| Course | NR 702A DNP Project & Practicum I |
|---|---|
| Week | 4 |
| Paper type | Site agreement summary |
| Length | About 1,130 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 702A Week 4
Site Agreement Summary: Who Signed for the Health Center, What Was Allowed, the Dates It Runs and What I Promised in Return
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 702A: DNP Project & Practicum I
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Site Agreement Summary: Who Signed for the Health Center, What Was Allowed, the Dates It Runs and What I Promised in Return
Parties
Organization: the federally qualified health center, adult primary care service at one site.
Signatory for the organization: the chief medical officer, who holds delegated authority from the chief executive officer to approve student practicum agreements for clinical and quality work.
Practicum mentor named in the agreement: the director of behavioral health, a licensed psychologist with a doctoral degree.
Program representative: the course faculty member for NR 702A, who countersigned on 9 September 2026.
What Was Allowed
Presence at the site during the practicum hours set out in my practicum plan, in addition to my employed hours.
Attendance at the Tuesday site operations meeting, the Wednesday behavioral health team meeting and, as an observer, the monthly quality committee.
Sight of aggregate data on depression screening, referrals and completed behavioral health contacts for the site, produced by the quality analyst, with no patient identifiers.
Contact with clinicians, medical assistants, the behavioral health team and the quality analyst for the purpose of the project.
Contact with patients only in my employed clinical role, not for project purposes, unless a later amendment allows it.
What Was Not Allowed
Removing identifiable patient data from the health center's systems. Publishing the health center's name without written permission. Changing any workflow without approval at the site operations meeting.
The Two Dates
Start: 9 September 2026. Expiry: 31 August 2027, covering four practicum terms. Renewal requires a new signature from the chief medical officer.
What I Promised
To share a written summary of findings with the chief medical officer and the director of behavioral health at the end of each term. To follow the health center's privacy and data policies. To present the project at the quality committee before any change is implemented. To credit the health center as the site, without naming it, in any academic work.
Determination Status
The question of whether the project is quality improvement or research has to be settled before any data collection. The health center does not have an institutional review board. The agreement records that the project is designed as quality improvement and that the program's own review process will make the formal determination before data collection begins. The determination request was submitted to the program on 15 September. Until it is returned, only the baseline data already produced for the health center's own dashboard will be used, since those data exist regardless of the project.
What I Asked For and Did Not Get
I asked for a standing slot at the quality committee each month; the agreement gives observer status only, with presentation before any change. I asked for access to the referral log itself; the agreement gives aggregate counts from it, produced by the analyst. Both refusals were reasonable, and both mean the project depends on other people's time for its data. The charter lists those requests explicitly so that the people involved know what is being asked of them.
How It Ends Early
Either party can end the agreement with 30 days' written notice, without giving a reason. The health center can end it immediately if the student breaches confidentiality or privacy policy. If the mentor leaves the health center, the chief medical officer will name a replacement within 30 days or the agreement will be reviewed.
How the Agreement Was Negotiated
The first draft, from the program's template, allowed access to patient-level data for the project. The chief medical officer struck that clause and replaced it with aggregate data only, on the grounds that the health center has no review board and cannot oversee identifiable data leaving its systems. I accepted the change; the project can be done with aggregate counts. The director of behavioral health added attendance at the Wednesday team meeting, which I had not asked for, saying the team would want to see the project as it developed.
How the Agreement Shapes the Project
Because the agreement allows aggregate data only, the project's measures will be counts and percentages from the dashboard and referral log, not chart reviews. Because it requires presentation to the quality committee before any change, the change chosen in the second term will need committee time in February. Because it ends in August 2027, the final quarter of data, April to June, must be produced by the end of July. Each term of the agreement became a constraint on the project plan, and the charter reflects them.
What the Mentor Agreed to Do
The director of behavioral health agreed to meet with me monthly for 30 minutes, review each term's written products before submission and introduce me to the quality analyst and behavioral health assistant. The mentor did not agree to supervise clinical work, which remains under my employed role, and the agreement keeps the two roles separate so that my project work does not blur into my clinical duties or the other way around.
Privacy Arrangements in Practice
Aggregate tables will be produced by the quality analyst inside the health center's systems and shared with me as summary counts, by email from the analyst's work account to mine, never with record numbers or names. Any table with a cell below five patients will be combined with a neighboring cell before sharing, a rule the analyst applies to all external reports. My project files will be kept in the health center's shared drive, not on personal devices, and will be deleted from any course submission after grading if the program allows. These arrangements are stricter than the agreement requires, and I proposed them so that the director of behavioral health would not have to worry about the data leaving the building.
What the Agreement Does Not Cover
Funding or paid time for project work. Any change to the behavioral health service's staffing. Patient-facing research. Each would need a separate agreement or amendment.
Why It Matters
DNP projects depend on a site's willingness to share data and allow change, and the agreement turns that willingness into terms someone can check. The DNP Essentials expect doctoral nursing practice to translate evidence into practice in real organizations (American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 2021), which requires exactly this kind of formal permission. Integrated behavioral health research shows the model depends on organizations committing staff time and data (Archer et al., 2012; Unützer et al., 2002), and the agreement is where this health center made a small version of that commitment for the project.
