HCR 400 Module 6 EBP Paper Outline Example

Reviewed by Emmett Rockwell, MBA Arizona State University Updated October 2026

This HCR 400 Module 6 sample is the EBP Paper Outline from Evidence-Based Practice for the Health Care Professional, which students in ASU's Health Care Coordination degree take with other health majors. Worth 20 points, the outline in ASU HCR 400 maps the final EBP paper, which draws on ten articles the group gathered earlier in the term and ends in a recommended fix for the problem. The composite student's group tackles blood pressure that stays above target despite treatment in primary care. The outline states the PICOT question, background, search strategy and the ten articles grouped by design, sets out how they will be synthesized and sketches the proposed practice change, home telemonitoring with pharmacist or nurse support, with a plan for evaluating it.

CourseHCR 400 Evidence-Based Practice for the Health Care Professional
ModuleModule 6
Paper typeEBP paper outline
LengthAbout 376 words, 4 pages
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolArizona State University
ProgramBS in Health Care Coordination
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for HCR 400 Module 6

1

Outline: Home Blood Pressure Telemonitoring With Team Support in Primary Care

Student Name

BS in Health Care Coordination, Arizona State University

HCR 400: Evidence-Based Practice for the Health Care Professional

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title is the working title of the group's final paper, preceded by the document type.
2

Outline: Home Blood Pressure Telemonitoring With Team Support in Primary Care

Working Title

Home Blood Pressure Telemonitoring With Team Support in Primary Care: An Evidence-Based Practice Proposal

I. Introduction and Background

A. Problem: many adults with hypertension do not reach control; high blood pressure is common and more prevalent among Black adults (Ostchega et al., 2020).

B. Why it matters: lower pressures reduce cardiovascular events and death in high-risk adults (SPRINT Research Group, 2015).

C. Practice setting: a primary care clinic network.

II. PICOT Question

For primary care patients whose hypertension is not controlled (P), would transmitting home readings to a pharmacist or nurse who adjusts treatment (I), rather than relying on office visits alone (C), raise the share reaching target (O) over one year (T)?

III. Search Strategy

A. Databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library.

B. Keywords: hypertension, home blood pressure monitoring, self-measured blood pressure, telemonitoring, pharmacist, team-based care.

C. Limits: English, adults, 2008 onward, plus landmark studies.

D. Results: five search strings; ten articles selected (weeks 3 and 4).

IV. Evidence Summary (Ten Articles)

A. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: Uhlig et al. (2013); Tucker et al. (2017).

B. Randomized trials: Green et al. (2008); McManus et al. (2010); Margolis et al. (2013); McManus et al. (2018); Victor et al. (2018); SPRINT Research Group (2015).

C. Follow-up study: Margolis et al. (2018).

D. Background data: Ostchega et al. (2020).

E. Evidence table in appendix: design, sample, intervention, results, level of evidence.

What this page is doingGrouping the ten articles by design shows the instructor that the group will weigh evidence by strength rather than list studies in the order they were found.
3

V. Synthesis

A. Monitoring alone: modest, short-lived benefit.

B. Monitoring plus support: larger, sustained effects at 12 months.

C. Durability: effects fade after support ends.

D. Settings and populations: community settings such as barbershops.

E. Gaps: few long-term clinical outcomes.

VI. Proposed Practice Change

A. Enroll adults with uncontrolled hypertension in home telemonitoring.

B. Pharmacist or nurse reviews readings weekly and adjusts treatment under protocol.

C. Validated cuffs, training and support for patients without internet.

VII. Implementation and Evaluation

A. Stakeholders: physicians, pharmacists, nurses, IT, patients.

B. Measures: percent controlled at 6 and 12 months; visits; patient satisfaction.

C. Barriers: cost of devices, staff time, reimbursement.

VIII. Conclusion

Restate the recommendation and its evidence base.

Group Responsibilities

Sections I-II and VIII: member 1. Sections III-IV: member 2. Section V: member 3. Sections VI-VII: member 4.

References

Green, B. B., Cook, A. J., Ralston, J. D., Fishman, P. A., Catz, S. L., Carlson, J., Carrell, D., Tyll, L., Larson, E. B., & Thompson, R. S. (2008). Effectiveness of home blood pressure monitoring, web communication, and pharmacist care on hypertension control: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 299(24), 2857-2867. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.24.2857

Margolis, K. L., Asche, S. E., Bergdall, A. R., Dehmer, S. P., Groen, S. E., Kadrmas, H. M., Kerby, T. J., Klotzle, K. J., Maciosek, M. V., Michels, R. D., O'Connor, P. J., Pritchard, R. A., Sekenski, J. L., Sperl-Hillen, J. M., & Trower, N. K. (2013). Effect of home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist management on blood pressure control: A cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 310(1), 46-56. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.6549

Margolis, K. L., Asche, S. E., Dehmer, S. P., Bergdall, A. R., Green, B. B., Sperl-Hillen, J. M., Nyboer, R. A., Pawloski, P. A., Maciosek, M. V., Trower, N. K., & O'Connor, P. J. (2018). Long-term outcomes of the effects of home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist management on blood pressure among adults with uncontrolled hypertension: Follow-up of a cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open, 1(5), e181617. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1617

