NRS 465 Week 8 Benchmark – Capstone Project Change Proposal

Benchmark – Capstone Project Change Proposal

Nosocomial wound infections among burn injury patients are a patient safety and public health issue that requires effective intervention, especially the implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP) initiatives through capstone change projects. Wound dressing procedures increase the risk of infections because of the delicate nature of the skin, which is the largest body organ. Healthcare providers like nurses need strict protocols and measures through policy formulation on various aspects of wound management, including sterilization and decontamination to prevent and control infections, including healthcare-associated infections or nosocomial infections (Baj et al., 2024). The purpose of this paper is to describe the proposed capstone change project that focuses on the prevention and control of nosocomial burn wound infections for burn wound patients at a trauma center in a medical center and hospital.

Background

Burn wounds and injuries lead to increased long-term susceptibility to infections, including respiratory and hospital-associated infections. Natsha et al. (2025) observe that infection is a primary cause of mortality for patients with severe burn injuries, and systemic sepsis and subsequent multi-organ failure constitute close to 50% of burn-associated deaths. The increased susceptibility to infection emanates from, among other factors, loss of skin protection due to burn injuries, respiratory injury from smoke inhalation, a non-specific immunosuppressive state due to burns, and increased use of invasive devices during treatment. Roy et al. (2024) are categorical that patients admitted due to burn injuries have increased levels of developing hospital-acquired infections. As such, nurses and other healthcare providers require practical protocols and process measures that would prevent and help lower the rate of nosocomial infections associated with burn wound injuries in trauma centers. Wounds have a significant impact on patient care experience and level of satisfaction, emphasizing the importance of having sufficient sterilization and decontamination of dressing equipment and materials to lower infections. Sterilization and decontamination during wound care processes, like dressing, are essential to lower the susceptibility of patients to infections.

Clinical Problem

Close to 500,000 individuals seek medical treatment for burns every year in the United States. About 40,000 of those with burn injuries and wounds require hospitalization. Burn wounds induce metabolic and inflammatory reactions, which predispose patients to different complications, with infections being the most prevalent cause of morbidity and mortality in this population. Again, infections account for close to 60% of burn-related deaths in healthcare settings (Natsha et al., 2025). Burns damage the skin’s protective role and increase the susceptibility of pathogens to infiltrate the body, leading to infections. Additionally, the nature and level of thermal injury influence infections through the quantity and quality of microorganisms that colonize burn wounds, which increases the risk of invasive wound infections.

Trauma centers like one at Jacobi Medical Center in New York require effective policy measures and protocols that enhance the management of burn wounds to prevent the susceptibility of infections among burn injury patients. Besides knowledge on infection pathogens and pathophysiology, this clinical issue requires practice nursing interventions through evidence-based practice interventions like strict sterilization and decontamination protocols. Baj et al. (2024) emphasize the importance of providers developing interventions and measures that lower the risk of infections in critical care centers like Jacobi Medical Center’s burn and trauma unit. The risk of escalation of burn increases when nurses lack knowledge, skills, and techniques from evidence-based practice (EBP) findings, including guidelines on sterilization and aseptic techniques to lower infections. Infections hinder effective or early healing and recovery, lead to lengthy hospital stays, and increased costs, necessitating interventions to lower their occurrences for the affected patient population.

Purpose of Change Proposal

The healthcare system is evolving as providers and stakeholders focus on integrating best practice models that reduce the cost of care, increase patient satisfaction levels, and quality care outcomes. Models like value-based care reimburse healthcare facilities based on the quality outcomes, as opposed to the quantity of patients served. Infections lower quality care outcomes, implying that facilities may miss out on reimbursement for care provided to patients (Bradshaw et al., 2024). Burn wound infections, especially in severely burned patients, lead to mortality. The purpose of the change proposal is to prevent and control nosocomial infections among burn wound patients in the trauma unit at Jacobi Medical Center, New York. The change proposes sterilization and decontamination measures and guidelines during wound dressing, care, and management to prevent and reduce the prevalence of infections among wound patients. The proposed change is important since burn wounds increase patients’ and providers’ risk of infections, especially nosocomial infections that arise due to various factors, including long admission durations for a majority of burn wound patients. Strict sterilization and decontamination of dressing equipment and materials entail initial debridement that is followed by gentle cleansing utilizing a mild antiseptic solution and using sterilized gauzes and washcloths. Having such a policy would mandate providers to have appropriate and sterilized personal protective equipment to lower and prevent the transmission of infections. Ji et al. (2024) assert that the right interventions will control nosocomial infections and lead to better outcomes for patients. The implication is that the proposed change initiative is fundamental to lowering and mitigating healthcare-associated infections among burn wound patients.

