The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) 2.0 model is the format used for writing the DNP Project Paper.

Complete and upload your first draft of the Methods section (based on SQUIRE 2.0) to Canvas.

The Methods section should include all details up toβ€”but not includingβ€”the Results section.

Table of Contents

RUBRIC

Instructions:
 This rubric is based on the SQUIRE 2.0 model, which is the format used for writing the DNP Project. Faculty advisors and the DNP Council use it to evaluate the quality of the DNP Project submitted as part of the Clinical Scholarship Portfolio (CSP).

Each evaluation sub-feature is scored as Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory, or Exemplary. To approve the DNP Project for the CSP, a student must earn at least a Satisfactory in every sub-feature. If any score is Unsatisfactory, the student must revise that section until it reaches at least Satisfactory.

The rubric is used in two ways:

  1. Faculty Review: To give feedback and allow the student a chance to revise.
  2. Final Evaluation: To determine the passing grade.

To pass, a student must score at least 1 in every category.

DNP Project Evaluation Rubric (Based on SQUIRE 2.0)

Section Evaluation Criteria Unsatisfactory (0) Satisfactory (1) Exemplary (2)
Title States that the project is about improving healthcare (quality, safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, cost, efficiency, equity) Unclear focus Clear focus Exceptionally clear focus
Abstract / Executive Summary Summarizes background, local problem, methods, interventions, results, and conclusions Missing or incomplete Complete and clear Exceptionally thorough and well-written
Acknowledgment Recognizes key contributors (agency champion, writing help, advisor, others) Missing or incomplete Complete Exceptionally well-written
DNP Project Approval Form Signed by advisor Not included Signed and complete β€”

Introduction – Why the Project Was Started

Criteria Unsatisfactory (0) Satisfactory (1) Exemplary (2)
Problem Description Incomplete explanation of setting and problem Clear description of setting and problem Detailed, thorough explanation
Available Knowledge (ROL) Poor or incomplete literature review Clear literature review, identifies gaps Comprehensive review, clearly shows national significance
Rationale Incomplete explanation of frameworks/models used Clear explanation Exceptionally clear and well-justified
Specific Aim(s) Vague or incomplete aims Clear, achievable aims Highly specific and well-supported aims

Methods – What Was Done

Criteria Unsatisfactory (0) Satisfactory (1) Exemplary (2)
Context Missing important details Clear description Exceptionally detailed description
Interventions Incomplete description; missing team details Clear description Highly detailed and replicable
Study of the Intervention(s) Incomplete explanation of assessment methods Clear explanation Detailed, precise explanation
Measures Missing rationale, definitions, or data quality checks Complete and clear Thorough, detailed measures and data quality process
Analysis No or unclear data analysis plan Clear plan Precise and well-justified plan
Ethical Considerations Missing or unclear ethics review info Clear ethics description Exceptionally thorough ethics section

Results – What Was Found

Criteria Unsatisfactory (0) Satisfactory (1) Exemplary (2)
Steps of Intervention Lacks data/description Clear data and description Highly precise data and description
Process & Outcome Measures Missing or unclear Clear and complete Exceptionally thorough and precise
Contextual Elements Missing Present and clear Detailed and precise
Observed Associations Missing Clear Exceptionally clear and precise
Unintended Consequences Missing Present and clear Highly detailed
Missing Data Not addressed Addressed clearly Thoroughly discussed and explained

Discussion – What the Findings Mean

Criteria Unsatisfactory (0) Satisfactory (1) Exemplary (2)
Summary of Project & Findings Incomplete Clear and complete Detailed, precise summary
Interpretation Poor explanation of results Clear explanation Well-analyzed and insightful
Limitations Missing or unclear Clear Well-analyzed and detailed
Conclusions Weak or missing Clear and relevant Highly insightful with practical recommendations

Other Considerations

Criteria Unsatisfactory (0) Satisfactory (1) Exemplary (2)
Funding Missing or unclear Present and clear Detailed and precise
Lessons Learned Vague Clear Insightful with strong recommendations
Quality of Written Report Poorly written or disorganized Clear and well-organized Exceptionally well-written and professional

The DNP Project will follow the SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) model (Ogrinc et al., 2015), with small adjustments allowed based on the project topic or content area.

Every written report should include:

  • Title Page – Use the sample on the Post-Master’s DNP Student Information site.
  • Abstract – Up to 500 words, single-spaced, OR an Executive Summary up to 3 pages, double-spaced.
  • SQUIRE 2.0 Components – All required sections from the model.
  • Lessons Learned – Key insights from the project.
  • References – In APA format.
  • Appendix – Include IRB approval letter(s) or other documentation granting permission to implement the project.

Glossary

The SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines provide a structured framework for reporting new knowledge about improving healthcare quality, safety, and value. They are designed for system-level improvement projects and can be adapted for different methods and approaches. Authors should review all SQUIRE items, but not all may apply to every project.

Key Sections & Requirements

  1. Title & Abstract
    • Title: Indicate the project relates to healthcare improvement.
    • Abstract: Provide searchable, concise information summarizing background, problem, methods, interventions, results, and conclusions.
  2. Introduction – Why You Started
    • Problem Description: Nature and significance of the local problem.
    • Available Knowledge: Summary of existing research and evidence.
    • Rationale: Theories, models, or assumptions supporting the intervention.
    • Specific Aims: Purpose of the project and this report.
  3. Methods – What You Did
    • Context: Key environmental and organizational factors.
    • Intervention(s): Detailed description so others can replicate; identify team members.
    • Study of the Intervention(s): How impact was assessed and causality determined.
    • Measures: Process and outcome measures, rationale, validity, reliability, data accuracy, and contextual influences.
    • Analysis: Qualitative/quantitative methods, handling variation over time.
    • Ethical Considerations: IRB review, potential conflicts, and ethical implications.
  4. Results – What You Found
    • Steps and changes in the intervention over time.
    • Process and outcome results.
    • Contextual influences, unintended consequences, missing data.
  5. Discussion – What It Means
    • Summary: Key findings and project strengths.
    • Interpretation: Relationship between intervention and results, comparisons with literature, contextual impacts, cost considerations.
    • Limitations: Factors affecting generalizability or validity, steps taken to address them.
    • Conclusions: Usefulness, sustainability, spread potential, practice implications, and next steps.
  6. Other Information
    • Funding: Sources and role in the project.

Glossary Highlights

  • Context: Environmental and organizational factors affecting outcomes.
  • Intervention(s): Activities/tools used to improve healthcare performance.
  • Rationale: Why the intervention was chosen and expected to work.
  • Internal Validity: Evidence that results were caused by the intervention.
  • Generalizability: Likelihood results apply to other settings.
  • Opportunity Costs: Resources diverted from other tasks.