The most useful DNP project examples are real, completed projects you can open and read: a published paper or abstract that names the setting, the intervention, the measures and the results, including results that fell short. University repositories and the Journal of Doctoral Nursing Practice publish many of them for free. Reading a few in your specialty shows you what a finished project looks like far better than any template.
Below are eight published DNP project examples summarized from their public abstracts, followed by an annotated proposal outline, a map of what changes between the proposal and the final paper, and a poster layout. For what a DNP project is and the stages it moves through, see our DNP project coaching page.
Keep in mind that most repository papers are student work approved by a faculty committee, not peer-reviewed articles. They are excellent models of structure and scope. They are weaker as evidence for your literature review, where systematic reviews and guidelines carry more weight.
Each summary below reports what the authors' abstract says. Follow the link to read the full paper or abstract, and check the original before citing any figure.
Haskell (2022), Boise State University. Setting: a 36-bed adult medical-surgical unit. Intervention: staff education and a standardized fall prevention plan-of-care toolkit. Measures: audits of 863 admissions over three months, falls per 1,000 patient days and patient knowledge of their fall risks. Reported results: 96% of admitted patients had a personalized fall prevention plan, and falls fell from 5.26 per 1,000 patient days in the previous year to 1.78 during the project. 94% of patients could name at least one of their fall risk factors.
What to notice: the project reports a process measure (plans created), an outcome measure (fall rate) and a patient measure (knowledge), and the conclusion calls for ongoing monitoring rather than claiming permanent success.
Bailey and Philpott (2025), University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Setting: a rural primary care clinic in East Tennessee that screened new patients but not follow-up patients consistently. Framework: the Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model with PDSA cycles. Intervention: PHQ-9 forms throughout the clinic and a staff education session, later moved into the electronic medical record after low early compliance. Reported results: screening compliance rose from 49% to 93.5% (p < 0.001), and there were 29 referrals during implementation compared with 3 in the retrospective data.
What to notice: the authors describe changing the intervention mid-project when it wasn't working. That is what PDSA cycles are for, and committees expect you to report those changes rather than hide them.
Bernards (2025), University of Texas at Tyler. Setting: an emergency department working to improve adherence to the CMS SEP-1 sepsis bundle. PICOT: among ED physicians and nursing staff, how does a multimodal approach (education, visual reminders, audit and feedback) compared with education alone affect sepsis protocol adherence within six months? Reported results: adherence rose from 62% before implementation to 76% during and 82% after implementation.
What to notice: the full PICOT question appears in the abstract, and results are reported at three time points, which shows whether gains held after the active phase ended.
Salisbury (2026), UTHealth Houston Cizik School of Nursing. Setting: adult colorectal and hysterectomy surgical patients at a community hospital. Framework: the Iowa Model, with an interdisciplinary team. Intervention: a bundle of multimodal warming, temperature monitoring and staff education. Reported results: perioperative normothermia improved from 3.7% to 70%, and no surgical site infections were identified during implementation. The author names the single site and limited patient population as limitations.
Longino (2026), UTHealth Houston Cizik School of Nursing. Setting: a rural pediatric primary care clinic in Northeast Texas. Intervention: the Reach Out and Read program, which gives a book and anticipatory guidance at well-child visits from birth to age 5. Measures: books distributed and EHR documentation (process), no-show rates compared with the same period a year earlier, and clinician morale on the Mini Z 2.0. Reported results: over eight weeks, 93% of eligible visits received the intervention (1,236 books), no-show rates declined by 3% compared with the prior year, and morale scores were stable apart from an improved perception of the workplace atmosphere.
Tran (2026), UTHealth Houston Cizik School of Nursing. Setting: a large healthcare organization in Northwest Houston. Intervention: a standardized heart failure education pathway starting at ICU downgrade, with bedside patient portal activation and a 7-day follow-up appointment. Reported results: of 77 eligible patients, nine received the interventions. Among them, 88.9% activated the portal, 44.4% had a 7-day follow-up scheduled and 33.3% attended. Two of the nine were readmitted within 30 days, and the author states that the readmission target was not achieved.
What to notice: this is an honest example of a project that reached far fewer patients than planned. It still passes as a DNP project because it reports reach, fidelity and feasibility clearly and draws realistic conclusions.
Saziru, Alatrash and Sarff (2026), Journal of Doctoral Nursing Practice. Setting: postpartum nurses and patients at a hospital, with readmission data analyzed for 12 weeks before and after the intervention. Intervention: nurse education on postpartum assessment and the Joint Commission's perinatal standards, plus a standardized patient education protocol. Reported results: nurse knowledge rose by 25%, self-efficacy scores rose from 73.5 to 84.4 (p < .001), and readmissions declined from 3 to 4 per month to 1 per month.
Meginniss, Sharp and Phelps (2026), Journal of Doctoral Nursing Practice. Setting: a community hospital emergency department. Intervention: an initial specimen diversion tube used at IV insertion, with trained nursing superusers, over nine weeks (27 specimens). Reported results: the overall contamination rate was 3.70% with the diversion protocol and 2.92% with the standard protocol, although the diversion group had a lower mean rate and fewer pathogens.