PICOT Question

In adult burn wound patients (P), how does the implementation of strict sterilization and decontamination of wound dressing equipment and guideline protocol  (I), compared to less-intensive (standard) sterilization protocol (C), affect the rate of nosocomial infections in the burn unit (O) within six months (T)?

Population/Problem: Adult burn wound patients

Intervention: Strict sterilization and decontamination of wound dressing equipment and guideline protocol

Comparison: less-intensive (standard) sterilization protocol

Outcome: Decrease in the rate of nosocomial infections in the burn wound unit

Time: Six months

Complete PICOT Question: In adult burn wound patients, how does the implementation of strict sterilization and decontamination of wound dressing equipment and guideline protocol, compared to less-intensive (standard) sterilization protocol, affect the rate of nosocomial infections in the burn unit within six months?

Explanation of the PICOT Question

The PICOT question evaluates the impact of implementing strict sterilization and decontamination protocols and guidelines on infection prevention and control through an organizational policy at the facility. Nosocomial infections are considered “never-events” by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under the value-based care purchase model, implying that they are preventable yet increasingly common and lead to extended hospital stays, increased morbidity and mortality, as well as increased cost of healthcare. Therefore, this clinical inquiry is grounded in an evidence-based practice approach, seeking to determine the effectiveness of such protocols on preventing infections.

By comparing the rate of nosocomial infections in burn patients who receive standard sterilization care with decontamination processes, the question addresses critical gaps or grey areas in current wound care and management practices. The focus on the timeline (six months) ensures that the unit or the project team can assess the impact of the intervention, allowing for measurable outcomes to inform future care protocols and measures.

The PICOT question aligns with the greater healthcare goals of improving patient safety, providing quality and evidence-based practice care, and lowering the cost of healthcare. The findings from this investigation will help the facility and other similar units to develop and establish robust policies on strict sterilization and decontamination to prevent healthcare-associated burn wound infections, leading to better health outcomes for hospitalized burn wound and injury patients.

Literature Search Strategy

Getting the right and appropriate research articles is essential to support a proposed change initiative like the capstone change project to prevent and control infections among burn wound patients. Imperatively, the literature search strategy entailed retrieving various databases from the GCU library to access peer-reviewed journal articles on the issue or problem identified in the trauma center. The databases through the GCU library include PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Sage Publications, and Google Scholar. Secondly, the research team used keywords to search the articles, like wound infections, burn wounds, sterilization and decontamination, wound care management, nosocomial infections, and infection control policy in wound management. Thirdly, the team filtered the search results to get articles published within the last five years (Dagne & Beshah, 2021). The fourth aspect of the strategy was to use Boolean operators like “AND” and “OR” to combine search phrases and narrow the results for appropriate articles. These steps developed the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the search, leading to the selection of appropriate peer-reviewed articles.

After getting 103 publications from the databases, the team narrowed it to about 25 articles with full text and abstracts. A comprehensive assessment of the papers led to 15 research articles meeting the inclusion criteria, which were used in the proposal in various sections of the proposal development. The studies examine the application of strict sterilization and decontamination approaches, the impact of policy measures and guidelines, on burn wound infections, aspects of aseptic techniques in wound care, and the overall impact of evidence-based wound management practices in burn wound units.

Synthesis of Literature Review

The synthesized studies from the literature review support the proposed intervention as being effective in addressing nosocomial burn wound infections among patients in the burn unit.

