| Course | NU 760 Scholarship for Nursing Practice |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Dissemination plan |
| Length | About 600 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU 760 Unit 6
Dissemination Plan for a Scheduled Toileting Project That Reduced Falls on an Acute Care for Elders Unit
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NU 760: Scholarship for Nursing Practice
Instructor Name
February 25, 2026
Dissemination Plan for a Scheduled Toileting Project That Reduced Falls on an Acute Care for Elders Unit
The Work Being Disseminated
Over six months, the 24-bed Acute Care for Elders unit of a composite community hospital introduced scheduled toileting every two hours while awake and at set times overnight for patients at high fall risk, delivered by nursing assistants with a simple checklist. Falls fell from 5.1 to 3.2 per 1,000 patient-days, comparing the six months before with the six months after, with no change in patient mix measured by age and fall risk scores. Falls occurring while the patient was trying to reach the bathroom fell from 58% of all falls to 31%. Nursing assistant time per shift increased by about 25 minutes, absorbed without added staff. These are the findings to be shared, and they have limits: a single unit, a before-and-after design, and a short follow-up.
Deciding Audiences Before Formats
Each audience below is chosen for what it is able to do with the findings, which determines the lead message and the format. Effective dissemination tailors the message and channel to the audience rather than distributing one product to everyone (Brownson et al., 2018).
| Audience | What they can do | Lead message | Format | Venue and timing | Who delivers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unit staff, all shifts | Sustain the practice | Your work cut falls by more than a third; here is what keeps it going | Huddle briefing with run chart; poster in break room | Huddles in week of April 6 | Unit manager and project lead |
| Other inpatient units' managers | Decide whether to adopt | A low-cost change reduced toileting-related falls; here is what it takes | One-page summary; 10-minute talk | Nursing leadership meeting, April 21 | Project lead |
| Shared governance practice council | Approve spread and policy change | Evidence supports a pilot on two more units | Written proposal with data | Council meeting, May 12 | Clinical nurse specialist |
| Hospital quality committee | Fund and track spread | Fall reduction with no added staff cost | Two-slide report | Quarterly meeting, June | Director of nursing |
| Regional nursing conference | Learn and replicate | What worked, what it cost, what we would change | Poster | Regional conference, September | Project lead and a nursing assistant co-presenter |
| Nursing journal readership | Build the evidence base | Single-unit results, with limits stated | Quality improvement report | Submission by December | Project team |
Why Each Format Carries Different Findings
The unit briefing leads with the result and with recognition, because the people who delivered the change need to see it worked and to know what keeps it working. It includes the run chart but not the details of method. The managers' summary leads with cost and practicality, because their decision is whether they can do it with their staff. The council proposal includes the full data and the limitations, because the council's task is to judge whether evidence is sufficient to change policy. The conference poster emphasizes what the team would do differently, which is most useful to other hospitals. The journal report uses SQUIRE 2.0, the reporting checklist written for improvement studies, so it sets out the context, the intervention, the measures, and the study of the intervention, including limitations (Ogrinc et al., 2016).
Including the People Who Did the Work
Nursing assistants delivered the intervention. One nursing assistant will co-present the conference poster, and the unit briefing credits the nursing assistant team by name. Including them is not a courtesy: they can answer questions about feasibility that no one else can, and recognition supports sustaining the practice.
Ethics and Permissions
The hospital's research office reviewed the project and determined it to be quality improvement not requiring institutional review board approval for internal dissemination; the determination will be requested in writing before external presentation and publication. No patient identifiers appear in any product. Data will be reported in aggregate only, and fall counts for any month with fewer than five events will be combined with adjacent months in external products so that no individual patient's fall could be recognized by staff reading them. Before external submission, the manuscript and poster will also be reviewed by the hospital's communications office, which checks that the hospital is described accurately and that no marketing claim is implied by the findings.
How Dissemination Will Be Judged
Dissemination succeeds if the unit sustains scheduled toileting, measured by checklist completion above 85% at six months; if the practice council approves a pilot on at least two more units; and if the poster and manuscript are accepted. The project lead will track these milestones on the timeline above and report progress to the practice council at its September meeting. Moving evidence into practice depends as much on communicating it to the people who can act as on generating it (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2023).
