DQ 1 :Describe your proposed practice site and a potential patient practice problem that you are interested in exploring for your project.
The prompt hands you its own viability checklist. The test that fails proposals late is the middle one: whether what you have chosen is genuinely a patient practice problem.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 18, 2026
A site, a problem, and four viability questions
Describe the site before the problem, and describe it in the terms that will constrain the project: setting type, size, population served, the unit or clinic you have access to, and your own role there. A DPI Project lives or dies on access, and a committee reading your post is already asking whether you can actually collect data in the place you are describing. Then state the problem in terms of a patient outcome rather than a process deficiency. This is the test the prompt asks about explicitly and it is where proposals fail months later. Nurses are not competent at recognising delirium is a staff knowledge gap. Delirium goes unrecognised on this unit, extending length of stay is a patient practice problem, and the education becomes a candidate intervention rather than the problem itself. State your role too: a staff nurse and a manager have different access to the same unit.
The remaining two questions are about viability and they are answered with evidence, not assertion. Is it valid at your site? Show a local number — an audit result, a quality dashboard figure, an incident count — because a problem that is real nationally and absent on your unit will not survive contact with your stakeholders. Is there enough current research? Do the search before you post, and say what you found: if there are randomised trials and a systematic review, the topic is ready for translation; if there are three small descriptive studies, you have a research question rather than a practice improvement project, and a DPI Project is the wrong vehicle for it. Then answer the contribution question modestly, because a DPI Project contributes translation rather than new knowledge. Saying that plainly reads as understanding the degree rather than underselling your work. Answer all three in order, because each narrows what the next can claim.
Likely learning objectives
- Describe a practice site in terms that constrain project feasibility.
- State a problem as a patient outcome rather than a staff deficiency.
- Evidence local validity with a site-level figure.
- Judge whether the research base is deep enough for translation.
Assignment instructions
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
DNP 801 Topic 2 DQ 1 DQ 1 :Describe your proposed practice site and a potential patient practice problem that you are interested in exploring for your project. Learners in the DNP program are required to develop a Direct Practice Improvement (DPI) Project. Describe your proposed practice site and a potential patient practice problem that you are interested in exploring for your project. Explain why this is a valid topic for your practice site. How do you believe this project will contribute to the body of knowledge in your field? To ensure that the proposed practice problem is viable, refer to the DNP Direct Practice Improvement Project Recommendations located in the DC Network, and answer these questions: Why is this a valid issue at my practice site? Why is this a patient practice problem? Will there be enough current research on this topic, or is it still being investigated by researchers?
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A site description including access and your role.
- 02A problem stated as a patient outcome.
- 03A local figure showing the problem exists at your site.
- 04A judgement about the depth of current research.
- 05A modest, accurate contribution claim.
Site, problem, validity, then the contribution claim
The site, in constraining terms
Describe setting, population, unit and your own access.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Access to data and patients, stated explicitly.
The problem as a patient outcome
Convert any process or education framing into an outcome.
What the assessor is likely looking for
An outcome that happens to patients, not to staff.
Local validity
Give a site-level figure showing the problem is present.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A number with a source inside the organisation.
Is the evidence deep enough?
Report the search and judge readiness for translation.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A judgement based on what was actually found.
The contribution, honestly
Claim translation rather than discovery.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A claim proportionate to a practice improvement project.
Testing whether the evidence base is deep enough
Recommended databases
- PubMed Central
- CINAHL Complete
- Cochrane Library
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Search sequence
- 1.Search for a systematic review on your problem first, to judge depth quickly.
- 2.Find the local audit or dashboard figure before writing the validity paragraph.
- 3.Check AHRQ measures for an outcome definition you could adopt rather than invent.
- 4.Note whether the evidence is in a population like yours.
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.
Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP)
American Association of Colleges of Nursing · 2025
What a DNP project is expected to be — the standard behind the contribution question.
About Cochrane Reviews
Cochrane Library · 2024
How to judge quickly whether a body of evidence has been synthesised already.
Patient Safety Indicators
AHRQ Patient Safety Network (PSNet) · 2023
Existing patient safety indicators, for framing your problem as a measurable patient outcome.
Levels of Evidence — Evidence-Based Practice Research in Nursing
Adelphi University Libraries · 2024
The evidence hierarchy, for judging readiness for translation.
Nurses' roles in changing practice through implementing best practices: A systematic review
Health SA Gesondheid · 2022
A systematic review of nurses implementing best practice — the translation contribution, evidenced.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Stating a staff knowledge gap and calling it a patient practice problem.
- Describing the site without saying what access you actually have.
- Asserting local relevance with no site-level number.
- Claiming the project will generate new knowledge rather than translate it.
Submission checklist
- Does your problem name a patient outcome?
- Have you given a local number rather than a national one?
- Have you said what data you can actually reach at this site?
- Have you reported what your literature search found?
- Is the contribution claim proportionate to a DPI Project?
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.