1. a) Summary of the Studies’ Purpose

The eight evaluated studies had diverse purposes. Kim et al. (2025) determined the prevalence of transmission of pathogens among patients, while McWilliams et al. (2021) evaluated the impact of implementing best practices to prevent and control infections through the bundle care model on nosocomial infections in a burns unit. The articles by Mozafari et al. (2024) and Riza et al. (2025) focused on various aspects of infection prevention and control in burn wound settings and patients. The studies examined risk factors and best practices to tackle wounds. Yang et al. (2024), Otagh et al. (2024), Odhah et al. (2025), and Hu et al. (2023) examine diverse elements of infection prevention and control in burn wound practices and the role of healthcare providers like nurses. They also examined the influence of knowledge and skills on preventing infections in burn wound patients. The articles’ focus, based on their purpose, illustrates their evidence to support the proposed change project.

1. b) Comparison of sample size

The articles also used diverse sample populations to enhance integration of the findings into clinical practices to reduce infections and effectively manage wounds. Appropriate sample populations are essential to getting valid, credible, and reliable research findings to provide evidence for a selected nursing intervention. A comparison of the sample population shows that Yang et al. (2024) had the largest sample size of over 62,800 participants, while Hu et al. (2024) had the smallest sample. The study samples in the articles enhanced their credibility since most of the findings can be applied to the general population.

1. c) Synthesis of findings

The findings from the synthesis of the literature indicate the importance of protocols and policy measures to prevent and control the prevalence and transmission of nosocomial infections in burn wound patients, and the significance of education and training for healthcare providers.  Through a thematic analysis, the articles by Hu et al. (2023), Yang et al. (2024), Kim et al. (2025), Odhah et al. (2024), Otagh et al. (2024), Riza et al. (2025), Li et al. (2021), and Mozafari et al. (2024) illustrate the significance of a bundle care approach in reducing and dealing with nosocomial infections in healthcare settings, especially burn units. Sterilization and decontamination policy measures and activities can help nurses prevent the transmission among patients and healthcare providers, and ensure an interdisciplinary model to prevent future infections. Developing policy protocols allows organizations to integrate best practices and prevent infections (McWilliams et al., 2021). Nurses should also have sufficient knowledge and understanding of nosocomial infections, particularly the increased risk for infections among burn wound patients (Odhah et al., 2025; Hu et al., 2023). While the studies may have limitations like experimental design challenges, as noted by Hu et al. (2023) and Odhah et al. (2025), the general findings and evidence support the proposed change initiative that entails having policy measures and processes to integrate strict sterilization and decontamination, as well as guidelines and best practices to prevent infections.

Change Theory Utilized

The proposed change initiative is a long-term intervention whose integration will transcend the suggested implementation timeframe. As such, using an appropriate change model is important for systematic and broader implementation of the proposed change. As such, a change model appropriate for implementation is Kotter’s eight-step change approach. The eight-step change implementation provides a broader approach to change management, including sustaining it and engaging stakeholders at each step of the implementation (Lindsay, 2023). The eight steps include creating an urgency for change, establishing a guiding coalition, developing a vision, communicating the vision, and addressing obstacles (Miles et al., 2023). The sixth step is to generate and celebrate short-term wins, followed by building on the implemented change, while the last step is to integrate the change and make it part of the organizational operations, standard procedures, and processes in patient care delivery.

Kotter’s change model would be important in this project as it entails long-term sustainability to reduce and prevent infections within the burn unit in the facility. As an effective model, it will ensure that all stakeholders are involved and engaged in the project implementation, enhance communication among them and the management, and offer a vision for the change with plans for sustainable integration of strict sterilization and decontamination processes (Hu et al., 2025). The implication is that the change model will ensure that all aspects of the proposed initiative become part of the standard processes and procedures in the burn unit.

Implementation Plan and Outcome Measures

The implementation of the proposed change will entail a systematic approach based on the utilization of Kotter’s eight-step change model. The initial step will focus on developing the urgency for change implementation due to the adverse effects of nosocomial burn wound infections, followed by having a change coalition through the development of an interdisciplinary team (Burke & Dempsey, 2022). The project team will collect requirements and resources, have sufficient data and evidence from the patient records, like the electronic health records (EHRs), and develop a vision as well as a strategic plan while engaging all stakeholders to accept the project and reduce possible change resistance.