McManus, R. J., Mant, J., Bray, E. P., Holder, R., Jones, M. I., Greenfield, S., Kaambwa, B., Banting, M., Bryan, S., Little, P., Williams, B., & Hobbs, F. D. R. (2010). Telemonitoring and self-management in the control of hypertension (TASMINH2): A randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 376(9736), 163-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60964-6

McManus, R. J., Mant, J., Franssen, M., Nickless, A., Schwartz, C., Hodgkinson, J., Bradburn, P., Farmer, A., Grant, S., Greenfield, S. M., Heneghan, C., Jowett, S., Martin, U., Milner, S., Monahan, M., Mort, S., Ogburn, E., Perera-Salazar, R., Shah, S. A., . . . Hobbs, F. D. R. (2018). Efficacy of self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, for titration of antihypertensive medication (TASMINH4): An unmasked randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 391(10124), 949-959. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30309-X

Ostchega, Y., Fryar, C. D., Nwankwo, T., & Nguyen, D. T. (2020). Hypertension prevalence among adults aged 18 and over: United States, 2017-2018 (NCHS Data Brief No. 364). National Center for Health Statistics. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db364.htm

SPRINT Research Group. (2015). A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. New England Journal of Medicine, 373(22), 2103-2116. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1511939

Tucker, K. L., Sheppard, J. P., Stevens, R., Bosworth, H. B., Bove, A., Bray, E. P., Earle, K., George, J., Godwin, M., Green, B. B., Hebert, P., Hobbs, F. D. R., Kantola, I., Kerry, S. M., Leiva, A., Magid, D. J., Mant, J., Margolis, K. L., McKinstry, B., . . . McManus, R. J. (2017). Self-monitoring of blood pressure in hypertension: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. PLOS Medicine, 14(9), e1002389. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002389

Uhlig, K., Patel, K., Ip, S., Kitsios, G. D., & Balk, E. M. (2013). Self-measured blood pressure monitoring in the management of hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine, 159(3), 185-194. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-159-3-201308060-00008

Victor, R. G., Lynch, K., Li, N., Blyler, C., Muhammad, E., Handler, J., Brettler, J., Rashid, M., Hsu, B., Foxx-Drew, D., Moy, N., Reid, A. E., & Elashoff, R. M. (2018). A cluster-randomized trial of blood-pressure reduction in Black barbershops. New England Journal of Medicine, 378(14), 1291-1301. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1717250

Reading the HCR 400 Module 6 assignment instructions

Twenty of HCR 400's 450 points go to the EBP Paper Outline, which previews the group's Final EBP Project Paper, the course's 100-point centerpiece. According to the syllabus, the final paper summarizes the ten articles chosen during weeks 3 and 4 and offers a solution to the group's problem, so an effective outline shows where each article will appear and what the group will recommend. Because the project is a group effort ending in a group evaluation, the outline is also the place to divide responsibilities. Draw on your Finding the Evidence tables and on the appraisals you have already completed, and treat the instructor's comments on this outline as the roadmap for the paper.

Inside the HCR 400 Module 6 example

The sample gives a working title, then outlines eight sections: background, the PICOT question, the search, an evidence summary with the ten sources sorted by study design, a synthesis plan organized by theme, the proposed practice change, implementation and evaluation and a conclusion. A closing section assigns each part to a group member. Citations appear throughout so the instructor can check the evidence base early, and the outline carries its full reference list. It is detailed enough to show the argument while staying short enough to revise quickly once feedback arrives.

HCR 400 Module 6 rubric: what earns full marks

The Canvas rubric for the outline totals 20 points. Outlines generally score well when the PICOT question is precise, the structure runs from background through evidence and synthesis to a recommendation and its evaluation, all ten sources have a place, evidence is grouped by strength or design, the practice change is concrete and the division of labor is clear. They lose points when sources are simply listed without a synthesis plan, when the recommendation is vague and when sections consist of headings with nothing under them. Instructors also appreciate outlines that flag any open questions for the group, such as which outcome measure to use in the evaluation plan, since the review step is a chance to settle them.

HCR 400 Module 6 help from the desk

Let the PICOT question govern every section; anything that does not serve it can wait. Place each of the ten sources where it will carry the most weight rather than in the order you found them. Plan the synthesis around a few themes. Describe the practice change in operational terms, naming the staff involved, the frequency of contact and the equipment needed. Agree on who edits the final paper for consistency. The desk can review whether your outline covers everything the paper will need. If one group member is responsible for the evidence table, make sure that table and the outline use the same article names and order, because mismatches confuse readers of the final paper.

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.

Request this one custom, free All HCR 400 module samples

More HCR 400 and BS in Health Care Coordination sample papers

HCR 400 Module 6 questions, answered

Where can I find a free HCR 400 Module 6 sample paper?

This page has a full HCR 400 Module 6 sample: an EBP paper outline on home blood pressure telemonitoring with team support.

What does the HCR 400 final EBP paper include?

A summary of ten articles chosen earlier in the term and a solution to the problem of study.

How much is the HCR 400 EBP outline worth?

It is worth 20 points; the final EBP paper is worth 100.

What is a PICOT question?

A searchable clinical question built from five parts: the patients, the intervention, its alternative, the outcome sought and the time frame.

Is the HCR 400 EBP project done in groups?

Yes. Students work in EBP groups and complete a group evaluation at the end.