Reading Time: 3 minutes
What Is the NRS-465 Benchmark Capstone Change Proposal?
The Benchmark Capstone Project Change Proposal is the final, culminating assignment of NRS-465: Professional Capstone and Practicum at Grand Canyon University. It is not a new assignment written from scratch. It is a synthesis document that pulls together every major assignment completed throughout the course into a single unified evidence-based change proposal, revised in light of instructor feedback received on each prior submission.
At 2,500 to 3,000 words, this is the longest and highest-stakes written assignment in the course. It requires APA 7th edition formatting, a minimum of five peer-reviewed sources published within the past five years, and submission through LopesWrite. The rubric assesses every section independently, which means underdeveloping any one of the eleven required sections carries a direct grade penalty.
Assignment Requirements at a Glance
| Component | Detail |
| Word count | 2,500 to 3,000 words |
| Format | APA 7th edition throughout |
| Sources required | Minimum 5 peer-reviewed, published within 5 years |
| Submission | LopesWrite required |
| Sections required | 11 required sections + Appendix A |
| Point value | Benchmark — highest-weighted assignment in NRS-465 |
| Feedback integration | Must incorporate instructor feedback from all prior topic assignments |
| Appendix | Updated Capstone Change Project Evaluation Plan (from Topic 7) |
Breaking Down All 11 Required Sections
Each section of this proposal comes from a prior topic assignment. The work is not new — but it must be revised, integrated, and written as a cohesive narrative. Here is what GCU expects in each section and the most common rubric errors to avoid.
Section 1 — Background of the Clinical Problem
This section establishes the scope, prevalence, and clinical significance of the problem you are addressing. Use epidemiological data, national statistics, and published research to demonstrate that the problem is real, widespread, and harmful. Write 200 to 250 words minimum. A strong background cites the problem’s incidence rate, associated patient outcomes (morbidity, mortality, cost, length of stay), and why current practice is insufficient.
| Rubric trap:
Students who write a background paragraph without citing data score lower. Quantify the problem — name the number of affected patients, the cost burden, or the mortality rate. GCU rubrics reward specificity. |
Section 2 — Clinical Problem Statement
The clinical problem statement is a concise 2 to 3 sentence declaration of the problem, the affected population, and the setting. It should read as the distilled answer to: What is wrong? For whom? Where? This section was originally developed in Topic 3 and should be refined based on instructor feedback received at that point.
Section 3 — Purpose of the Change Proposal
This section explains why addressing this clinical problem matters within the context of the changing healthcare system. Connect your intervention to broader system pressures: value-based care, patient safety initiatives, national quality benchmarks (such as The Joint Commission or Healthy People 2030), and nursing scope of practice. Originally developed in Topic 2.
Section 4 — PICOT Question
Restate the PICOT question developed in Topic 3, refined based on feedback. Use the standard PICOT format: In [P: population], does [I: intervention], compared to [C: comparison], result in [O: outcome] within [T: time frame]? The PICOT question must directly correspond to the literature review and proposed intervention. Inconsistency between your PICOT and your search strategy is the most common rubric deduction in this paper.
| Example PICOT (CLABSI topic):
In adult ICU patients with central venous catheters (P), does implementation of a nurse-led CLABSI bundle protocol (I), compared to standard care without a structured bundle (C), reduce central line-associated bloodstream infection rates (O) within six months of implementation (T)? |