The initial aspect of the team would be to train nurse leaders and managers in the burn unit who will become trainers for the rest of the nurses and implement the proposed sterilization and decontamination procedures to attain the proposed solution. The next stage will be to communicate the vision and address any concerns, challenges, and potential obstacles identified and presented by the stakeholders. The next step will be to implement a pilot or trial scheme by integrating an intervention and control groups involving two patient cohorts in the first four weeks of the project (Diamond‐Caravella et al., 2021). The sixth stage will entail evaluation of the pilot or trial intervention and documenting infection rates among the intervention and control groups. Based on the outcomes of the trial groups or entities, the project team will implement the proposed solution in the unit after nurse leaders’ training. The positive aspects would entail reduced rates of infections, being knowledgeable and aware of their effects, and the generation of a collaborative approach by all providers in the facility through an interdisciplinary team (Riza et al., 2025). The team will then implement and integrate these measures as best practices and part of guideline processes using an organizational policy. The implication is that these measures will become standard practices and activities in preventing and controlling nosocomial infections in the burn unit.

The objectives of the proposed change implementation include developing protocols and measures through a policy to prevent and control nosocomial burn wound infections, improving patient safety and care experience despite the delicate nature of burn wound injuries, and having a collaborative approach to improve wound care and management for burn injury and wound patients. The fourth objective of the proposed change is to improve patient outcomes, team communication, and overall organizational culture and practices in the medical center and its burn unit. The measurable outcomes for the proposed change entail increasing sterilization and decontamination requirements by 90% within the first two months of the implementation, reducing infection rates in the first two months of the project, and creating a robust collaboration and coordination framework founded on an interdisciplinary model among healthcare providers (Odhah et al., 2024). The fourth measurable outcome will be enhanced patient satisfaction rates of at least 80% by the end of the implementation. The implementation of the proposed change will also lead to full integration of the measures and protocols into practice in the practicum site as long-term sustainable measures. The rationale for the proposed intervention, objectives, and outcomes is to prevent and reduce the rate of nosocomial infections among burn wound patients. The proposed measures will enhance strict protocols and processes to address the high prevalence of nosocomial infections among burn wound patients, including improving self-determination for nurses and patients (Mozafari et al., 2024). The proposed protocols will ensure that patients get quality and dignified care despite their pain to lower infection risk and enhance outcomes.

Evaluation Plan

Evaluating the impact of the proposed change intervention is essential to determine its success and sustainability in meeting measurable outcomes. An evaluation plan allows the project team to ascertain the impact of the objectives and the value of the project, as well as monitor goals, and identify best practices while noting gaps and learning critical lessons (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2022). The measurable outcomes will form the foundation of the proposed intervention’s evaluation plan based on the set objectives. The evaluation strategy will entail knowing the number of infections before and after the implementation of the proposed change. Secondly, the team will integrate patient satisfaction surveys to determine the level of satisfaction with treatment after the implementation of the proposed change. For instance, positive feedback and a reduction in the rate of infections among the patients will imply a positive impact of the proposed change. Thirdly, observing increased collaboration among the various stakeholders in the project will illustrate the positive effects of the proposed project (Tucker et al., 2021). For example, nurses and physicians will collaborate and develop a shared approach to handling infections, a clear indication of the attainment of the goals as a measurable outcome. Finally, the plan will entail continuous monitoring and adjustment to ensure it meets the set and expected goals and aligns with any organizational changes and policy implications.

Barriers to the Implementation Plan & Overcoming Them

Barriers to the implementation of the plan may include insufficient resources, lack of support from the organization’s management, and resulting culture in the facility, and change resistance by stakeholders like nurses and other employees. For instance, insufficient resources to develop protocols and guidelines through a policy, as well as technology integration, may have significant effects on the long-term sustainability of the proposed change. Support from the organizational leadership and culture is critical to the sustenance of the proposed change as it leads to appropriate resource allocation (Dagne et al., 2021). Again, a culture that supports learning and innovation would be critical to address any possible resistance. Staff resistance may occur since people are apprehensive about new ways of doing things, including organizational processes and procedures, due to fear, lack of engagement, and trust.

Overcoming the perceived and real barriers and challenges will be important for the project to attain the expected outcomes. The team will integrate continuous education and training, effectively engage stakeholders, and improve communication to enable stakeholders to accept the change vision (White et al., 2024). The strategies will ensure more engagement, awareness, collaboration, and partnership to enhance the effectiveness of the proposed change project.

