When Reporting Methods, Accurate Language Matters

Julee Briscoe Waldrop, DNP, FNP, PNP, NC-BC, CNE, FAANP, FAAN

Staci S. Reynolds, PhD, RN, ACNS-BC, CPHQ, FAAN

Jayne Jennings Dunlap, PhD, DNP, APRN, CNE, EBP-C, FAANP

Writer’s Camp Counselors and Guest Counselor

---

Aligning your written report with what was actually done is key to advancing nursing and healthcare.

---

As editors and peer reviewers, we regularly see authors use inaccurate language when they state that they performed quality improvement (QI) initiatives like evidence-based practice (EBP), QI, or evidence-based practice quality improvement (EBPQI) projects.^1-3 For those unfamiliar with EBPQI, this method includes EBP initiatives being implemented with QI methods in an integrated way.⁴ Instead of QI initiatives, many authors have actually conducted research studies using methods like quasi-experimental and pretest-posttest designs. With this inaccurate labeling, manuscripts tend to use a mishmash of research terms such as study, sample, power analysis (which is almost never achieved), and statistical analysis of significance, along with QI terminology like the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle. Often only one practice change—like one intervention at one time—is implemented with no opportunity for modification (which is typical in an experimental research study). On the other hand, practice changes implemented in QI initiatives should be modifiable depending on what the data are showing.

Quality improvement is a form of inquiry that is completely separate from research. Instead of a systematic investigation, QI methods use iterative tests to implement practice changes like interventions. Data are collected frequently (such as weekly or monthly) and evaluated through the use of run charts or statistical process control charts. Plotting data at set intervals—on one of these types of charts—allows teams to see changes over time to continuously improve their practice. In other words, the charts should be evaluated during the “Study” portion of the PDSA cycle.⁵

As we’ve watched this troubling trend of inaccurate language increase, we’ve started tracking anonymous examples so we can provide more concrete qualitative data. Here are a few examples of these issues for learning purposes—changed a bit to protect the authors. After outlining these examples (along with our commentary), we’ll provide some tips for being accurate in your language when reporting your methods. Not only will that help increase the chance your publication will be accepted, but it will also help your reader understand and use your work appropriately to improve their practice.

Examples

Example 1.The purpose of this quantitative, quasi-experimental, single-cohort quality improvement study was to determine if an evidence-based structured diabetes program, over 3 months, a) decreases Hemoglobin A1c and b) increases exercise minutes per week in patients with diabetes at a primary care clinic in a southern state.

In this example, the author has combined research and QI terms into one paper. This language is inappropriate. The terms “quantitative,” “quasi-experimental,” and “single-cohort study” denote research. If a research design was used, the term “quality improvement” must be removed—just because the project was seeking to improve the quality of care does not mean it used a QI method.  

In this next example, the information was presented in the methods and analysis section of a manuscript labeled “QI.”

Example 2. Data were collected pre- and post-intervention. An a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power version 3.1.9.7 to determine the minimum sample size required to test the study hypothesis, which was 25. Fifteen individuals completed the pre-intervention self-report survey with 7 completing the post-intervention self-report survey.

Using the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality, in the pre-intervention phase, times to chest pain with walking (per self-report) did not meet the normality assumptions. Given this, a Wilcoxon-Rank test was performed. The Wilcoxon rank test was not statistically significant for time to onset of chest pain with a p-value of 0.100.

Although this project was described as a QI initiative, the authors used a pretest-posttest design—which is a type of quasi-experimental research design. Instead of collecting data frequently and plotting data on a run chart or statistical process control chart, the authors collected data at only two timepoints—before and after the intervention. As noted by the authors, 15 individuals completed the pre-intervention self-report survey and seven completed the post-intervention survey. Per the power analysis—which is not indicated for QI initiatives—at least 25 individuals had to participate for the project to be appropriately powered but the authors did not meet this threshold. As noted in Reynolds and Waldrop,⁶ statistical analyses that are used inappropriately—as was the case in this project—can mask clinically meaningful improvements. If data for this project were instead collected on a weekly basis and plotted on a run chart, the authors may have been able to identify signals of improvement per QI methodology, indicating clinically meaningful improvements.

