| Course | NR 702A DNP Project & Practicum I |
|---|---|
| Week | 8 |
| Paper type | Proposal readiness memo |
| Length | About 810 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo with APA 7 citations |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 702A Week 8
Memorandum
To: Course faculty, NR 702A
From: DNP student
Date: 23 October 2026
Re: Readiness to proceed to the project proposal
Claim 1: The Gap Is Documented
Settled by: the practice gap write-up and the matched baseline table, produced by the quality analyst on 2 September 2026 and verified for a second quarter on 20 September. Current figure 34%, target 50%, gap 16 points, about 46 contacts a quarter.
Claim 2: The Site Has Agreed
Settled by: the site agreement signed by the chief medical officer and countersigned by the course faculty on 9 September 2026, running to 31 August 2027, allowing attendance at named meetings and access to aggregate data.
Claim 3: The Aim Is Fixed
Settled by: the aim statement, quoted unchanged in the project charter version 1.0, approved by the director of behavioral health on 12 October and the chief medical officer on 14 October 2026.
Claim 4: The Term's Objectives Are Met
Settled by: the objective set and its products: the baseline table, the workflow map from ten observed referrals, notes from the behavioral health team meeting of 6 October, the evidence table of 14 sources, the signed charter and the site operations meeting minutes of 20 October recording the presentation.
What Is Still Open
Four items remain, none of which blocks the recommendation except the first. | Item | Owner | Expected |
| Quality improvement determination from the program's review process | Program review committee | 6 November 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Comparison quarter, July to September 2026 | Quality analyst | 15 November 2026 |
| Spanish-language review of the patient contact script, if a script-based change is chosen | Behavioral health assistant | Second term |
| Confirmation of the psychologist's schedule for spring 2027 | Director of behavioral health | December 2026 |
What Changed During the Term
The agreement was narrowed to aggregate data. The aim's definition of a completed contact was widened to include telephone visits. A second quarter of baseline was added at the director's suggestion. Each change is recorded in the document it affected, and none weakens the four claims above. Two of them, the narrower data access and the wider definition, make the project more feasible rather than less.
What the Evidence Review Found
Fourteen sources were reviewed. The strongest support integrated behavioral health and collaborative care generally (Archer et al., 2012). Fewer address the specific step between a positive screen and the first behavioral health visit, and most of those describe single-site improvement projects. The review supports testing a change at the handoff, and it suggests the change should bring the first contact closer in time to the primary care visit.
What the Next Term Will Do First
In the first two weeks of the second term: complete the root cause analysis using the workflow map and team notes, then shortlist two or three candidate changes from the evidence table and discuss them with the behavioral health team. By week 4, present the chosen change at the site operations meeting. By week 6, present to the quality committee. The order follows the agreement's requirement that the committee hear the project before any change.
Risks to the Proposal
The determination could require changes to the project's design. The behavioral health assistant's position, which handles callbacks, is temporarily vacant from November to January, which may affect the baseline months and the first test. Both are recorded in the open items and will be revisited at the start of the next term.
Hours
Hours this term: 112, matching the practicum plan, recorded in my own log and signed by the mentor. The breakdown by objective is in the objective set.
What the Mentor Said
The director of behavioral health read this memo in draft on 21 October and agreed that the project is ready to move to proposal. The director asked that the open items list include the assistant's leave, which it now does, and noted that the team is "more interested than I expected," which is welcome but proves nothing on its own.
Competencies Addressed
Quality and safety, systems-based practice, interprofessional partnerships, scholarship and professional development, as mapped in the objective set against the national competency domains (American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 2021).
Recommendation
Proceed to the project proposal in the second term, subject to the quality improvement determination.
Where This Memo Stops
It does not claim that a change has been chosen, that the aim will be met or that the evidence favors one intervention. It claims only that the project has a documented gap, a signed site agreement, a fixed aim and the products of this term's objectives. The evidence review suggests several candidate changes, including same-day warm handoffs and faster outreach, which the next term will weigh. Integrated care works when patients reach behavioral health (Archer et al., 2012; Unützer et al., 2002), and the proposal will choose how to make that happen at this site.