Conclusion

Nosocomial infections are a patient safety concern for burn wound patients in burn units because of their adverse effects, which include poor patient outcomes, increased cost of care, longer stays in hospitals, and even increased chances of morbidity and mortality. Implementing evidence-based practice interventions like strict sterilization and decontamination protocols and processes in a burns unit can prevent and control the spread of infections. The proposed change encourages the implementation of strict sterilization and decontamination of wound dressing equipment and materials to reduce the rate of infections in the burn unit. The proposed change is essential and supported by sufficient evidence from existing literature, implying that stakeholders will derive benefits from the various aspects of the change, including enhanced team collaboration within the facility and the burn unit.

References

Ariyo, D. A., & Olorunfemi, O. (2024). Infection control and prevention in burn victims: The

role of nurses. Journal of Integrative Nursing, 6(2), 136–141.

https://doi.org/10.4103/jin.jin_139_23

Baj, J., Korona-Głowniak, I., Buszewicz, G., Forma, A., Sitarz, M., & Teresiński, G. (2021).

Viral infections in burn patients: a state-of-the-art review. Viruses, 12(11), 1315.

https://doi.org/10.3390/v12111315

Burke, J., & Dempsey, M. (2022). Undertaking capstone and final year projects in psychology:

            practical guide for students. Routledge.

Bradshaw, M., Bradshaw, M. J., & Vitale, T. R. (2024). The DNP project workbook: A step-by-

step process for success. Springer Publishing Company.

Dagne, A. H., & Beshah, M. H. (2021). Implementation of evidence-based practice: The

Experience of nurses and midwives. Plos one, 16(8), e0256600.

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256600.

Diamond‐Caravella, M., Fox, A., Clark, M., Goodstone, L., & Glaser, C. (2022). Alternative

capstone nursing experience to scale up testing and case investigation. Public Health

Nursing, 39(3), 664-669. DOI: 10.1111/phn.13012.

Falcone, M., De Angelis, B., Pea, F., Scalise, A., Stefani, S., Tasinato, R., … & Dalla Paola, L.

(2021). Challenges in the management of chronic wound infections. Journal of global

antimicrobial resistance, 26, 140-147. DOI: 10.1016/j.jgar.2021.05.010

Hu, J., Lin, Y., Cui, C., Zhang, F., Su, T., Guo, K., & Chen, T. (2023). Clinical efficacy of wet

dressing combined with chitosan wound dressing in the treatment of deep second‐degree

burn wounds: A prospective, randomised, single‐blind, positive control clinical trial.

International Wound Journal, 20(3), 699-705. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13911

Hu, F., Wang, Y., Cao, R., Hu, C., Feng, B., Li, J., … & Yuan, Y. (2025). Kotter’s 8-step change

model to improve hand hygiene compliance in the intensive care unit: a 41-month

prospective longitudinal quality improvement study. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing,

87, 103877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2024.103877

Kim, P. J., Gallo, L., Chen, J., Yuan, M., Gallo, M., Main, C., & Coroneos, C. (2025). A 10-year

Retrospective review of patient-to-patient transmitted pathogens in culture-positive burn

wounds at a tertiary burn center. Plastic Surgery, 33(4), 646-655.

DOI: 10.1177/22925503241249760

Lindsay, M. (2023). A shared governance approach to nursing documentation redesign using

Kotter’s change management model. Nursing Management, 54(3): 14-20.

DOI: 10.1097/01.NUMA.0000919064.29246.6b.

McWilliams, T. L., Twigg, D., Hendricks, J., Wood, F. M., Ryan, J., & Keil, A. (2021). The

implementation of an infection control Bundle within a Total Care Burns Unit. Burns,

47(3): 569-575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2019.12.012

Miles, M. C., Richardson, K. M., Wolfe, R., Hairston, K., Cleveland, M., Kelly, C., … & Pruitt,

1. (2023). Using Kotter’s change management framework to redesign departmental GME

recruitment. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 15(1), 98-104.