References
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2021). The essentials: Core competencies for professional nursing education. American Association of Colleges of Nursing.
Archer, J., Bower, P., Gilbody, S., Lovell, K., Richards, D., Gask, L., Dickens, C., & Coventry, P. (2012). Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012(10), CD006525. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006525.pub2
Unützer, J., Katon, W., Callahan, C. M., Williams, J. W., Jr., Hunkeler, E., Harpole, L., Hoffing, M., Della Penna, R. D., Noël, P. H., Lin, E. H. B., Areán, P. A., Hegel, M. T., Tang, L., Belin, T. R., Oishi, S., & Langston, C. (2002). Collaborative care management of late-life depression in the primary care setting: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 288(22), 2836-2845. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.22.2836
Reading the NR 702A Week 4 instructions
Keep it short and mostly nouns and dates. Name the organization and the specific service, the signatory and the role that entitles them to commit the organization, and the program representative whose countersignature completes it. State exactly what has been allowed: presence, attendance at named meetings, sight of particular records and contact with particular groups. Give the start and expiry dates. Record what you promised in return. Note the status of any determination about quality improvement or research. Say how the agreement can end early, including what happens if your mentor leaves. Briefly describe how negotiation changed the agreement and how its terms shape your project.
How the NR 702A Week 4 example is put together
The sample names the chief medical officer, with delegated authority from the chief executive, as signatory, the director of behavioral health as mentor and the course faculty as countersigning on 9 September 2026. Allowed are practicum presence, attendance at three named meetings, aggregate screening and referral data and contact with staff; not allowed are identifiable data, naming the health center and unapproved workflow changes. Dates run to 31 August 2027. Promises cover term summaries, privacy and committee presentation. The determination is pending, 30 days' notice ends the agreement and the mentor's departure triggers a replacement. Negotiation narrowed data to aggregate counts. It also notes the mentor's monthly meetings and how the narrower data access shapes the project's measures and calendar, and lists privacy arrangements stricter than the agreement requires.
NR 702A Week 4 rubric: what full points look like
Site agreement summaries lose most when they paraphrase the agreement as friendly support rather than listing what was formally allowed. Next is a summary that names a signatory without saying what role entitles them to commit the organization. Many summaries leave out expiry dates, which matter for a four-term project. Promises made by the student are often omitted, though they are half of the agreement. The determination about research review is frequently missing. Summaries rarely say how the agreement ends early, which is where projects are most exposed. Long narrative summaries obscure the terms a reader needs to check quickly. Summaries that never describe privacy arrangements in practice also leave the site's main worry unaddressed. Negotiated changes should be recorded, since they explain later constraints.
NR 702A Week 4 help from the desk
Agreements are often signed quickly and filed away, and summarizing one carefully usually turns up a term you had not noticed. A guided draft can help you list who signed and on what authority, what was allowed and not allowed, the dates and what you promised. We can also help you describe how the agreement ends early and how its terms shape your project. Reading the signed copy alongside your project plan often shows a constraint worth adding to the charter. The agreement and its summary are yours. Describing privacy arrangements in practice is worth doing too.
Get a NR 702A Week 4 example written to your instructions
One thing the desk cannot supply is the agreement itself. The conversation, the signature on it and the dates it runs between are yours and your organization's alone, and nothing here approaches a site for you. Send us this week's rubric once you hold one, and a summary written to it comes back inside 24 to 48 hours, free the first time.
More NR 702A papers and DNP samples
- NR 702A Week 1: DNP Trouble Post
- NR 702A Week 2: Practice Gap Write-Up
- NR 702A Week 3: Setting Description
- NR 702A Week 5: Aim Statement Draft
- NR 702A Week 6: Project Charter Draft
- NR 702A Week 7: Practicum Objective Set
- NR 702A Week 8: Proposal Readiness Memo
NR 702A Week 4 questions, answered
Is a letter of support the same as a site agreement?
They do different jobs and sections sometimes want both. A letter of support says an organization is willing in principle and is usually a paragraph on headed paper. An agreement states what has been granted, to whom, and until when. A summary that describes a letter while claiming an agreement exists is the version faculty send back, because the specifics a reader is looking for are not in it.
My organization uses its own template and it is thin. Do I still lose marks?
Often not for the document, but the summary has to account for the thinness. Where the organization's form says nothing about records or dates, the finished summary states that plainly and says what was agreed verbally alongside it, attributed to the conversation rather than presented as a term. Faculty mark the accuracy of the report, not the generosity of the organization that produced the form.
What if the permission changes halfway through the project?
Then the summary is revised and the revision is dated, which is why the original carries an expiry in the first place. Permission granted in term one is revocable, and a project that plans as though it were permanent is fragile in a way faculty recognize. Later terms usually ask for the current position rather than the first one, so keeping the document current saves rewriting it under pressure.
Where can I find a free NR 702A Week 4 sample paper?
The complete site agreement summary for a DNP practicum at a federally qualified health center appears in full here.
How did negotiation change the NR 702A Week 4 agreement?
The chief medical officer replaced access to patient-level data with aggregate counts only, since the health center has no review board to oversee identifiable data.