In the handbooks quoted here, a DNP project puts existing evidence into practice at a clinical site and evaluates what changed. The proposal is the plan for that change. It covers the problem at your site, a PICOT question, the appraised evidence, a framework or model, the intervention, how it will be implemented and evaluated, and how it will be reviewed before it starts: a determination of whether it counts as research or quality improvement, and IRB review if it counts as research. In the handbooks quoted here, a chair, committee, or faculty team approves the proposal before implementation starts.
No one sees their own blind spots, with or without AI help. Esmond points them out in your draft from within your field, along with factual errors and inconsistencies.
The DNP project handbook of the University of Colorado Colorado Springs (UCCS) separates the two doctoral routes: “DNP scholars focus on practice change (QI), the synthesis, translation, implementation, and evaluation of evidence to solve clinical problems and improve patient outcomes.” On the other side: “PhD scholars create new knowledge through rigorous research and statistical methodologies that may be broadly applicable or generalizable.”
Schools draw the line in different places. At the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), students choose between three project types: quality improvement, evidence-based practice, and program development and/or evaluation. At Radford University, the acceptable types are a quality improvement project, a program evaluation, and some quantitative designs such as surveys and quasi-experimental studies, while systematic reviews, integrative reviews, qualitative research, and several other types are on its list of unacceptable projects. Check which types your own handbook lists before you settle on a design. If your plan reads more like a study than a practice change, compare it with a master thesis proposal.
A hypothetical example of a commentYour PICOT question names catheter days as the outcome, but your evaluation plan only counts how many nurses attended the training. Which measure will show whether the change worked?
A first comment on one part of your own draft, right away and without an account.
Get a free previewThe rows are based on the components in UNMC's proposal rubric for evidence-based practice projects, grouped and shortened; the third column is our own reading. Your school's template may use other headings or another order, and it decides.
| Section | What goes in it | What a reader looks for |
|---|---|---|
| Problem and significance | The practice gap at your site, with national and local data | Is the problem shown at this site, or only in the literature? |
| PICOT question | Population, intervention, comparison, outcome, time | Does every later section answer to it? |
| Evidence review and appraisal | A table of evidence and a synthesis of what it shows | Does the evidence support this intervention for this population? |
| Framework or model | An EBP, QI, or evaluation model, such as the Iowa Model | Is the model used to plan the steps, or only named? |
| Setting and organizational assessment | The site, its readiness, barriers, and facilitators | Has the site agreed, and is the plan realistic there? |
| Intervention and implementation plan | What changes, who does it, when, and with what training | Could someone at the site follow the plan as described? |
| Evaluation plan | Outcome, process, and balancing measures, data collection, analysis | Does the main measure match the O in the PICOT question? |
| Ethics: QI determination and IRB review | Whether the project counts as research, and which review follows | Are both steps in the timeline before data collection? |
| Sustainability | How the change continues after the project ends | Who keeps it going, and with what resources? |
Widener University's documentation guidelines ask students to “Introduce the PICOT (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Time) question that will guide the appraisal of the evidence and DNP project.” It decides which studies belong in the evidence table, what the intervention is, and what the evaluation plan has to measure.
UNMC's description of its quality improvement projects asks for a PICOT question whose population targets providers, not patients. If your question names nurses and your evaluation plan measures patient outcomes, explain how one leads to the other. For tests that apply to any research or project question, see the page on the research question.
Widener's guidelines say of the critical appraisal: “This section is not about discussing each study individually.” They ask instead for a view of the body of evidence as a whole: its level, its quality, how consistent the findings are, and how confident you can be in acting on it.
The University of Arizona's DNP Project Tool Kit makes the same distinction for the synthesis that follows the evidence table: “A literature synthesis is not simply listing studies and the findings, which is a literature review.”
The Arizona tool kit points quality improvement projects to the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Model for Improvement with Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, and program evaluation projects to the CDC framework for program evaluation. UNMC builds its quality improvement and evidence-based practice projects on the Iowa Model. Whatever the model, a reader expects to see it shape the steps of the plan. If it shapes none, expect your chair to ask why the model is there.