Millán-Reyes, M. J., Afanador-Restrepo, D. F., Carcelén-Fraile, M. D. C., Aibar-Almazán, A.,

Sánchez-Alcalá, M., Cano-Sánchez, J., … & Castellote-Caballero, Y. (2025). Reducing

Infections and Improving Healing in Complex Wounds: A Systematic Review and Meta-

Analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 14(9), 3237. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14093237

Mozafari, N., Abbasi Montazeri, E., Moogahi, S., & Alavi, S. M. A. (2024).

Healthcare‐Associated Infections’ Characteristics Among Burn Patients and Risk Factors

of Mortality: A Study Based on Data From a Tertiary Center in Iran: Nosocomial

Infections Among Burn Patients. Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical

Microbiology, 2024(1), 8707245. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/8707245

Natsha, S., Lacey, H., Belkebir, S., Attili, A., Atatra, A., Daragmeh, R., … & Khayyat, R. (2025).

Microbial profile of burn wound injuries in the Northern West Bank− A retrospective

cohort study. Burns Open, 9, 100379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burnso.2024.100379

Odhah, M. A., Haza’a, A. A., Al-Ahdal, S. A., Al-Awar, M. S., Al-Jabri, M. M., Al-haguri, B.

A., … & Hjjaji, M. A. (2025). Nurses’ Knowledge and Practice towards Prevention of

Infection for Burn Patients in the Burn Center at Sana’a City, Yemen. JPRAS Open.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpra.2025.09.014

Otaghi, M., Bastami, M., Veisani, Y., Taghinejad, H., Vasiee, A., & Azadi, A. (2024). The effect

of the burn wounds dressing and mechanical debridement training package on nursing

interns’ knowledge and executive functions: A quasi-experimental study. Journal of

Research Development in Nursing and Midwifery, 21(3): 15-20.

DOI: 10.29252/jgbfnm 21.3.15

Riza, S. M., Porosnicu, A. L., Hariga, C. S., & Sinescu, R. D. (2025). Chronic Wound

Management in Romania: A Survey on Practices, Protocols, and PRP Efficacy. Medicina,

61(6), 1085. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61061085

Roy, S., Mukherjee, P., Kundu, S., Majumder, D., Raychaudhuri, V., & Choudhury, L. (2024).

Microbial infections in burn patients. Acute and Critical Care, 39(2), 214.

https://doi.org/10.4266/acc.2023.01571

Sussman, G. (2023). An update on wound management. Australian Prescriber, 46(2), 29–            35. https://doi.org/10.18773/austprescr.2023.006

Tucker, S., McNett, M., Mazurek Melnyk, B., Hanrahan, K., Hunter, S. C., Kim, B., … & Kitson,

1. (2021). Implementation science: Application of evidence‐based practice models to

improve healthcare quality. Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing, 18(2), 76-84.

DOI: 10.1111/wvn.12495

White, K. M., Dudley-Brown, S., & Terhaar, M. F. (Eds.). (2024). Translation of evidence into

            nursing and healthcare. Springer Publishing Company.

 

Yang, Y., Zeng, Q., Hu, G., Wang, Z., Chen, Z., Zhou, L., … & Li, G. (2024). Distribution of

Nosocomial Pathogens and Antimicrobial Resistance among Patients with Burn Injuries

in China: A Comprehensive Research Synopsis and Meta-Analysis. Infectious Diseases

and Therapy, 13(6), 1291-1313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40121-024-00983-6

CLICK HERE TO ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER

Assessment Traits

Benchmark

---

Requires Lopeswrite

Assessment Description

In this assignment, students will pull together the capstone project change proposal components they have been working on throughout the course to create a proposal inclusive of sections for each content focus area in the course. For this project, the student will apply evidence-based research steps and processes required as the foundation to address a clinically oriented problem or issue in future practice.

