| Course | DNP 705 Health Care Outcomes Management |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 4 |
| Paper type | Project ethics paper |
| Length | About 672 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DNP 705 Module 4
Improving Care Without Treating Patients as Subjects: The Ethics of a Fracture Liaison Quality Improvement Project
Student Name
Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University
DNP 705: Health Care Outcomes Management
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Improving Care Without Treating Patients as Subjects: The Ethics of a Fracture Liaison Quality Improvement Project
Ethical Foundations
The principles of respect for persons, beneficence and justice apply to all work with patients, whether research or quality improvement (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). In this project, respect for persons requires that patients understand and agree to the parts that are optional, beneficence requires that the pathway help rather than burden them, and justice requires that every eligible patient, regardless of age, sex or language, be offered the same care.
Quality Improvement or Research?
In a Hastings Center project, quality improvement meant systematic activities, guided by data, aimed at immediate improvement of care in a particular setting, and judged that most QI is not human subjects research and should be overseen proportionately rather than through full institutional review board review (Lynn et al., 2007). This project fits that definition: it applies existing evidence on fracture liaison services (Wu et al., 2018) to improve care in one clinic, compares performance before and after the change, and does not test a new hypothesis for generalizable knowledge. I will submit a QI determination form to the university and the clinic so that the appropriate body confirms this.
Ethical Requirements for QI
The same Hastings Center group listed ethical requirements for QI: value, sound methods, fair participant selection, benefits outweighing burdens, respect for participants and, where appropriate, informed consent (Lynn et al., 2007). The project meets these requirements as follows. Value: it addresses a gap with serious consequences. Methods: run charts and pre-post comparison suit the question. Fairness: all eligible patients are included, and Spanish-language materials will be used. Benefits and burdens: the pathway adds education and testing that patients would otherwise miss, with minimal burden.
Consent
The pathway itself, identification, bone density referral, education and communication with primary care, becomes standard clinic care under a standing protocol, so separate consent is not required beyond the usual consent for care. The Osteoporosis Knowledge Test is optional. Patients will receive a short verbal and written explanation that the survey helps the clinic improve its education, that it is voluntary, and that declining will not affect their care. Completing the survey will indicate agreement.
Risks to Patients and How They Are Managed
The pathway's risks are small but real. A bone density result can cause worry, and a recommendation for medication may raise questions about side effects that the clinic nurse cannot fully answer. To manage this, every result letter will name the primary care clinician as the person who decides on treatment, and the education session will include the clinic's phone number for questions. A second risk is that a patient's primary care clinician disagrees with the recommendation; the nurse will document the recommendation and the response, and the decision will remain with the patient and that clinician. No one will be pressured to start a medication, and a patient who declines testing or treatment will receive the same follow-up call as everyone else.
My Dual Role
As the DNP student leading the project, I also work in the clinic, which creates a possible conflict between wanting good results and reporting honestly. Two safeguards address this. The clinic nurse, not I, will run the knowledge survey, so patients do not feel they are pleasing the project lead by taking part. The baseline and follow-up chart audits will use a written abstraction form, and my project chair will review a random sample of ten charts to confirm that the data were recorded consistently.
Privacy and Data Protection
Chart audits will be conducted by clinic staff with existing access. Data will be recorded with study numbers rather than names in a password-protected file on the clinic's secure drive, and only aggregate results will be reported.
The Ethics of Not Acting
When strong evidence shows that patients are leaving without treatment that could prevent another fracture, continuing the status quo is not ethically neutral. Acting carefully through QI is the ethical choice.
References
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
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Wu, C.-H., Chen, C.-H., Chen, P.-H., Yang, J.-J., Chang, P.-C., Huang, T.-C., Bagga, S., Sharma, Y., Lin, R.-M., & Chan, D.-C. (2018). Identifying characteristics of an effective fracture liaison service: Systematic literature review. Osteoporosis International, 29(5), 1023-1047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-017-4370-z
What the DNP 705 Module 4 instructions ask for
The posted syllabus places the Ethics Assignment in Week 4, with the lesson on ethics in direct patient care and quality improvement and the project topics of ethics and human subject protection. It is worth 50 points. Its purpose is to explore the ethical underpinnings of the DNP project, including a description of how consent will be obtained from participants. A group recorded ethics discussion follows later in the term. Expect to address whether your project is QI or research, how participants are protected, and how consent and privacy are handled. Check your university's QI determination process early. Discuss ethics with your site mentor before writing. Expect peers to discuss ethics later in the term. Plan time for the QI determination process.
Inside the DNP 705 Module 4 example
The paper starts from widely accepted ethical principles, then addresses the central question of QI versus research with an authoritative definition and a plan to obtain a formal determination. It applies a set of ethical requirements for QI one by one to the project. The consent section distinguishes standard care from optional data collection and describes exactly what patients will be told. Privacy protections are concrete. A closing argument reframes inaction as an ethical choice, which shows mature reasoning. The plan for a formal QI determination shows the student knows who decides, not only what the answer should be. Fairness is addressed through language access and inclusion of every eligible patient. The closing argument shows why acting on a known gap is ethical.
Reading the DNP 705 Module 4 grading rubric
Project ethics papers are usually graded on accurate application of ethical principles, a well-reasoned determination of QI versus research, a clear and appropriate consent process, attention to privacy and fairness, and scholarly writing. Faculty look for students who know their institution's process and plan to follow it. Distinguishing standard care from optional data collection shows understanding of where consent is needed. Addressing equity, such as language access, demonstrates attention to justice. Specific consent wording, such as what patients are told about optional surveys, earns more credit than general statements. Concrete privacy steps earn credit.
DNP 705 Module 4 help from the desk
The most common weakness is assuming a project is QI without justification. Use an accepted definition and plan for a formal determination. Another is vague consent language; describe what participants will be told and how they can decline. Address privacy concretely. Consider who might be excluded by language or literacy. Avoid promising anonymity if data are linked to charts. If you would like help with your project ethics paper, send your project summary to the desk. Find your university's QI determination form early, since review can take several weeks. Describe exactly how data will be stored. Keep consent language short and plain.
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 Arizona State 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 705 and Doctor of Nursing Practice sample papers
- DNP 705 Module 1: DNP Project Proposal Worksheet
- DNP 705 Module 2: DNP Project Logic Model
- DNP 705 Module 3: Instrumentation and Intervention Assignment
- DNP 705 Module 5: Methods Paper Part 1
- DNP 705 Module 6: DNP Project Budget Plan
- DNP 705 Module 7: DNP Project Sustainability Plan
- DNP 661 Module 3: Ethical Reasoning and Cognitive Pitfalls in the Age of AI
- DNP 716 Module 6: Team Leadership Discussion
- DNP 709 Module 6: Immersion Reflection: Conflict Plan
- NUR 640 Module 4: Individual Assignment 3: Innovation Model, PESTLE and Human-Centered Design for a Clinical Issue
DNP 705 Module 4 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DNP 705 Module 4 sample paper?
The ethics assignment is shown above in full: QI versus research for a fracture liaison project, ethical requirements for QI, consent for an optional survey, privacy and the ethics of not acting.
Is a DNP project research or quality improvement?
It depends on its purpose and design; QI improves care locally using existing evidence, while research seeks generalizable knowledge. Your institution makes the formal determination.
Does a DNP QI project need consent?
Standard care changes usually do not need separate consent, but optional data collection such as surveys should be voluntary with clear information.
What are the Belmont Report principles?
Respect for persons, beneficence and justice.
When is the DNP 705 ethics assignment due?
The syllabus lists it in Week 4, with a group recorded ethics discussion later in the term.