NR 719 Week 6 Dissemination Plan Example

Dissemination Plan for Kilogram-Only Pediatric Weighing, Organized by Who Receives It and the Decision Each Audience Can Make

Student Name

College of Nursing, Chamberlain University

NR 719: Topics in Advanced Practice Leadership II

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Dissemination Plan for Kilogram-Only Pediatric Weighing, Organized by Who Receives It and the Decision Each Audience Can Make

Purpose, Written as Decisions

The purpose of dissemination here is not awareness. Each audience below can make a specific decision about kilogram-only weighing, and the plan exists to put the right evidence in front of each one, in a form it will accept, before the date that governs its decision. Results come from the February to June 2027 audit: 234 of 250 pediatric triage records weighed in kilograms, 93.6%, against 57.0% before the change, with parent-stated weights down to 3.6% and whole-number rounding unchanged. Dissemination works best when the product is designed for its audience from the start rather than adapted from an academic paper at the end (Brownson et al., 2018).

Internal Audiences First

The people who carried the change and the bodies that paid for it hear before anyone outside does.

Table 1

Internal Dissemination by Audience and Decision

Note. Note. Dates follow each body's published meeting calendar for 2027.

External Audiences

Three external audiences can use the work. The state's emergency medical services for children program runs a pediatric readiness collaborative for emergency departments; it can decide to share the department's audit tool and trigger table with other members, and the product is a two-page case summary sent to the program manager by the end of September. The regional emergency medical services coordinator can decide to ask ambulance crews to report children's weights in kilograms at handoff; the product is a one-paragraph note with the audit figures, sent in August. And the wider emergency nursing community can learn from the work through a poster at the national emergency nurses' annual conference, submitted by the deadline in the association's call for abstracts, and a quality improvement report to a peer-reviewed emergency nursing journal, written to the published reporting standard for improvement work (Ogrinc et al., 2016).

Audiences Ranked by Influence

Not every audience matters equally. The system nursing quality council ranks first, because it controls the money for the spread and its next meeting is the only one before the budget cycle closes. The nurse manager ranks second, because without permanent coordinator duties the original department's result will fade regardless of what happens elsewhere. The urgent care medical director ranks third, because the requirements window for the record upgrade closes in August and will not reopen for about two years. The triage nurses rank high on a different measure: they cannot approve anything, but they decide every day whether the routine holds, and they deserve to see the results first. External audiences rank last in influence over this department, though the state collaborative could carry the tool to dozens of departments that face the same problem, which national readiness guidance asks every emergency department to address (Remick et al., 2018).

What Each Product Says in One Line

Each product is built around a single sentence. For the triage nurses: nine in ten children are now weighed in kilograms, and the few lapses traced back to newcomers nobody had walked through the routine. For the operations meeting: the change holds with four hours a week of coordinator time and a trigger at 85%. For the council: two more departments can stop converting pounds by hand for $12,276 in the first year. For the urgent care director: add one line to the upgrade requirements now or wait two more years. For the collaborative and the journal: a lock held where teaching alone had faded, and one measure, rounding, did not move.

One Format per Audience

No product is reused unchanged. The triage nurses receive a poster with three numbers and one photograph of a locked scale, because they will read it standing up. The council receives an executive summary with the budget first, because it will decide on money. The journal receives a full report with methods and limits, because its readers will judge whether the result applies to them. A single slide set offered to all of these would serve none of them.

Dates That Come From Outside

The dates in the plan are set by the audiences, not by the student's term. The council meets quarterly, and missing the August meeting would delay the spread budget until November. The conference abstract deadline is fixed by the association. The ambulatory record upgrade planning closes requirements at the end of August.

Approvals Before Anything Leaves

Nothing goes outside the hospital until three approvals are in hand. The research office must confirm that the project was quality improvement rather than research, which it did on 3 June 2027. The hospital's communications office must review any external product that names the hospital, and has asked for two weeks. And all patient-level details must be removed; the external products report only aggregate audit figures. Internal products also go to the nurse manager before release, since they report on the manager's staff.

Risks to the Plan

Timing is the plan's weak point, and two delays are possible. If the communications review takes longer than two weeks, the collaborative summary slips past September, which matters little; if the council meeting is called off, the spread budget slips a quarter, which matters a great deal, so the nurse manager will ask the council chair in July whether a written approval is possible if the meeting does not happen.

Judging the Plan

Success means the decisions are made, not if the products are seen. By December 2027, the test is whether the council approved the spread budget, whether the coordinator's duties were made permanent, whether the urgent care requirement was added and whether the collaborative shared the tool.

References

Brownson, R. C., Eyler, A. A., Harris, J. K., Moore, J. B., & Tabak, R. G. (2018). Getting the word out: New approaches for disseminating public health science. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 24(2), 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000673

Ogrinc, G., Davies, L., Goodman, D., Batalden, P., Davidoff, F., & Stevens, D. (2016). SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Quality & Safety, 25(12), 986-992. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411

Remick, K., Gausche-Hill, M., Joseph, M. M., Brown, K., Snow, S. K., Wright, J. L., American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Pediatric Emergency Medicine and Section on Surgery, American College of Emergency Physicians Pediatric Emergency Medicine Committee, & Emergency Nurses Association Pediatric Committee. (2018). Pediatric readiness in the emergency department. Pediatrics, 142(5), Article e20182459. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-2459