NR 730 Week 7 Dissemination and Poster Plan Example

Dissemination and Poster Plan for a Sleep Apnea Screening Project: Inside the Center First, Then Outward, With the Flat Measure on the Wall

Student Name

College of Nursing, Chamberlain University

NR 730: DNP Project

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Dissemination and Poster Plan for a Sleep Apnea Screening Project: Inside the Center First, Then Outward, With the Flat Measure on the Wall

Audiences, Inside the Building First

The people who did the work hear first, then the bodies that approved it, then leadership and only then anyone outside. Each audience is attached to something it can decide, so the plan can be judged afterward by whether those decisions were made.

Table 1

Dissemination Audiences and the Decision Each Can Make

Note. Note. External products follow internal approval and the center administrator's written permission.

What Each Audience Hears

The nurses hear that nine in ten adults were screened, that the neck measurement fix came from their own feedback and that high-risk patients had more than four times the rate of recovery respiratory events of low-risk patients. The anesthesia group hears the override rate, 8%, and the reasons given, along with the question of whether 4 should trigger the pathway for patients receiving intravenous opioids. The executive committee hears the delivery figures and the flat overall event rate, with a recommendation to adopt the process. The administrator hears the cost of extended monitoring: high-risk patients stayed a median of 94 minutes in recovery, against 61 for low-risk patients, which is why two recliners with portable oximetry would protect bay capacity.

What the Nurses Will Be Asked

The huddle with nurses is not only a report; it is the first point at which the people who ran the change can shape what happens next. Three questions will be put to them. First, whether the admission neck measurement can continue without slowing first-case starts, since the 05:30 admissions are the tightest part of the day. Second, whether the extended monitoring criterion, thirty minutes without events while undisturbed, is clear enough to apply consistently, or whether nurses have been interpreting it differently. Third, what would make the 30-day follow-up call more useful, given that most high-risk patients had not arranged a sleep evaluation. Their answers will be summarized in the executive committee paper, so the policy that is adopted reflects how the work was actually done.

The Poster, Panel by Panel

The poster has six panels, read left to right. The first states the problem in two lines: no screening, 7.9% with a recorded diagnosis and a meta-analysis showing undiagnosed sleep apnea is common in surgical patients (Nagappa et al., 2015). The second describes the intervention in a single flow diagram from phone call to primary care letter. The third shows screening completion as a run chart, with the neck measurement change marked. The fourth is the figure a reader should remember: a bar chart of recovery respiratory events by score band, 8.9%, 5.3% and 2.0%, showing that the score sorted risk in this center as it does in published samples. The fifth reports the measures that did not move. The sixth gives three lessons for other centers.

The Measures That Stalled, on the Wall

The fifth panel carries the two results that are least flattering, in the same type size as the others. The overall respiratory event rate was 3.9%, against 4.1% before the project, with confidence intervals that overlap almost entirely; the project did not show a reduction in events. And of the high-risk patients reached at 30 days, only about a quarter had scheduled a sleep evaluation. A poster that showed only the screening rate and the score band chart would let viewers assume the project reduced events and connected patients to diagnosis, and anyone who reads the results would notice the omission. Honest reporting of results that did not improve is part of the standard for quality improvement reports (Ogrinc et al., 2016), and it is what makes the other panels credible.

Three Lessons for Other Centers

The sixth panel offers three lessons that travel. Design the measurement step for the setting: in a phone-first center, measure the neck on arrival. Expect extended monitoring to lengthen recovery for high-risk patients by about half an hour, and plan space for it before going live. And screening identifies patients, but a letter to a primary care clinician does not reliably lead to diagnosis; centers should decide in advance who follows up.

Permission Before Anything Leaves

Nothing goes outside the center until four conditions are met. The research office's quality improvement determination, issued on 20 January 2027, covers internal use; the center administrator must give written permission for any external product naming the center or its data. Only aggregate figures appear on the poster or in any manuscript; no dates, procedures or details could identify a patient. The medical director reviews external products for accuracy. And the health system's communications office reviews the poster's use of the system name, which it has asked to see two weeks before submission.

How the Plan Will Be Judged

By December 2027, the plan succeeds if the executive committee has adopted the policy, the administrator has decided on the recliners, the ambulatory council has decided whether to spread the program and the anesthesia group has settled the threshold question. The poster and journal report matter, but they are secondary to the decisions made inside the building. Guidance on screening before surgery is already clear (Chung et al., 2016); what other centers can learn from this one is how to make it work in a same-day setting.

References

Chung, F., Memtsoudis, S. G., Ramachandran, S. K., Nagappa, M., Opperer, M., Cozowicz, C., Patrawala, S., Lam, D., Kumar, A., Joshi, G. P., Fleetham, J., Ayas, N., Collop, N., Doufas, A. G., Eikermann, M., Englesakis, M., Gali, B., Gay, P., Hernandez, A. V., . . . Auckley, D. (2016). Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine guidelines on preoperative screening and assessment of adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 123(2), 452-473. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000001416

Nagappa, M., Liao, P., Wong, J., Auckley, D., Ramachandran, S. K., Memtsoudis, S., Mokhlesi, B., & Chung, F. (2015). Validation of the STOP-Bang questionnaire as a screening tool for obstructive sleep apnea among different populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 10(12), Article e0143697. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143697

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