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 8 instructions
Set it out as a memo of no more than two pages, with a header naming who it is for. Make four short numbered claims, each stating what is settled and pointing to the document that settles it, so a reader can verify any of them in under a minute. Add an open items list naming what is still outstanding, who is responsible and when it is expected; this is where the memo earns its credibility. Note what changed during the term. Give a recommendation in one line. Then say where the memo stops: what it does not claim, so the reader does not take readiness as a promise of results.
How this NR 702A Week 8 example is built
The sample's four claims point to the gap write-up and baseline table, the site agreement signed on 9 September, the charter approved on 12 and 14 October and the products of six objectives. Open items include the quality improvement determination due 6 November, a comparison quarter, a Spanish script review and the psychologist's spring schedule. Changes include narrower data access and a wider contact definition. The evidence review of 14 sources is summarized in a sentence or two. Next-term steps and risks, including an assistant's leave, are listed. The recommendation is to proceed subject to the determination, and the memo states it claims no chosen change or result. The mentor's review of the draft is noted, and the hours are reported as matching the practicum plan.
NR 702A Week 8 rubric: what full points look like
Readiness memos lose most when they recap the term as a narrative, so a reader cannot find the claims or check them. Next is a claim with no document behind it, which asks the reader to trust the student. Many memos leave out open items, presenting the project as more settled than it is, which undermines credibility. Recommendations buried in paragraphs or hedged into uncertainty give the faculty nothing to approve. Memos that run long lose the format's purpose. Leaving out where the memo stops invites the reader to treat readiness as a guarantee, which the next term's results may not support. Memos that skip the mentor's view also miss the easiest independent check on readiness. A summary of what changed during the term also helps the reader.
NR 702A Week 8 help: mistakes that cost points
A short memo that a reader can verify quickly is harder to write than a long summary. A guided draft can help you write four claims, each tied to a document, and build an open items list with owners and dates. We can also help you write a one-line recommendation and say where the memo's assurance stops. Showing the draft to your mentor before sending it often adds an open item you had forgotten. The memo and its claims are yours. Recording what changed during the term is worth doing too.
Get a NR 702A Week 8 example written to your instructions
Send the memo instructions together with whatever you already have from this term, even in rough form, and the sample is built around your four claims rather than invented ones. Where something is genuinely unsettled, it appears in the open items list instead of being smoothed over. Back in 24 to 48 hours, no charge for the first.
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 4: Site Agreement Summary
- NR 702A Week 5: Aim Statement Draft
- NR 702A Week 6: Project Charter
- NR 702A Week 7: Practicum Objectives
NR 702A Week 8 questions, answered
What if one of the four conditions is not met?
Then the memo says so and recommends accordingly, which is a stronger submission than a claim faculty can disprove from the file. Permission outstanding is the commonest of the four, and a memo that names the date the meeting is booked for, the role of the person attending it and the fallback if the answer is no is doing exactly what the assignment asks.
Is this the same thing as the proposal defense?
No. A defense comes later and is spoken, and it argues a design. This memo argues that a design can now be attempted, which is a smaller and earlier claim. Treating it as a rehearsal for the defense is the usual mistake, and it produces a document full of intervention detail that the term has not yet earned the right to state.
Who is the memo actually addressed to?
In most sections the faculty reader, sometimes a committee, occasionally the sponsor at the organization as well. It matters, because a memo to the organization explains what the program requires and a memo to faculty explains what has been granted and by whom. If your section does not say, write to the faculty reader and keep the organization's terms quoted rather than summarized.
Where can I find a free NR 702A Week 8 sample paper?
The complete proposal readiness memo for the depression screening handoff project is set out on this page.
What is still open in the NR 702A Week 8 memo?
The quality improvement determination, a comparison quarter, a Spanish script review and the psychologist's spring schedule, each with an owner and date.