Capstone Project Guidelines

Scholarship for the Nursing Discipline Project
Project Instructions, Timeline and Grading Guide

1. Project Overview

You will work in small teams to design, implement, and evaluate a population‑health intervention based on public‑health principles and nursing scholarship. Your project will span five phases: Identification, Literature Review, Proposal, Implementation, and Evaluation. Each phase builds on the last to demonstrate your mastery of key population‑health and research competencies.

Learning Outcomes

By completing this project, you will be able to:

● Define and analyze a target population’s health needs.
● Conduct and synthesize a focused literature review using evidence‑based methods.
● Develop an actionable, ethically sound plan for change or advocacy.
● Implement culturally and linguistically appropriate interventions in collaboration with stakeholders.
● Evaluate outcomes and recommend future steps for policy or practice improvement.

2. Team Formation & Roles

● Teams of 3–4 students.
● Assign lead roles (e.g., Project Lead, Literature Analyst, Ethics Liaison, Implementation Coordinator).
● Rotate leadership/check‑in responsibilities across phases.

3. Project Phases & Deliverables

Phase	Deliverable	Due Date	Weight (%)
1. Identification	1‑page report		10%
2. Literature Review	5‑7 page literature review paper		25%
3. Project Proposal	3‑page strategic plan		20%
4. Implementation	Presentation & process log		25%
5. Evaluation	2‑page executive summary		20%

Note: All written deliverables must follow APA 7 formatting, include at least 10 scholarly sources, and adhere to university honor policy.

4. Detailed Instructions by Phase

Phase 1: Project Identification

● Define your target population (demographics, functional/problem‑solving capabilities).
● Collect and analyze preliminary population health data (local/regional).
● Describe the need for intervention in this population.
● Explain your initial implementation ideas for this population.

● Deliverable: 2‑page report with visuals (tables/graphs) of key metrics.

Phase 2: Literature Review

● Assess community priorities, previous interventions and compare health benchmarks (global to local).
● Discuss safety, ethics, equity, and policy principles relevant to your intervention.
● Communicate scholarly findings clearly; evaluate evidence quality and levels.

● Deliverable: 5–7 page annotated review with synthesis, concept map, and reference list.

Phase 3: Project Proposal

● Articulate the need and intent of your proposed change.
● Develop a SMART action plan, including evaluation methods.
● Identify stakeholders and their influence; address equity in research design.

● Deliverable: 3‑page proposal document.

Phase 4: Implementation

● Roll out a culturally and linguistically responsive intervention.
● Collaborate with health professionals and community stakeholders; log meetings and decisions.
● Apply relevant theoretical frameworks and evidence-based practices ethically.

● Deliverable: 10‑minute team presentation (slides) plus a process log (5 pages).

Phase 5: Evaluation

● Measure effectiveness of your advocacy or intervention using predefined metrics.
● Analyze data and discuss implications for nursing practice and policy.
● Recommend future actions or policy modifications based on your findings.

● Deliverable: 2‑page executive summary with charts/graphs and actionable recommendations.

5. Grading & Feedback

● Feedback will be provided within two weeks of each submission.
● Rubric criteria align with AACN Domains 3 & 4 sub‑competencies (listed above).
● Late submissions incur a 5% grade deduction per calendar day unless prior arrangement is made.

Criteria	Excellent (25)	Good (20)	Satisfactory (15)	Needs Improvement (10)
Thesis Statement	Clearly defined, focused, and insightful thesis statement that effectively guides the paper.	Thesis is evident, but may lack some clarity or specificity.	Thesis is present, but it may be unclear or overly broad.	Absent or poorly constructed thesis statement.
Organization	Well-organized with a logical fl ow of ideas. Transitions are smooth and enhance overall coherence.	Generally organized, but transitions may be somewhat abrupt or connections between ideas could be clearer.	Organization is somewhat confusing, and transitions are lacking.	Lack of organization; ideas are disjointed.
Evidence and Support	Exceptional use of relevant, credible sources that effectively support arguments. Strong incorporation of evidence.	Adequate use of sources to support arguments. Some sources may lack relevance or credibility.	Limited use of sources, and support for arguments is weak	Insufficient or no use of credible sources.
Analysis and Critical Thinking	In-depth analysis and insightful interpretation of evidence. Demonstrates a high level of critical thinking.	Analysis is present but may lack depth or originality. Some critical thinking is evident.	Limited analysis, and critical thinking is basic.	Minimal or no analysis; lacks critical thinking.