Evidence-based intervention and change
A 250-350 word summary of something that has to happen first. Three distinct reports are required — preceptor feedback, audience response, and future practice — and they are usually collapsed into one.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 23, 2026
A summary of something that has to happen first
The word summary understates what is being asked. This is not a description of your slides; it is a report on three separate things, and each one is scored. The first is the preceptor's feedback given before you presented, together with what you actually changed in response, which means you need to have kept a note of both. The second is a judgement about whether the interprofessional character of the collaboration improved the presentation, which is an analytical claim rather than a courtesy. The third is what the audience asked afterwards and what that experience will change in your own practice. Collapsing these into one flowing narrative is the most common way to lose marks here, because a reader cannot then find the three required elements. In 350 words, a short paragraph each is the right shape. Keep a note of the preceptor's wording at the time; reconstructing it later is where this element goes vague.
The middle element is the one worth thinking about before you write it. Interprofessional here is not decoration; the brief specifies an audience of leaders and stakeholders, and different disciplines attend to different things. A pharmacist will ask about the medication pathway, a quality manager about the measure and the baseline, a finance lead about what it costs and who pays for it, a physician colleague about whether the evidence generalises to their patients. If your presentation improved because you anticipated those questions, say which discipline prompted which change. That is a specific claim about collaboration rather than a general statement that different perspectives are valuable. For the final element, resist the urge to write that you gained confidence. Name one concrete thing you will do differently: a habit of leading with the outcome measure, or of preparing a costing slide you previously thought unnecessary.
Likely learning objectives
- Report received feedback and the specific changes made in response.
- Assess interprofessional input as an analytical claim about the work.
- Distinguish audience questions from preceptor feedback in a single summary.
- State a concrete change to future practice rather than a gain in confidence.
Assignment instructions
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Review the feedback on the change proposal professional presentation and make required adjustments to the presentation. Present your evidence-based intervention and change proposal to an interprofessional audience of leaders and stakeholders. Be prepared to answer questions and accept feedback. After presenting your capstone project change proposal, write a 250-350 word summary of the presentation. Include a description of the changes that were suggested by your preceptor before your presentation and how you incorporated that feedback. Describe how this interprofessional collaboration improved the effectiveness of your presentation. Include a description of the feedback and questions from your audience after your presentation, and how this experience will affect your professional practice in the future. While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
You must proofread your paper. But do not strictly rely on your computer’s spell-checker and grammar-checker; failure to do so indicates a lack of effort on your part and you can expect your grade to suffer accordingly. Papers with numerous misspelled words and grammatical mistakes will be penalized. Read over your paper – in silence and then aloud – before handing it in and make corrections as necessary. Often it is advantageous to have a friend proofread your paper for obvious errors. Handwritten corrections are preferable to uncorrected mistakes. Use a standard 10 to 12 point (10 to 12 characters per inch) typeface. Smaller or compressed type and papers with small margins or single-spacing are hard to read. It is better to let your essay run over the recommended number of pages than to try to compress it into fewer pages. Likewise, large type, large margins, large indentations, triple-spacing, increased leading (space between lines), increased kerning (space between letters), and any other such attempts at “padding” to increase the length of a paper are unacceptable, wasteful of trees, and will not fool your professor. The paper must be neatly formatted, double-spaced with a one-inch margin on the top, bottom, and sides of each page. When submitting hard copy, be sure to use white paper and print out using dark ink. If it is hard to read your essay, it will also be hard to follow your argument
What the presentation summary must contain
- 01Required adjustments made to the presentation after reviewing feedback.
- 02The presentation delivered to an interprofessional audience of leaders and stakeholders.
- 03A 250-350 word summary of the presentation.
- 04A description of the preceptor's suggested changes and how you incorporated them.
- 05A description of how interprofessional collaboration improved the presentation's effectiveness.
- 06A description of the audience's feedback and questions and the effect on future practice.
Before, during and after, in 350 words
Preceptor feedback and your response
Report what was suggested before the presentation and what you altered.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A change made, traceable to a specific piece of feedback.
The presentation and its audience
Identify who attended and what disciplines were represented.
What the assessor is likely looking for
An interprofessional audience actually described.
What collaboration added
Argue how the interprofessional character improved the presentation.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A discipline-specific contribution rather than a general claim.
Audience questions and feedback
Report what was asked and what the questions revealed about the proposal.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Real questions, not a statement that the audience engaged.
Effect on future practice
Name one concrete thing you will do differently.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A behaviour rather than a feeling.
Where interprofessional collaboration evidence sits
Recommended databases
- PubMed Central
- NCBI Bookshelf
- AHRQ
- CINAHL
Search sequence
- 1.Read an interprofessional collaboration source before writing the middle element.
- 2.Look up how stakeholder engagement is evaluated in quality improvement.
- 3.Check a dissemination source for what an interprofessional audience typically asks.
- 4.Find one source on reflective practice to ground the final element.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
COLLABORATION WITHIN THE INTERPROFESSIONAL TEAM
Nursing Management and Professional Concepts, NCBI Bookshelf · 2022
Interprofessional collaboration, for the analytical claim in the middle element.
TeamSTEPPS 3.0
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality · 2024
A structured interprofessional framework, for naming what each discipline contributes.
Nursing managers' perspectives on facilitators of and barriers to evidence-based practice: A cross-sectional study
Nursing Open (Wiley), via PubMed Central · 2023
Facilitators and barriers to EBP, for interpreting stakeholder questions.
Nursing Professional Development Evidence-Based Practice
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Evidence-based practice in nursing, for the proposal the presentation carries.
Implementation strategies for large scale quality improvement initiatives in primary care settings: a qualitative assessment
BMC Primary Care · 2023
Implementation strategies in practice settings, for what stakeholders press on.
Before you submit the summary
Common mistakes
- Describing the content of the presentation instead of reporting on the process.
- Merging preceptor feedback and audience questions into one account.
- Claiming collaboration helped without saying which discipline changed what.
- Ending on confidence gained rather than a specific practice change.
- Running outside the 250-350 word range.
Submission checklist
- Are the three required elements separately identifiable?
- Did you name what the preceptor suggested and what you changed?
- Is the collaboration claim tied to a specific discipline's contribution?
- Have you reported actual audience questions?
- Is the future-practice statement concrete?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read Brinevia's academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Maren Caldwell
MSN, RN, CNE
Medical-surgical nursing, pharmacology and NCLEX preparation
Maren is a registered nurse with over 15 years of clinical and educational experience in medical-surgical nursing. She writes on NCLEX preparation, patient care fundamentals, pharmacology and evidence-based practice.
Reviewed by
Dr. Tessa Redmond
DNP, RN, CNE
Evidence-based practice and clinical education
Tessa is a doctorally-prepared nurse educator. She reviews Brinevia content for clinical accuracy and alignment with current evidence-based guidelines.