What to notice: the headline comparison did not favor the intervention, and the authors say so. With small samples, a difference of a fraction of a percentage point can come down to one or two specimens.
| Project | Setting | Framework or design | Main measure | Reported direction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fall prevention plan | Medical-surgical unit | Quality improvement | Falls per 1,000 patient days | Improved |
| PHQ-9 at follow-up visits | Rural primary care | Johns Hopkins model, PDSA | Screening compliance | Improved |
| Multimodal SEP-1 support | Emergency department | Evidence-based practice project | Bundle adherence | Improved |
| Normothermia bundle | Perioperative | Iowa Model | Patients kept normothermic | Improved |
| Reach Out and Read | Pediatric primary care | Program implementation | Intervention fidelity, no-shows | Improved |
| Heart failure pathway | ICU to discharge | Pre- and post-design, PDSA | 30-day readmissions | Target not met |
| Postpartum education | Postpartum unit | Pre- and post-comparison | Readmissions, nurse knowledge | Improved |
| Diversion tubes | Emergency department | Comparison with standard protocol | Contamination rate | Mixed |
Notice the pattern: each project measures something that can change within weeks, and most report a process measure alongside the outcome. If you are still choosing a topic, our list of DNP project ideas by specialty frames ideas the same way.
Program templates differ, so always start with your handbook. The outline below follows the components in the University of Nebraska Medical Center DNP handbook's quality improvement proposal rubric, which is a typical example. The brackets show what you supply; they are placeholders, not data.
| Proposal section | What to write | What reviewers check |
|---|---|---|
| Title | "[Intervention] to Improve [Measure] Among [Population] in [Setting]: A Quality Improvement Project" | Clear, specific and identifies the project type |
| Abstract or executive summary | Problem, purpose, design, sample and setting, methods, analysis, implications | All parts present and in logical order |
| Background and significance | National data on the problem, then your site's baseline: "[Measure] on [unit] was [baseline] in [period]" | Local and external context, with sources |
| Problem statement and PICOT | One-sentence gap, then your PICOT question | Well-structured and answerable at your site |
| Review of the literature | Themes across studies, an evidence table and a summary of what the evidence supports | Synthesis, not one study after another |
| Organizational assessment | Readiness for change, stakeholders, barriers and facilitators | Evidence that the site supports the project |
| Purpose and specific aims | Measurable aims: "Increase [measure] from [baseline] to [target] by [date]" | Realistic and aligned with the purpose |
| Framework | The model guiding the work, such as the Iowa Model or the Model for Improvement, and how each step applies | Framework is used, not just named |
| Methods | Design, setting, participants, inclusion criteria, intervention, data collection tools and timeline | Feasible and replicable |
| Ethical considerations | IRB status or quality improvement determination, data protection | Approval route is stated |
| Analysis plan | How each measure will be compared or tracked | Appropriate for the type of data |
| Sustainability and implications | Who owns the change afterward and what it means for practice | A realistic plan beyond your exit |
Two sections cause the most revisions: the PICOT question and the analysis plan. Our guides on how to formulate PICOT questions and which statistical test to use cover both.
A DNP project paper example in a repository is usually the final paper, which is longer and differently focused than the proposal you write first. Much of the proposal carries over, but every section changes.
Most programs require a poster or podium presentation for dissemination. A poster is a visual summary, not the paper pasted onto a board. The layout below works for the common landscape format.
To see real posters, browse collections such as the University of South Alabama's DNP Project Posters, which includes a 2025 poster on implementing Inlow's 60-second diabetic foot screen for patients with type 2 diabetes in an outpatient clinic. The UTHealth Cizik School of Nursing abstracts cited above use the headings Purpose, Background, Methodology, Results and Implications, which map neatly onto poster panels.
Use published examples as models of structure, and read them with the same care you'd give any source. Our guide on how to write an article critique explains the general approach. For DNP projects, ask:
If you are turning a proposal into a final paper or condensing results onto a poster, our DNP project coaching pairs you with nursing writers who can review your structure, give feedback on how you present results, and check APA formatting. Use any outside help in line with your school's academic integrity policy, and keep your chair informed.
Search university repositories, such as Digital Commons and ScholarWorks sites, for "DNP project" and your topic. The DNP, Inc. Doctoral Project Repository and PubMed searches of the Journal of Doctoral Nursing Practice are also useful.
You can follow its structure, but your program's handbook overrides any example. Never copy wording, and cite a project if you use its findings or ideas.
Most include background and significance, a problem statement and PICOT question, a literature review, an organizational assessment, aims, a framework, methods, ethical considerations, an analysis plan and a sustainability plan.
A title banner, background and problem, purpose and PICOT, evidence and framework, methods, results, implications, sustainability and key references. Results should take the most space.
No. Committees expect an honest evaluation. Several published examples, including the heart failure and diversion tube projects above, report targets that weren't met and still explain what was learned.
They can show how other sites implemented an intervention, but most are single-site student projects without peer review. Base your evidence on guidelines, systematic reviews and peer-reviewed studies first.
Post your assignment, compare tutor bids and work with an expert who explains each step.
DNP and Capstone Coaching for Every Stage of Your DNP Project
Get affordable and top-notch help for your essays and homework services from our expert tutors. Ace your homework, boost your grades, and shine in online classes—all with just a click away!
Fast, secure, and handled by vetted experts.
Nursing capstone project ideas for BSN and MSN students in nine areas, each framed as an evidence-based change with a measurable outcome you can track.
Read More
DNP project ideas for 10 specialties, each framed with a population, intervention and outcome measure, plus a checklist for judging feasibility.
Read More
So if you are still not sure about what type of evidence in writing will enhance credibility, contact us now and avoid submitting substandard writing.
Read More