For the evaluation plan, Radford's handbook, citing a DNP tool kit, adds a point worth keeping in mind when you choose measures and plan the analysis: “Clinical significance is as important in guiding practice as statistical significance is in evaluating research.” An evaluation plan that names a measure, a baseline, a time frame, and what change would matter at the site is easier to defend than one that only names a statistical test.
In several of the handbooks quoted here, the first step is a determination of whether the project counts as human subjects research. Arizona students submit a Determination of Human Subjects form after passing the proposal defense; CSU Pueblo has a School of Nursing QI Determination Committee; UNMC students use an online tool called "Am I Doing Research". UNMC's handbook also sets out when a full application to its IRB is needed: “Projects that require a full IRB application are those that 1) involve human subjects with aims to contribute to generalizable knowledge, 2) collect, analyze, or share protected health information, or 3) expose participants to risk”, such as physical, emotional, financial, or social risk.
Changes after approval go back through review. At Colorado State University Pueblo, “Any proposed changes from the approved IRB project implementation plan must be resubmitted to the chair, IRB, and other committees required.” Some sites have their own IRB as well; put each review in your timeline before data collection.
At CSU Pueblo and Arizona, the chair reviews the proposal before the committee does. At CSU Pueblo, “The DNP project chair must review and approve the project proposal prior to scheduling an evaluation.”
UNMC's rubric describes what an unsatisfactory component looks like. In plain terms, these are some of the questions behind it:
| Weak spot | How it shows in the draft | Question to ask yourself |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome drift | The PICOT outcome is clinical, the evaluation plan measures attendance or satisfaction | Which measure answers the O in my question? |
| Evidence listed one study at a time | One paragraph per study, no statement about the body of evidence | What does the evidence as a whole support, and how strongly? |
| Review missing from the timeline | Implementation starts in the same month the determination or IRB form goes in | How long does each review take at my school and site? |
This example is fictional. A DNP student plans a nurse-driven protocol for earlier removal of urinary catheters on a medical unit of a community hospital. The PICOT question: in adult inpatients with an indwelling urinary catheter on one medical unit (P), does a nurse-driven removal protocol (I), compared with removal on a physician's order (C), reduce catheter days per 1,000 patient-days (O) over twelve weeks (T)? At a school that asks for providers as the population, the P would be the nurses on the unit.
Read against the table above, the draft has four problems. The evidence table is on topic, but the synthesis gives one paragraph per study. The implementation plan names the Model for Improvement, yet lists no Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle. The evaluation plan counts staff who completed the training and never says how catheter days and patient-days will be collected or from which records. The timeline starts the protocol in week one, while the quality improvement determination form is due in week two.
Esmond evaluates every assignment before you submit. It never writes it.
Esmond is an AI tool that doesn't write for you. If your course doesn't allow any AI tools, don't use Esmond for that work. If you're unsure, ask your instructor or advisor.
When you upload, you can choose research proposal as the document type, so Esmond reads it as a plan for work that hasn't started yet. It reads your draft from within your field and flags factual errors, inconsistencies, and blind spots: a PICOT outcome the evaluation plan never measures, a synthesis that only lists studies, an intervention your own evidence section doesn't support. It adds no text to your proposal. The sample report shows what comes back, and how Esmond works explains the steps.
Esmond doesn't check your proposal against your school's template or rubric, doesn't judge whether an intervention is clinically safe, doesn't decide whether your project needs IRB review, and approves nothing. Your chair, your committee, and the review boards make those decisions.
Not in the handbooks quoted here. In the UCCS handbook, DNP work focuses on practice change and the translation of evidence, while PhD work creates new, generalizable knowledge.
Several handbooks quoted here first ask for a determination: Arizona uses a Determination of Human Subjects form, CSU Pueblo a QI Determination Committee, UNMC an online tool. Projects that count as human subjects research then go to the IRB. Ask your chair which route applies.
At UNMC, a quality improvement project improves a specific process within one setting, while an evidence-based practice project implements a practice change grounded in existing evidence to reduce variation in care. Your school may define the types differently.
Radford University lists systematic and integrative reviews among its unacceptable project types. Check the list in your own handbook.
Read on November 7, 2026.
Get your paper evaluated before you submit