| Course | DNP 705 Health Care Outcomes Management |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Project methods paper |
| Length | About 677 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 5
Purpose, Question, Measure, Analysis: Methods Part 1 for a Nurse-Coordinated Fracture Liaison Project
Student Name
Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University
DNP 705: Health Care Outcomes Management
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Purpose, Question, Measure, Analysis: Methods Part 1 for a Nurse-Coordinated Fracture Liaison Project
Purpose
The project's aim was to close the treatment gap after fragility fracture by having a nurse coordinate assessment, testing and treatment referral.
Design
Quality improvement, comparing performance before and after the pathway starts. The pre-implementation group is a retrospective chart review of consecutive eligible patients seen during six months before the pathway; the post-implementation group is consecutive eligible patients seen during six months after it begins. Run charts will track monthly performance, an approach suited to detecting change over time in QI.
Setting
An outpatient orthopedic clinic in Phoenix with four surgeons and two nurse practitioners, seeing about 40 adults aged 50 and older with fractures each month.
Population and Eligibility
Inclusion: adults 50 or older whose fracture resulted from a low-energy fall, including wrist, humerus, ankle, vertebral and hip fractures followed in clinic. Exclusion: fractures from high-energy trauma, pathologic fractures from cancer, patients already on osteoporosis treatment, and patients transferring care elsewhere.
Variables and Operational Definitions
A fragility fracture, for this project, is any break the surgeon's note attributes to a fall from no higher than standing. Treatment initiation means a filled prescription for an osteoporosis medication, or a documented infusion or injection, within 183 days of the first clinic visit; a prescription written but never filled does not count. Bone density testing means a completed dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry report within 92 days of the first visit. The knowledge outcome is the total score on the 32-item revised test, with higher scores meaning more knowledge.
Evaluation Questions and Measures
Each question flows from the purpose and corresponds to a box in the logic model, which keeps the methods consistent with the plan.
| Evaluation question | Measure | Data source | Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Does treatment initiation within six months increase after implementation? | Proportion starting osteoporosis medication within six months | Chart and pharmacy records | Chi-square comparison of pre and post proportions; run chart |
| 2. Does bone density testing increase? | Proportion with completed bone density test within three months | Chart and imaging records | Chi-square; run chart |
| 3. Does patient osteoporosis knowledge improve? | Revised Osteoporosis Knowledge Test score (Gendler et al., 2015) | Questionnaire at enrollment and three months | Paired t-test |
Data Collection Procedures
A single abstraction form will be used for both periods. For the baseline group, I will extract data from records of consecutive eligible patients seen during the six months before launch. For the implementation group, the nurse will log each eligible patient at the first visit, and I will complete the same form at six months. Treatment status will be confirmed from the pharmacy fill history in the record and, where that is missing, from the patient at the three-month call. Pathway fidelity will be tracked as the percentage of eligible patients who received each of the five pathway steps, so that a disappointing outcome can be pinned on skipped steps instead of being blamed on the model itself.
Sample Size and Timeline
At about 40 eligible patients a month, after exclusions roughly 25 a month are expected, or about 150 in each six-month period. The clinic's baseline treatment rate of 7% sits well below the national figure for hip fracture (Solomon et al., 2014). Based on that baseline and the improvements reported in FLS reviews (Wu et al., 2018), this sample is adequate to detect a meaningful increase. Months 1 to 6: baseline chart review and preparation; months 7 to 12: implementation and data collection; month 13: analysis.
A power estimate supports this. To detect an increase from 7% to 20% with a two-sided chi-square test at an alpha of .05 and 80% power, about 108 patients are needed in each period, so the expected 150 leaves room for missing data.
Threats to Validity
Secular trends, such as new guidelines or medications, could change treatment rates independent of the pathway; a run chart will show whether change coincides with implementation. Missing pharmacy data may undercount treatment started elsewhere, so the three-month call will ask patients directly. Selection bias is limited by including consecutive eligible patients.