References
Brownson, R. C., Eyler, A. A., Harris, J. K., Moore, J. B., & Tabak, R. G. (2018). Getting the word out: New approaches for disseminating public health science. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 24(2), 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000673
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2023). Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare: A guide to best practice (5th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
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
The Herzing NU 760 Unit 6 instructions
This unit's plan explains how you will share the results of an evidence-based project with different audiences. Expect to identify audiences, tailor messages and formats to each, choose venues such as unit meetings, posters, presentations or journals, address ethics and permissions, and define how you will know dissemination worked. Many versions ask you to use reporting guidelines such as SQUIRE for quality improvement. Check whether your section expects internal and external dissemination or only one. Consider who did the work and how they will be credited. Permission to share organizational data is a real issue, so describe the review your project would need. A plan that links each audience to an action, such as approving spread, is stronger than a list of venues.
How this NU 760 Unit 6 example is built
The plan starts with a short summary of the project and its result, so each audience's message can be drawn from it. The audiences section lists each group with what it is able to do with the findings, and that ability decides the lead message and format. A separate section explains why the formats differ, showing that a unit briefing, a council report and a conference poster each emphasize a different finding. Including nursing assistants is treated as both an ethical and a practical choice. The ethics section describes the research office review and data permissions in plain terms. The final section sets measures for dissemination itself, such as sustained practice and council approval of a pilot, which is what makes the plan more than a list of events.
Reading the NU 760 Unit 6 rubric
When Herzing grades a dissemination plan, the rubric generally looks at the identification of audiences, the tailoring of messages and formats, the selection of venues, ethical considerations, evaluation of dissemination and writing. Audience points reward specific groups with a reason for each. The tailoring criterion is usually the heaviest and gives full credit when messages and formats differ by audience. Venue selection earns points for realistic choices, including specific conferences or journals. Ethics criteria look for attention to permissions, review and credit. Evaluation points go to measurable indicators of uptake rather than counts of presentations. The writing row covers organization and APA 7 citations, including Brownson and colleagues on dissemination and Ogrinc and colleagues for SQUIRE 2.0.
NU 760 Unit 6 help: mistakes that cost points
The trap in a Unit 6 plan is listing venues, a poster, a presentation and an article, without saying what each audience should do with the findings. Another is sending the same message to everyone. Students often skip ethics and permissions, assuming internal data can be shared freely. Leaving out the staff who carried out the work is a common oversight. Evaluation is usually missing or limited to the number of people reached. Choosing a national journal for a small unit project, without considering fit, weakens feasibility. Some plans forget to tie back to the project's actual result. Finally, mention a reporting guideline such as SQUIRE if you plan to publish, since graders expect awareness of how quality improvement work is reported.
Get a NU 760 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 6 instructions and the rubric from your NU 760 classroom, plus your findings and the audiences you have in mind. We write a custom example that pairs each audience with a venue, a lead message and a format, and return it in 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.
More NU 760 papers and MSN samples
- NU 760 Unit 1: Practice problem statement
- NU 760 Unit 2: Search strategy
- NU 760 Unit 3: Annotated bibliography
- NU 760 Unit 4: Evidence review
- NU 760 Unit 5: Evidence translation plan
- NU 760 Unit 7: Scholarly paper
- NU 760 Unit 8: Peer review response
- NU 480 Unit 6: Ethical decision walkthrough
- NU 602 Unit 6: Screening test evaluation
- NU 651 Unit 6: Service integration analysis
- NU 715 Unit 6: Digital access equity audit
NU 760 Unit 6 questions, answered
How do I choose a journal or conference?
Read what it has published recently rather than its scope statement. The contents tell you whether it takes single-site practice work, what length it runs and what structure it expects. Naming an outlet without that check is how writers discover at submission that their work was never eligible, and it is easy to avoid with twenty minutes of looking.
Should every audience get the same message?
The same findings, arranged differently. A unit wants to know what changes in their work; a governance council wants to know whether this should spread; a conference audience wants what is new. Leading with the same sentence for all three means at least two of them are reading something that does not concern them.
Do I need permission to present my organization's data?
Usually, and it is better established before you draft than after. Organizations control what is said publicly about their performance, and findings that reflect poorly on a unit can be restricted even where the work itself was supported. Ask early, in writing, and record what was agreed, including whether the site may be named.
Where can I find a free NU 760 Unit 6 sample paper?
The full NU 760 Unit 6 scheduled toileting dissemination plan is on this page free of charge, audiences, formats, ethics and measures included. A custom plan can be prepared for your own project's findings and audiences.
How do I choose audiences for disseminating a nursing project?
Start with who can act on the results: staff who sustain the practice, a council that approves spread, and peers elsewhere who might adopt it. This sample picks each audience for what it can do and sets the message and format to match.