DQ 2 : Now that you have completed a series of assignments that have led you into the active project planning and development stage for your project, briefly describe your proposed solution to address the problem, issue, suggestion, initiative, or educational need and how it has changed since you first envisioned it
Describing the solution is the easy half. The graded half is naming what changed your mind, and 'it became clearer over time' is not a cause.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 18, 2026
How the solution changed, and what changed it
Set the two versions side by side before you explain anything, because a reader cannot judge a change they cannot see. State the solution you first envisioned in one or two sentences, then the solution as it now stands, using the same structure for both so the difference is visible rather than asserted: same population, different intervention; same intervention, narrower population; same idea, a different outcome measure. Most capstone solutions narrow rather than grow, and narrowing is a sign of maturity rather than retreat — a proposal that began as improving discharge education for all medical-surgical patients and now reads as a teach-back protocol for heart failure patients on one unit has become implementable, and saying so plainly is the confident version of this post. Do that in parallel sentences rather than in a narrative, because a narrative hides exactly the difference the marker is looking for.
Then name the cause, which is the sentence the prompt is really asking for. Causes come from three places and each is worth writing about differently. The literature: you found the evidence for your original intervention was thin, or that a stronger intervention existed for the same problem, and you can cite the study that moved you. The setting: a preceptor, manager or stakeholder told you something about resources, scope or existing initiatives that made the original version impossible, and naming that conversation is more convincing than a general reference to feasibility. And the measurement: you could not get the outcome data your first version required, so the outcome moved and the intervention followed. Pick the one that genuinely drove your change, be specific about it, and say what you would revisit if that constraint lifted — which shows you changed direction deliberately rather than drifted.
Likely learning objectives
- Present two versions of a proposal so the change is visible.
- Recognise narrowing as a legitimate and often necessary revision.
- Attribute the change to a specific cause — evidence, setting or measurement.
- Distinguish a deliberate redirection from drift.
Assignment instructions
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
NRS 493 Topic 6 DQ 2 DQ 2 : Now that you have completed a series of assignments that have led you into the active project planning and development stage for your project, briefly describe your proposed solution to address the problem, issue, suggestion, initiative, or educational need and how it has changed since you first envisioned it Now that you have completed a series of assignments that have led you into the active project planning and development stage for your project, briefly describe your proposed solution to address the problem, issue, suggestion, initiative, or educational need and how it has changed since you first envisioned it. What led to your current perspective and direction?
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01The original solution, stated concisely.
- 02The current solution, stated in the same terms.
- 03A named cause for the change.
- 04Evidence or a conversation that can be pointed to.
- 05What you would revisit if the constraint lifted.
The current solution, the earlier one, then the cause of the shift
The solution as it stands
State the current proposal in population-intervention-outcome terms.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A proposal specific enough to be implemented next month.
The solution as first envisioned
State the earlier version in the same terms so the shift is visible.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A parallel statement, not a narrative of how thinking developed.
What changed it
Name the evidence, the conversation or the data constraint responsible.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A cause a reader could verify or ask about.
Why the new version is stronger
Argue the revision on feasibility, evidence or measurability.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A criterion the new version meets and the old one did not.
What would move it again
Name the constraint whose removal would change the direction.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A stated condition, showing the choice was deliberate.
Where the evidence that redirected you should come from
Recommended databases
- CINAHL Complete
- PubMed Central
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
- Implementation Science
Search sequence
- 1.Re-read the study you cited for your original intervention and check how strong it really is.
- 2.Look for a systematic review covering your problem, which often explains a redirection.
- 3.Check whether the outcome you need is already collected in your setting.
- 4.Write down the preceptor conversation while you still remember what was said.
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.
Nurses' roles in changing practice through implementing best practices: A systematic review
Health SA Gesondheid · 2022
A systematic review of how nurses change practice — useful when explaining why an intervention was replaced.
Mapping Implementation Strategies and Outcomes When Using Evidence Based Practice Implementation Models in Nursing Settings: A Scoping Review
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing · 2025
Implementation strategies mapped to outcomes, for arguing the revised version is more implementable.
Challenges using electronic nursing routine data for outcome analyses: A mixed methods study
PubMed Central · 2022
Difficulties using routine nursing data for outcomes — the measurement constraint, documented.
Levels of Evidence — Evidence-Based Practice Research in Nursing
Adelphi University Libraries · 2024
The evidence hierarchy, for the case where thin evidence redirected the proposal.
Key issues for stakeholder engagement in the development of health and healthcare guidelines
Research Involvement and Engagement · 2023
Stakeholder engagement issues, for the case where a conversation in the setting changed the plan.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Describing only the current solution, leaving nothing to compare.
- Attributing the change to increased understanding rather than to a cause.
- Treating narrowing as failure and apologising for it.
- Omitting the measurement constraint, which is often the real driver.
Submission checklist
- Are both versions stated in parallel terms?
- Have you named a specific cause rather than a process?
- Can you point to the study, person or data problem involved?
- Have you said what would change your mind back?
- Is the current solution implementable in your setting?
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.