References
Gendler, P. E., Coviak, C. P., Martin, J. T., Kim, K. K., Dankers, J. K., Barclay, J. M., & Sanchez, T. A. (2015). Revision of the Osteoporosis Knowledge Test. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 37(12), 1623-1643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945914537565
Solomon, D. H., Johnston, S. S., Boytsov, N. N., McMorrow, D., Lane, J. M., & Krohn, K. D. (2014). Osteoporosis medication use after hip fracture in U.S. patients between 2002 and 2011. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 29(9), 1929-1937. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.2202
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
Reading the DNP 705 Module 5 assignment instructions
The posted syllabus places Methods Paper Part 1 in Week 5, the methods week, worth 100 points. Its purpose is to describe the first section of the project's methodology and demonstrate consistency between the project's purpose, evaluation questions and measurement outcomes. A revision with Part 2, also worth 100 points, is due in Week 9, after the budget and sustainability assignments. Expect to cover design, setting, population, evaluation questions, measures, data sources and analysis. Bring your logic model and instrument assignment forward, since both feed directly into this section. Use feedback from the logic model. Have your instrument choice settled before writing.
How this DNP 705 Module 5 example is built
The paper restates the purpose and then describes design, setting and population precisely enough for replication. Evaluation questions are presented in a table that matches each to a measure, data source and analysis, and a sentence ties them to the logic model, demonstrating the consistency the syllabus emphasizes. Sample size is estimated from clinic volume and baseline data. A timeline and a threats-to-validity section show the methods were planned with limitations in mind. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are stated precisely, so another clinician could select the same patients from the record. A timeline closes the section. The alignment table is the heart of the paper. Sample size is estimated from real clinic volume, which shows the plan is feasible.
Where the marks sit in the DNP 705 Module 5 rubric
Methods papers are typically graded on clear design, setting and population descriptions; alignment between purpose, evaluation questions, measures and analysis; appropriate data sources; feasibility; and recognition of threats to validity, with scholarly writing. Faculty look for evaluation questions that can actually be answered with the planned data. Alignment tables make consistency visible and are often noted favorably. Realistic sample estimates based on clinic volume show feasibility. Methods that anticipate missing data and secular trends show readiness for the revision and Part 2 later in the term. Clear analysis choices for each question earn credit. Feasible timelines also count toward the grade. Clear writing matters too.
DNP 705 Module 5 help: mistakes that cost marks
The most common weakness is evaluation questions that do not match any measure. Build a table linking each question to its measure and analysis. Another is a population description without clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. Estimate sample size from real volume. List each validity threat beside the step that answers it. Keep consistent with your logic model. If you would like help aligning your methods section, send your purpose, logic model and measures to the desk. Ask a statistician or faculty member to review your analysis plan before submitting, especially your choice of tests. Keep evaluation questions few and focused. Match every question to a measure. Use clinic data to estimate sample size. Name the software you will use.
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 4: DNP Project Ethics Assignment
- DNP 705 Module 6: DNP Project Budget Plan
- DNP 705 Module 7: DNP Project Sustainability Plan
- DNP 713 Module 1: Organizational Culture Photo Diary
- DNP 606 Module 2: Flip the Classroom Presentation: Pediatric ARDS
- DNP 643 Module 5: Case Study 5: Adverse Childhood Experiences and Pediatric Mental Health (Anxiety and School Avoidance)
- DNP 672 Module 3: Classes of Antidepressants Discussion
DNP 705 Module 5 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DNP 705 Module 5 sample paper?
Methods Paper Part 1 is above in full: design, setting, population, evaluation questions matched to measures and analyses, sample size, timeline and threats to validity for a fracture liaison project.
What does DNP 705 Methods Part 1 cover?
The first section of the project methodology, showing consistency between purpose, evaluation questions and measurement outcomes.
How many points is the DNP 705 methods paper?
Methods Paper Part 1 is worth 100 points, and the revision with Part 2 another 100.
What design do most DNP QI projects use?
Many use a pre-implementation and post-implementation comparison with run charts to track change over time.
Why include threats to validity in a DNP methods paper?
To show awareness of alternative explanations, such as secular trends, and how the project will address them.