| Course | DNP 707 Disseminating Evidence to Advance Best Practice in Healthcare and Health Policy |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 4 |
| Paper type | Written abstract critique |
| Length | About 436 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DNP 707 Module 4
Close but Not Yet: A Reviewer's Critique of a Catheter Removal Protocol Abstract
Student Name
Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University
DNP 707: Disseminating Evidence to Advance Best Practice in Healthcare and Health Policy
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Close but Not Yet: A Reviewer's Critique of a Catheter Removal Protocol Abstract
The Abstract Under Review
Title: Nurses Take the Lead on Catheter Removal. Background: Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) are a major problem in hospitals. Purpose: To reduce CAUTI on our unit. Methods: A nurse-driven removal protocol was introduced on a 32-bed medical-surgical unit, with education for all nurses and a daily checklist. Results: CAUTI rates decreased significantly after the protocol, and nurses reported high satisfaction. Conclusions: Nurse-driven protocols eliminate CAUTI and should be adopted by all hospitals.
Element-by-Element Review
| Element | What the abstract gives | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Title | Names the actor but not the outcome or design | Partly meets |
| Problem and local context | States a general problem with no local baseline | Does not meet |
| Aim | Clear but not measurable | Partly meets |
| Methods and intervention | Setting and components named; no design, dates or measures | Partly meets |
| Results | No numbers, denominators or time frame | Does not meet |
| Conclusions | Overstated and generalized beyond the data | Does not meet |
Strengths
The topic matters. National guidance calls for removing a catheter the moment it stops being needed and supports protocols that let nurses act on that (Gould et al., 2010), and a systematic review found that nurse-driven removal protocols were generally associated with fewer infections and catheter days (Durant, 2017). The abstract names the setting and the components of the intervention clearly, which many quality improvement abstracts do not.
Problems a Reader Would Raise
Under SQUIRE 2.0, an abstract should let a reader find the problem, what was already known, what was changed, the way the change was evaluated, what happened and what it means (Ogrinc et al., 2016). This abstract leaves out the parts that let a reader judge the work. There is no baseline rate, no post-implementation rate and no measure of catheter days, so "decreased significantly" cannot be checked. The design is not stated; a reader cannot tell whether this was a before-and-after comparison, a run chart or something else, or over what months. The word "significantly" suggests a statistical test that is never named. Nurse satisfaction appears in the results without having been named as a measure. Finally, the conclusion claims that the protocol eliminated infections and should be adopted everywhere, which one unit's experience cannot support.
Recommendation
Return for revision, then reconsider. The authors should report baseline and follow-up CAUTI rates per 1,000 catheter days with dates, name the design and any statistical test, add catheter utilization as a process measure, state how satisfaction was measured or drop it, and rewrite the conclusion to describe what happened on one unit and what others might test.
References
Durant, D. J. (2017). Nurse-driven protocols and the prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections: A systematic review. American Journal of Infection Control, 45(12), 1331-1341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2017.07.020
Gould, C. V., Umscheid, C. A., Agarwal, R. K., Kuntz, G., Pegues, D. A., & Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. (2010). Guideline for prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections 2009. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 31(4), 319-326. https://doi.org/10.1086/651091
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
Reading the DNP 707 Module 4 assignment instructions
The posted syllabus makes the Abstract Critique the largest single grade in the course at 150 points. Each student reviews an assigned abstract for completeness on their own, then the learning community meets on Zoom in Week 6 to decide together whether to accept or reject it. It sits in the block of weeks on writing and critiquing abstracts, before you write and peer review your own project abstract. Expect to judge the abstract against a recognized standard and a conference's acceptance criteria, rate each part, and defend a decision. Faculty supply the abstract and any form in Canvas. Bring your written critique to the discussion. Write your critique before the group meets so your own judgment is on record before you hear anyone else's.
How the DNP 707 Module 4 example is put together
The critique reproduces the abstract so every comment can be checked against it. A table rates each element against a reporting guideline, which turns impressions into a structured review. Strengths come first and are tied to evidence that the topic matters. The problems section explains what a reader cannot tell and why that matters, rather than just listing faults. The recommendation is a decision with specific revisions the authors could make, which is what reviewers for conferences actually send back. Language stays respectful and specific throughout. The same method can be applied to any assigned abstract by swapping the guideline for the conference's own criteria. Because the abstract is composite, the method rather than the topic is what transfers to the abstract your own learning community is assigned.
Where the marks sit in the DNP 707 Module 4 rubric
Abstract critiques are commonly judged on use of a recognized framework, accurate identification of missing or weak elements, balanced recognition of strengths, a clear and defensible accept or reject decision, specific suggestions for revision, and professional tone. Faculty look for reviewers who can explain why an omission matters to a reader. Noticing overstated conclusions shows understanding of what a single quality improvement project can claim. A structured table or checklist makes the review easy to follow. In the group discussion, students who can defend their decision with evidence while staying open to peers' views do well. Reviewers who separate fatal problems from minor ones give authors a clearer path to acceptance.
DNP 707 Module 4 help: mistakes that cost marks
Critiques often stop at "well written" or "needs more detail." Say exactly what is missing, such as a baseline rate or a design, and why a reader needs it. Another problem is rejecting an abstract on topic grounds when the assignment asks about completeness. Use one standard consistently, either SQUIRE 2.0, a research reporting guideline or the conference's criteria. Look for numbers with denominators and dates. Watch for conclusions bigger than the data. If you would like help critiquing an assigned abstract, send the abstract and the criteria to the desk. Keep a copy of your ratings to use when you write your own abstract. Remember that your own abstract will be judged by the same kind of checklist a few weeks later.
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 707 and Doctor of Nursing Practice sample papers
- DNP 707 Module 1: DNP Project Introduction
- DNP 707 Module 2: DNP Project Elevator Speech
- DNP 707 Module 3: Ethics in Publication Discussion
- DNP 707 Module 5: DNP Project Abstract
- DNP 707 Module 6: DNP Talk Presentation
- DNP 707 Module 7: DNP Project Poster
- DNP 707 Module 8: Executive Summary and Site Presentation
- DNP 671 Module 3: Discussion: Interviewing Children and Adolescents
- DNP 673 Module 3: Using CBT With a Client Discussion
- DNP 672 Module 3: Classes of Antidepressants Discussion
- DNP 606 Module 5: Interprofessional Practice Discussion
DNP 707 Module 4 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DNP 707 Module 4 sample paper?
The abstract critique above is complete: a composite quality improvement abstract rated against SQUIRE 2.0, with strengths, problems and a revise-and-resubmit recommendation.
How many points is the DNP 707 Abstract Critique?
The posted syllabus lists it at 150 points, the largest single grade in the course.
What standard should I use to critique a DNP abstract?
Use one published standard consistently: SQUIRE 2.0 suits quality improvement abstracts, or use the acceptance criteria the conference publishes.
What are common weaknesses in quality improvement abstracts?
Missing baseline and follow-up numbers, no stated design, undefined measures and conclusions that go beyond the data.
Do I have to accept or reject the abstract in DNP 707?
Yes. The learning community discusses each review and decides whether the abstract is accepted or rejected.