G-SQUIRE Methodology Assignment

The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) 2.0 model is the format used for writing the DNP Project Paper.

Complete and upload your first draft of the Methods section (based on SQUIRE 2.0) to Canvas.

The Methods section should include all details up to—but not including—the Results section.

RUBRIC

Instructions:
This rubric is based on the SQUIRE 2.0 model, which is the format used for writing the DNP Project. Faculty advisors and the DNP Council use it to evaluate the quality of the DNP Project submitted as part of the Clinical Scholarship Portfolio (CSP).

Each evaluation sub-feature is scored as Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory, or Exemplary. To approve the DNP Project for the CSP, a student must earn at least a Satisfactory in every sub-feature. If any score is Unsatisfactory, the student must revise that section until it reaches at least Satisfactory.

The rubric is used in two ways:

1. Faculty Review: To give feedback and allow the student a chance to revise.
   
2. Final Evaluation: To determine the passing grade.
   

To pass, a student must score at least 1 in every category.

DNP Project Evaluation Rubric (Based on SQUIRE 2.0)

Section	Evaluation Criteria	Unsatisfactory (0)	Satisfactory (1)	Exemplary (2)
Title	States that the project is about improving healthcare (quality, safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, cost, efficiency, equity)	Unclear focus	Clear focus	Exceptionally clear focus
Abstract / Executive Summary	Summarizes background, local problem, methods, interventions, results, and conclusions	Missing or incomplete	Complete and clear	Exceptionally thorough and well-written
Acknowledgment	Recognizes key contributors (agency champion, writing help, advisor, others)	Missing or incomplete	Complete	Exceptionally well-written
DNP Project Approval Form	Signed by advisor	Not included	Signed and complete	—

Introduction – Why the Project Was Started

Criteria	Unsatisfactory (0)	Satisfactory (1)	Exemplary (2)
Problem Description	Incomplete explanation of setting and problem	Clear description of setting and problem	Detailed, thorough explanation
Available Knowledge (ROL)	Poor or incomplete literature review	Clear literature review, identifies gaps	Comprehensive review, clearly shows national significance
Rationale	Incomplete explanation of frameworks/models used	Clear explanation	Exceptionally clear and well-justified
Specific Aim(s)	Vague or incomplete aims	Clear, achievable aims	Highly specific and well-supported aims

Methods – What Was Done

Criteria	Unsatisfactory (0)	Satisfactory (1)	Exemplary (2)
Context	Missing important details	Clear description	Exceptionally detailed description
Interventions	Incomplete description; missing team details	Clear description	Highly detailed and replicable
Study of the Intervention(s)	Incomplete explanation of assessment methods	Clear explanation	Detailed, precise explanation
Measures	Missing rationale, definitions, or data quality checks	Complete and clear	Thorough, detailed measures and data quality process
Analysis	No or unclear data analysis plan	Clear plan	Precise and well-justified plan
Ethical Considerations	Missing or unclear ethics review info	Clear ethics description	Exceptionally thorough ethics section

Results – What Was Found

Criteria	Unsatisfactory (0)	Satisfactory (1)	Exemplary (2)
Steps of Intervention	Lacks data/description	Clear data and description	Highly precise data and description
Process & Outcome Measures	Missing or unclear	Clear and complete	Exceptionally thorough and precise
Contextual Elements	Missing	Present and clear	Detailed and precise
Observed Associations	Missing	Clear	Exceptionally clear and precise
Unintended Consequences	Missing	Present and clear	Highly detailed
Missing Data	Not addressed	Addressed clearly	Thoroughly discussed and explained

Discussion – What the Findings Mean

Criteria	Unsatisfactory (0)	Satisfactory (1)	Exemplary (2)
Summary of Project & Findings	Incomplete	Clear and complete	Detailed, precise summary
Interpretation	Poor explanation of results	Clear explanation	Well-analyzed and insightful
Limitations	Missing or unclear	Clear	Well-analyzed and detailed
Conclusions	Weak or missing	Clear and relevant	Highly insightful with practical recommendations

Other Considerations

Criteria	Unsatisfactory (0)	Satisfactory (1)	Exemplary (2)
Funding	Missing or unclear	Present and clear	Detailed and precise
Lessons Learned	Vague	Clear	Insightful with strong recommendations
Quality of Written Report	Poorly written or disorganized	Clear and well-organized	Exceptionally well-written and professional

The DNP Project will follow the SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) model (Ogrinc et al., 2015), with small adjustments allowed based on the project topic or content area.

Every written report should include:

• Title Page – Use the sample on the Post-Master’s DNP Student Information site.
  
• Abstract – Up to 500 words, single-spaced, OR an Executive Summary up to 3 pages, double-spaced.
  
• SQUIRE 2.0 Components – All required sections from the model.
  
• Lessons Learned – Key insights from the project.
  
• References – In APA format.
  
• Appendix – Include IRB approval letter(s) or other documentation granting permission to implement the project.

Glossary

The SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines provide a structured framework for reporting new knowledge about improving healthcare quality, safety, and value. They are designed for system-level improvement projects and can be adapted for different methods and approaches. Authors should review all SQUIRE items, but not all may apply to every project.

Key Sections & Requirements

1. Title & Abstract
   
   • Title: Indicate the project relates to healthcare improvement.
     
   • Abstract: Provide searchable, concise information summarizing background, problem, methods, interventions, results, and conclusions.
     
2. Introduction – Why You Started
   
   • Problem Description: Nature and significance of the local problem.
     
   • Available Knowledge: Summary of existing research and evidence.
     
   • Rationale: Theories, models, or assumptions supporting the intervention.
     
   • Specific Aims: Purpose of the project and this report.
     
3. Methods – What You Did
   
   • Context: Key environmental and organizational factors.
     
   • Intervention(s): Detailed description so others can replicate; identify team members.
     
   • Study of the Intervention(s): How impact was assessed and causality determined.
     
   • Measures: Process and outcome measures, rationale, validity, reliability, data accuracy, and contextual influences.
     
   • Analysis: Qualitative/quantitative methods, handling variation over time.
     
   • Ethical Considerations: IRB review, potential conflicts, and ethical implications.
     
4. Results – What You Found
   
   • Steps and changes in the intervention over time.
     
   • Process and outcome results.
     
   • Contextual influences, unintended consequences, missing data.
     
5. Discussion – What It Means
   
   • Summary: Key findings and project strengths.
     
   • Interpretation: Relationship between intervention and results, comparisons with literature, contextual impacts, cost considerations.
     
   • Limitations: Factors affecting generalizability or validity, steps taken to address them.
     
   • Conclusions: Usefulness, sustainability, spread potential, practice implications, and next steps.
     
6. Other Information
   
   • Funding: Sources and role in the project.
     

Glossary Highlights

• Context: Environmental and organizational factors affecting outcomes.
  
• Intervention(s): Activities/tools used to improve healthcare performance.
  
• Rationale: Why the intervention was chosen and expected to work.
  
• Internal Validity: Evidence that results were caused by the intervention.
  
• Generalizability: Likelihood results apply to other settings.
  
• Opportunity Costs: Resources diverted from other tasks.