Develop a 2,500-3,000-word written project that includes the following information as it applies to the problem, issue, suggestion, initiative, or educational need profiled in the capstone change proposal:

1. Background of clinical problem
2. Clinical problem statement (Topic 3 assignment)
3. Purpose of the change proposal in relation to providing patient care in the changing health care system (Topic 2 assignment)
4. PICOT question (Topic 3 assignment)
5. Literature search strategy employed (Topic 4 assignment)
6. Synthesis of literature review (Topic 6 assignment)
7. Applicable change or nursing theory utilized (Topic 4 DQ 2)
8. Proposed implementation plan with outcome measures (Topic 5 assignment)
9. Plan for evaluating the proposed nursing intervention (Topic 6 assignment)
10. Identification of potential barriers to plan implementation, and a discussion of how these could be overcome (Topic 5 DQ 2 and any other barriers that have not yet been considered)
11. Appendix section: Update the Capstone Change Project Evaluation plan developed in Topic 7 as needed. Include it as Appendix A. Additional items developed for your capstone project (i.e., patient or staff education materials, etc.) can also be attached but are optional.

Review the feedback from your instructor on the Capstone Project assignments submitted throughout the course and referenced above. Use this feedback to make appropriate revisions to these before submitting.

You are required to cite a minimum of five peer-reviewed sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the past 5 years, appropriate for the assignment criteria, and relevant to nursing practice.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

Benchmark Information

This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies:

RN-BSN

1.3: Demonstrate clinical judgment founded on a broad knowledge base.

2.5: Develop a plan of care.

4.2: Integrate best evidence into nursing practice.

American Association of Colleges of Nursing Core Competencies for Professional Nursing Education

This assignment aligns to AACN Core Competencies 1.3, 2.5, 3.3, 3.5, 4.2, 10.2, 10.3

Skip to main contentEnable accessibility for low visionOpen the accessibility menu

