The results stage asks for a fair comparison, reported without interpretation, in a form a reader can recompute. Same measure, same definition, stated windows, denominators attached to every proportion, and no verb in the whole section that implies your project caused anything. It is a narrower task than most students expect, and the discipline of keeping meaning out of it is exactly what makes the next stage possible. Your section may print this as NR 612 or NR612; it is the same course. Chamberlain publishes no syllabi outside Canvas. The placement here is our teaching judgment from the course's catalog arc; your section's rubric decides what your week actually asks.
What NR-612 Week 5 asks for
Sit with an auditor reviewing a results table and watch what they do first. They do not read the narrative. They find the denominator, check that the same one appears in both periods, look for the dates, and try to reproduce one percentage in their head. If any of those four steps fails, everything downstream is treated as unreliable. A capstone results section is graded the same way, and building it to survive that check is a technical skill rather than a writing flourish.
The task at this stage is to present what happened to your measures. Not what it means, not why, not what should be done: those belong to interpretation and putting them here is the most common structural error in the whole course. A results section reports the pre-period figure with its base and dates, the post-period figure with its base and dates, the difference expressed in the units a clinician would recognize, and the process measures that describe how much intervention was actually delivered. Anything beyond that is borrowed from a later section and usually leaves the later section empty.
Population health capstones almost always run a pre and post design at a single site, and that design constrains what can be reported honestly. There is no control group, so nothing rules out the other things that changed in the same period: a seasonal pattern, a staffing change, an unrelated organizational push on the same measure, or the attention created by the project itself. None of that belongs in the results section as commentary, but all of it shapes the verbs you are entitled to use. Increased is a description of a number. Improved is a judgment. Caused belongs to a design you did not run.
The other thing this stage asks for is a clean account of the data you did not get. Missing records, cases excluded under the rules you wrote earlier, an extract that returned a shorter window than planned, a subgroup with too few cases to report. Every one of those is a legitimate part of a results section and each one is a place where an honest project separates itself from a decorated one. Reporting that 12 of 190 eligible records had the field blank and were handled by the rule stated in your plan is stronger than a table that quietly contains 178.
Where our help stops in a practicum course
The data in your results section has to come from work you actually did. Practicum hours, hour logs, encounter counts, site documentation, mentor evaluations and signatures are your own record, and they are never drafted, reconstructed, or estimated with help. Numbers are the same: nobody can supply, adjust or infer your project's data, and a figure that does not exist because a report was never run has to be written up as unavailable rather than filled in. This is the point in the session where that boundary is under the most pressure, and it is the point where it matters most.
What is legitimate is help with presentation and precision: arranging a comparison so it is visible and fair, choosing between a table and prose, writing the missing-data paragraph, and keeping the verbs inside what your design supports. De-identification applies to everything in this section. Aggregate counts rarely identify anyone, but small cells do, and a subgroup containing three patients in one clinic can be identifying. Where a cell is small enough to expose an individual, suppress it and say that you have, rather than publishing it because the number was available.
The NR-612 Week 5 method, step by step
Six moves that produce a results section a reader can check.
-
Rebuild both periods with one definition applied twice
Run the same inclusion rule over the pre-period and the post-period, and confirm the two extracts used identical filters. A comparison built from two differently constructed lists is not a comparison, whatever the numbers say.
-
Write the table before the prose
Rows for each measure, columns for numerator, denominator, proportion and window. Once the table is correct the narrative writes itself, and the narrative should point at the table rather than repeating it line by line.
-
Report the difference in units a clinician recognizes
Percentage points of completion, additional patients reached per hundred eligible, days shortened. Relative change alone can make a shift from 3 of 100 to 6 of 100 sound like a transformation, and graders in evaluation courses notice.
-
Put the process measures in the same section as the outcome
Delivery figures and outcome figures read together or not at all. A reader who sees a flat outcome beside a reach of one third understands the result immediately, and one who sees the outcome alone will draw the wrong conclusion.
-
Account for every record that left the analysis
Excluded, missing, duplicated, out of window. State the count and the rule that removed it, referencing the handling rules you wrote before you saw any results. This paragraph is short and disproportionately protective.
-
Audit your own verbs before submitting
Search the section for improved, reduced, achieved, demonstrated, resulted in and led to. Replace each with a descriptive equivalent unless your design genuinely supports the claim. Most of the credibility of a results section lives in this pass.
A layout and word budget for a results section
Our frame for the results portion of an evaluation report, sized for roughly 800 to 1,100 words alongside one or two tables. It is our own outline rather than anything the university issues, and your week's rubric outranks it wherever they disagree.
| Section | What belongs in it | Word target |
|---|---|---|
| Data assembled | Which extracts or audits produced the dataset, on what dates, covering which windows. | 110 to 140 |
| Population accounted for | Eligible cases identified, exclusions applied with counts, missing records, and the final analyzed number. | 150 to 190 |
| Process measure results | Delivery figures with denominators, so the outcome that follows can be read in context. | 140 to 180 |
| Outcome measure results | Pre and post figures with bases and dates, and the difference in absolute clinical units. | 200 to 250 |
| Subgroup or secondary findings | Only those planned in advance, with small cells suppressed and the suppression stated. | 120 to 160 |
| Table callouts | Sentences that direct the reader to what the table shows without narrating every cell. | 80 to 110 |
Evidence craft for reporting results
Counts before proportions, always. Write that 74 of 213 eligible adults had a documented completion in the post-period compared with 41 of 268 in the pre-period, then give the percentages if they help. The reader who can see both bases can judge the comparison; the reader given only percentages has to trust you.
Keep windows visible next to every figure. Dates belong in the table header or in the sentence, not only in a methods paragraph three pages earlier. Unequal windows are common in short capstone sessions and are entirely survivable when stated, which is the opposite of what happens when a grader finds them by arithmetic.
Be careful with statistical language you did not earn. Small single-site projects rarely support formal significance testing, and a p value attached to a comparison of two proportions from convenience samples can mislead more than it informs. If your section expects a test, name it and report it correctly; if it does not, describing the change plainly is the stronger choice, and say why you chose it.
Suppress small cells and disclose the suppression. A line saying that one subgroup contained fewer than five cases and is not reported protects privacy and demonstrates awareness of it. Publishing the cell because it was in the extract is a judgment error a population health grader will read as exactly that.
Five mistakes that cost points in this week's territory
- Interpretation smuggled into results. A sentence explaining why the number moved belongs to the next section, and putting it here usually leaves that section repeating itself.
- Different denominators in the two periods. An eligibility rule applied loosely to the pre-period and strictly to the post-period generates a change made of definition rather than of practice.
- Relative change presented alone. A doubling from three cases to six is arithmetically true and rhetorically dishonest without the counts beside it.
- Silent exclusions. Records that vanish between the eligible list and the analyzed table are the fastest way to lose a reader's trust in the entire report.
- Causal verbs in a pre and post design. Resulted in and led to require a comparison group; increased and was documented more often do not.
Before you submit
- Both periods were built with the identical inclusion rule
- Every proportion in the section carries its numerator and denominator
- Dates appear beside each figure or in the table header
- Process measures appear alongside the outcome measure
- Every excluded or missing record is accounted for with its rule
- No causal verb survives that the design cannot support
- Small cells are suppressed and the suppression is stated
Writing up results for NR-612?
Send the scoring guide and the figures you collected. A premium original draft comes back in 24 to 48 hours with the comparison built so a reader can recompute it and the verbs kept inside what your design supports, and revisions run until the grade lands.