| Course | DNP 707 Disseminating Evidence to Advance Best Practice in Healthcare and Health Policy |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Structured project abstract with journal selection |
| Length | About 422 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 5
Closing the Osteoporosis Treatment Gap After Fragility Fracture: A Nurse-Led Quality Improvement Project in an Orthopedic Clinic
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
Closing the Osteoporosis Treatment Gap After Fragility Fracture: A Nurse-Led Quality Improvement Project in an Orthopedic Clinic
Structured Abstract
Background: Fewer than one in three patients begin osteoporosis treatment after a hip fracture in the United States, and fracture liaison services reduce subsequent fractures (Solomon et al., 2014; Li et al., 2021).
Local problem: In an outpatient orthopedic clinic in Phoenix, 7.3% of adults 50 and older with fragility fractures began treatment within six months.
Methods: Quality improvement project using the Knowledge-to-Action framework, with a pre-post comparison of consecutive eligible patients over two six-month periods and monthly run charts. Outcomes were treatment initiation within six months, bone density testing within three months and osteoporosis knowledge.
Intervention: A registered nurse identified eligible patients through an electronic record checklist, ordered bone density testing by standing order, taught each patient for 15 minutes, advised the patient's primary care clinician on treatment in writing and phoned the patient three months later.
Results: Treatment initiation rose from 11 of 150 (7.3%) to 47 of 146 (32.2%; p < .001). Bone density testing rose from 12.7% to 61.0%. Mean knowledge scores increased from 16.8 to 22.1 of 32 among 104 patients. Completion of the follow-up call was 64%, below the 80% target.
Conclusions: A nurse-led pathway using existing staff quadrupled treatment initiation in one clinic. Effective services commonly share a dedicated coordinator and structured follow-up (Wu et al., 2018); improving follow-up and testing the pathway in other clinics are next steps.
Journal Selection
My preferred journal is the official journal of the national orthopedic nurses' association, with the Journal for Nurse Practitioners as the alternative. Orthopedic nurses are the readers most able to copy the pathway, and the journal publishes clinical quality improvement work. I confirmed that it is the official journal of a national specialty association, is indexed in major nursing databases and names its editorial board, and that the publisher's author guidelines describe peer review and any fees. I will check the current abstract word limit and structure in the author guidelines before submitting.
Changes After Peer Review
Three changes came from my reviewers. First, my draft said treatment "improved dramatically"; I replaced that with the counts and percentages. Second, a reviewer asked whether patients already on treatment were excluded, so I added the exclusion to the methods in the full manuscript. Third, I had left out the weak follow-up result to save words, and a peer pointed out that SQUIRE 2.0 asks for limitations and unexpected findings (Ogrinc et al., 2016), so I restored it.
References
Li, N., Hiligsmann, M., Boonen, A., van Oostwaard, M. M., de Bot, R. T. A. L., Wyers, C. E., Bours, S. P. G., & van den Bergh, J. P. (2021). The impact of fracture liaison services on subsequent fractures and mortality: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Osteoporosis International, 32(8), 1517-1530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-021-05911-9
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
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
What the DNP 707 Module 5 instructions ask for
The posted syllabus grades the Project Abstract at 100 points, individually, with a peer review component: a concise written description of your DNP project, including peer review and choosing a preferred journal for submission. It follows the abstract critique, so the standard you applied to someone else now applies to you. Expect to write a structured abstract within a word limit, exchange it with peers, revise, and justify a target journal. Many students use SQUIRE 2.0 headings for quality improvement projects. Check Canvas for the word limit and the peer review form, and read your chosen journal's author guidelines before you finalize the structure. Peer reviewers will see your draft before faculty do, so submit a complete version, not an outline.
Inside the DNP 707 Module 5 example
The abstract uses headings that match a quality improvement reporting guideline, so a reviewer can find every element quickly. Results give counts, percentages, the test result and the weak finding, which is what the writer's own critique of another abstract asked for. The conclusion stays within one clinic's data. Journal selection explains fit with readers and describes concrete checks for legitimacy instead of trusting a name. The peer review section lists three specific changes and why each was made, which documents the revision the assignment requires. The paper reuses its own critique standards rather than inventing new ones. Every figure in the abstract matches the poster and executive summary exactly, which avoids the inconsistencies reviewers often catch between formats.
Where the marks sit in the DNP 707 Module 5 rubric
Project abstracts are typically graded on completeness against a recognized structure, accurate and specific results, conclusions that match the data, adherence to word limits, a justified journal choice and evidence of revision after peer review. Faculty look for abstracts a conference reviewer would accept. Giving denominators and dates is a frequent difference between strong and weak submissions. Explaining how the journal was vetted shows the publication ethics covered earlier in the course. Specific revisions, rather than "I fixed grammar," show genuine use of peer feedback. Staying within the word limit is part of the grade. Abstracts that a classmate outside your specialty can understand on first reading usually score well with faculty too.
DNP 707 Module 5 help with common mistakes
The most frequent abstract problem is vague results. Give counts with denominators, percentages and the time frame. Another is a conclusion that claims more than one site can show. Write the abstract last, after your results are final, and cut adjectives. Pick a journal by its readers, not its impact factor alone, and confirm it is indexed and transparent about fees and review. Record what each peer reviewer suggested and what you changed. If you would like help tightening your project abstract or choosing a journal, send your draft and results to the desk. Count words with the title excluded unless the journal says otherwise. Ask a peer to read only your results and conclusion and tell you what they think you found.
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 4: DNP Abstract Critique
- DNP 707 Module 6: DNP Talk Presentation
- DNP 707 Module 7: DNP Project Poster
- DNP 707 Module 8: Executive Summary and Site Presentation
- DNP 711 Module 4: Policy Brief
- DNP 649 Module 3: Fetal and Neonatal Physiology Case Study: PPHN
- DNP 715 Module 3: Healthy People 2030 Progress Assessment
- DNP 716 Module 6: Team Leadership Discussion
DNP 707 Module 5 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DNP 707 Module 5 sample paper?
The project abstract above is a full sample: a structured abstract for a fracture liaison project, the journal choice with vetting steps and three changes made after peer review.
How many points is the DNP 707 Project Abstract?
It is worth 100 points and includes a peer review component.
What structure should a DNP quality improvement abstract use?
Many follow SQUIRE 2.0: background, local problem, methods, intervention, results and conclusions, adjusted to the journal's format.
How do I choose a journal for my DNP project?
Match the readers to your project, then confirm indexing, a named editorial board, clear peer review and transparent fees.
Should I include negative findings in my DNP abstract?
Yes. Reporting guidelines ask for limitations and unexpected results, and leaving them out weakens credibility.