Benchmark – Capstone Project Change Proposal – Rubric

Rubric Criteria

Total160 points

Criterion	1. Unsatisfactory	2. Insufficient	3. Approaching	4. Acceptable	5. Target
Revision Evident Revisions are incorporated as directed by instructor.	0 points Revision is omitted.	5.2 points Revision is incomplete. Many aspects are still incomplete, inaccurate, or unclear.	6 points Most key aspects were revised. Some aspects are still vague or contain minor inaccuracies.	6.8 points The key aspects were revised. The revision generally improves the accuracy and clarity of the project.	8 points All revisions are incorporated. The revision greatly improves the accuracy and clarity of the project.
Background Include the background of the clinical problem.	0 points The background of the clinical problem is missing.	5.2 points The background of the clinical problem is inaccurate or incomplete.	6 points The background of the clinical problem is present but lacks detail.	6.8 points The background of the clinical problem is mostly detailed.	8 points The background of the clinical problem is thorough and accurate.
Clinical Problem Statement (B) Include the clinical problem statement. (C4.2)	0 points The clinical problem statement is missing.	5.2 points The clinical problem statement is inaccurate or incomplete.	6 points The clinical problem statement is present but lacks detail.	6.8 points The clinical problem statement is mostly detailed.	8 points The clinical problem statement is thorough and accurate.
Purpose Explain the purpose of the change proposal in relation to providing patient care in the changing health care system.	0 points An explanation of the purpose of the change proposal in relation to providing patient care in the changing health care system is missing.	5.2 points An explanation of the purpose of the change proposal in relation to providing patient care in the changing health care system is inaccurate or incomplete.	6 points An explanation of the purpose of the change proposal in relation to providing patient care in the changing health care system is present but lacks detail.	6.8 points An explanation of the purpose of the change proposal in relation to providing patient care in the changing health care system is mostly detailed.	8 points An explanation of the purpose of the change proposal in relation to providing patient care in the changing health care system is thorough and accurate.
PICOT Question Provide the PICOT question and details.	0 points PICOT question is missing.	5.2 points PICOT question is inaccurate or incomplete.	6 points PICOT question is present but lacks detail.	6.8 points PICOT question is mostly detailed.	8 points PICOT question is thorough and accurate.
Literature Search Strategy Explain the literature search strategy employed in the student’s project.	0 points An explanation of the literature search strategy employed in the student’s project is missing.	5.2 points An explanation of the literature search strategy employed in the student’s project is inaccurate or incomplete.	6 points An explanation of the literature search strategy employed in the student’s project is present but lacks detail.	6.8 points An explanation of the literature search strategy employed in the student’s project is mostly detailed.	8 points An explanation of the literature search strategy employed in the student’s project is thorough and accurate.
Synthesis of Literature Review Synthesize the themes of the literature reviewed.	0 points A synthesis of themes of literature is missing.	5.2 points A synthesis of themes of literature is inaccurate or incomplete.	6 points A synthesis of themes of literature is present but lacks detail.	6.8 points A synthesis of themes of literature is mostly detailed.	8 points A synthesis of themes of literature is thorough and accurate.
Applicable Change or Nursing Theory (B) Describe the applicable change or nursing theory utilized in the student’s project. (C1.3)	0 points A description of the applicable change or nursing theory utilized in the student’s project is missing.	5.2 points A description of the applicable change or nursing theory utilized in the student’s project is inaccurate or incomplete.	6 points A description of the applicable change or nursing theory utilized in the student’s project is present but lacks detail.	6.8 points A description of the applicable change or nursing theory utilized in the student’s project is mostly detailed.	8 points A description of the applicable change or nursing theory utilized in the student’s project is thorough and accurate.
Implementation Plan and Outcome Measures Describe the proposed implementation plan with outcome measures.	0 points A description of the proposed implementation plan with outcome measures is missing.	10.4 points A description of the proposed implementation plan with outcome measures is inaccurate or incomplete.	12 points A description of the proposed implementation plan with outcome measures is present but lacks detail.	13.6 points A description of the proposed implementation plan with outcome measures is mostly detailed.	16 points A description of the proposed implementation plan with outcome measures is thorough and accurate.
Evaluation Nursing Intervention (B) Outline plan for evaluating the proposed nursing intervention. (C2.5)	0 points An outline of the plan for evaluating the proposed nursing intervention is missing.	10.4 points An outline of the plan for evaluating the proposed nursing intervention is inaccurate or incomplete.	12 points An outline of the plan for evaluating the proposed nursing intervention is present but lacks detail.	13.6 points An outline of the plan for evaluating the proposed nursing intervention is mostly detailed.	16 points An outline of the plan for evaluating the proposed nursing intervention is thorough and accurate.
Potential Barriers Identify potential barriers to plan implementation, and discuss how these could be overcome.	0 points An identification of potential barriers to plan implementation and a discussion of how these could be overcome are missing.	5.2 points An identification of potential barriers to plan implementation and a discussion of how these could be overcome are inaccurate or incomplete.	6 points An identification of potential barriers to plan implementation and a discussion of how these could be overcome are present but lack detail.	6.8 points An identification of potential barriers to plan implementation and a discussion of how these could be overcome are mostly detailed.	8 points An identification of potential barriers to plan implementation and a discussion of how these could be overcome are thorough and accurate.
Appendix Appendix	0 points Appendix is missing.	5.2 points Appendix is inaccurate or incomplete.	6 points Appendix is present but lacks detail.	6.8 points Appendix is mostly detailed.	8 points Appendix is thorough and accurate.
Thesis, Position, or Purpose Communicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience.	0 points The thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of the appropriate audience is evident.	7.28 points The thesis, position, or purpose is unfocused or confused. There is very little awareness of the intended audience.	8.4 points The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience.	9.52 points The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately presented. An awareness of the appropriate audience is demonstrated.	11.2 points The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly directed to a specific audience.
Development, Structure, and Conclusion Advances position or purpose throughout writing; conclusion aligns to and evolves from development.	0 points No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered.	7.28 points Writing lacks logical progression of the thesis, position, or purpose. Some organization is attempted, but ideas are disconnected. Conclusion is unclear and not supported by the overall development of the purpose.	8.4 points The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and logical conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.	9.52 points The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.	11.2 points Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose.
Evidence Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose; considers other perspectives.	0 points Evidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. The writing relies entirely on the perspective of the writer.	6.24 points Evidence is limited or irrelevant. The interpretation of other perspectives is superficial or incorrect.	7.2 points Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or integration of other perspectives is present.	8.16 points Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used.	9.6 points Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Relevant perspectives of others are clearly considered.
Mechanics of Writing Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc.	0 points Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.	6.24 points Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.	7.2 points Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.	8.16 points Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used.	9.6 points No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence structure are used throughout.
Format/Documentation Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level; documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., appropriate to assignment and discipline.	0 points Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.	4.16 points Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident.	4.8 points Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors.	5.44 points Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.	6.4 points No errors in formatting or documentation are present.

© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.