EDN 816 Module 8: Financial Case for a Staffing Decision
- EDN 814 Module 1: Purpose of Programmatic Accreditation
- EDN 818 Module 5: Evidence-Based Innovation
- EDN 812 Module 3: Negligence, Malpractice and Crime
EDN 820 Module 1 questions, answered
What does EDN 820 Module 1 usually ask for?
Aspen's EDN 820 integrates evidence-based practice and quality improvement, so a paper comparing them, often with research, and applying the comparison to a real problem is a typical first assignment. Follow your classroom prompt.
Does a quality improvement project need IRB approval?
Usually not when it implements established practice with minimal risk, but projects that test untested interventions, add meaningful risk or randomize patients need additional ethical review.
What is the difference between evidence-based practice and quality improvement?
Evidence-based practice determines what the best evidence says to do; quality improvement makes a local process deliver that reliably and measures whether results improve.
Where can I find a free EDN 820 Module 1 sample paper?
You will find it in full above: a comparison of evidence-based practice, quality improvement and research built around perioperative hypothermia, with a five-column comparison table.
How do you tell quality improvement from research?
Ask about purpose: improvement aims to make a local process work better using existing knowledge, while research seeks new knowledge meant to apply beyond the setting where it was produced.