NURS 8750 Week 11 Dissemination Plan Example

Four Audiences, Four Products, a Date and an Owner for Each: The Dissemination Plan for the Nurse-Led Mobilization Project

Student Name

College of Nursing, Walden University

NURS 8750: Doctoral Seminar V

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Four Audiences, Four Products, a Date and an Owner for Each: The Dissemination Plan for the Nurse-Led Mobilization Project

Why Dissemination Needs Its Own Plan

The final document for the mobilization project will be read by a committee and filed. If nothing else happens, the routine will be known to one unit and the lessons from its weekend failure to nobody. Dissemination is the targeted distribution of information to a specific audience, with the intent of spreading knowledge and the associated practice (Rabin et al., 2008), and the word targeted is the point: each audience needs a different product, delivered where it already looks for information. This plan names four audiences, gives each one product it can use, and assigns a date and an owner to each row. It was built after the sustainability plan, so that the products describe a routine whose ownership is already settled.

The Plan

Each audience has one row in Table 1, with its need, its product and who delivers it by when.

Table 1

Dissemination Plan by Audience

Note. Dates for external venues will be confirmed against each venue's published calendar when it is released; the commitments are to the stage of work, not to dates set by others.

Choosing Products for Each Audience

Staff. The unit's nurses and respiratory therapists already know the routine; what they need is to see whether it is working and what will change on weekends. A one-page summary with a single chart, discussed at the practice council, and a monthly chart on the huddle board where staff already stand twice a day, meet that need. Publishing for this audience in a journal would be beside the point.

Leadership. The director of nursing operations needs to make two decisions. An executive summary that opens with the recommendation and addresses safety and cost to other departments is built for that reading.

Peer units. Critical care nurses at other hospitals are the people most likely to copy the routine. A poster at a regional conference reaches them in person, and making the one-page protocol and safety list available by QR code lets them take away something they can adapt. The night champion is a co-presenter, both because she can answer questions about 0400 better than anyone and because shared credit supports the people who will keep the routine running, and reviews of sustainability link continued practice to the commitment of those who deliver it (Wiltsey Stirman et al., 2012).

Researchers. A peer-reviewed report makes the work citable and lets other improvement teams weigh it against their own. Reporting it in full, including the weekend null and the sedation overlap, follows SQUIRE 2.0 (Ogrinc et al., 2016) and is the only product that will last beyond the people involved.

What Will Not Be Disseminated

Two things will be kept out of every product. The staff interview material will appear only as themes, with no quotations in external products, because the board's conditions require it and because in a unit of this size a quotation could identify a colleague. And no product will claim that patients left the ICU sooner, stronger or more often alive, since none of those were measured. The poster and the report will both carry the sedation overlap as a limitation in their main text rather than in a footnote, because the most common way improvement work is overstated is in the short forms that travel furthest.

The weekend result, by contrast, will be given the same prominence as the weekday result in every product. It is the finding most likely to help another small unit, since many community ICUs share the same weekend staffing, and it would be the easiest one to leave out of a short format.

How Dissemination Will Be Tracked

Each row in Table 1 has a completion test: the council minutes record the summary was presented; the director's decision is recorded in writing; the conference program lists the poster; the journal acknowledges the submission. The project lead will check the four tests at three months and six months after graduation and report the status to the chair. A plan without a check tends to stop at the first product, which is usually the one closest to the student's own program (Rabin et al., 2008). If the journal declines the report, the plan names a second target with the same reporting guideline, and the revision will address the reviewers' points before resubmission.

The plan also has a budget line of zero: every product uses channels the hospital or the program already pays for. The conference registration is covered by the hospital's continuing education fund, which the nurse manager confirmed in writing, and the journal's article processing charge, if the report is accepted, will be requested from the hospital's research office in advance of submission. If neither source is available, the report will go instead to a journal without a processing charge that publishes improvement reports under the same guideline, so that the cost of publication never becomes the reason the weekend findings go unreported.

References

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

Rabin, B. A., Brownson, R. C., Haire-Joshu, D., Kreuter, M. W., & Weaver, N. L. (2008). A glossary for dissemination and implementation research in health. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 14(2), 117-123. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PHH.0000311888.06252.bb

Wiltsey Stirman, S., Kimberly, J., Cook, N., Calloway, A., Castro, F., & Charns, M. (2012). The sustainability of new programs and innovations: A review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research. Implementation Science, 7, Article 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-17