Example 3. In another submission, the authors completed a research study using a cross-sectional descriptive design where a survey was sent out to nurse practitioners to determine their perception of the competency of newly licensed professionals. This again was erroneously labeled as a QI project when research methods were actually used. Our takeaway point for you—just because findings may contribute to evidence for future improvement of care quality does not mean it is a quality improvement initiative.

Tips for Being Accurate in Your Language

Given the confusion between research, evidence-based practice (EBP), quality improvement (QI), and evidence-based practice quality improvement (EBPQI),^3-5 it is important to be careful with language so that your report does not misrepresent what you actually did.^3,7 Not only will being accurate increase your chance of having a publication accepted, but it will also help your reader use your work appropriately to improve their practice. That is a win for everyone.

An extra note for Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) students—in general you should not be conducting research for your DNP project.⁸ However, if you now see that you did use a research methodology for your DNP project, there are reporting criteria and specific language to use depending on the study design and methods. You should identify the reporting guidelines that align with your study design and follow them as you write your manuscript for publication. Reporting guidelines can be found via the EQUATOR Network at https://www.equator-network.org/. Similarly, if you led—or were part of a team that implemented—an evidence-based practice change using QI methods, there is also distinct language you should use, as well as a new EBPQI reporting guideline.⁹ Do not try to force using QI or EBPQI reporting guidelines if you, in fact, conducted a research study.

Whether you are a student or not, the Table provides an overview of research terms versus terms that should be used when describing quality improvement projects like EBP, QI, and EBPQI initiatives. You may be more familiar with certain terms versus others, so this Table is a helpful guide in distinguishing what language to use depending on the method you used.

Table. Research Versus Quality Improvement Terms*

Research Term	Quality Improvement Term
Principal investigator or PI	Project leader
Study or Research study	Project or Initiative
Participant inclusion and exclusion criteria	Not applicable
Participants, subjects	Populations, patients, students, individuals
Randomized, randomization	Not applicable
Control, experimental, comparison group	Benchmark or baseline data
Anonymization, placebo	Not applicable
Enrolled, sample size	Included in the evaluation (e.g., 100 patient records were reviewed; 25 students were included in the evaluation)
Power analysis	Not applicable
Statistical analysis	Evaluated (e.g., Data were evaluated using standard run chart rules to determine signals of improvement)
Generalizability	Transferability
Sample demographics	Not applicable

*Adapted from Reynolds, Waldrop, and Dunlap.¹ Used with permission from Wolters Kluwer.

Conclusion

If we hold ourselves and others accountable, we can accurately report methods including distinguishing research and quality improvement initiatives. This accurate reporting positively impacts practice change across the evidence continuum and uses precious healthcare resources in meaningful ways while minimizing waste.

References

1. Reynolds S, Waldrop J, Dunlap J. Appropriate use of evidence-based practice quality improvement and research methods, designs, and terminology. Journal of Nursing Care Quality. 2025;41(1):1-6. doi:10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000890

2. Waldrop JB, Dunlap JJ, Reynolds S. Quality of articles labeled as a practice change/QI initiative. Poster presented at International Academy of Nursing Editors Annual Conference Proceedings; August 8, 2025; Portland, ME.

3. Mainous RO, Dunlap JJ, Brewer TL. Realizing the DNP as envisioned: Moving toward consistent nomenclature, curricula, and outcomes. Nursing Outlook. 2023;71(3):101969. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2023.101969

4. Waldrop J, Dunlap JJ. The Mountain Model for evidence-based practice quality improvement initiatives. The American Journal of Nursing; 2024;124(5):32-27. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0001014540.57079.72

5. Reynolds SS, Waldrop JB, Dunlap JJ. Appropriate use of statistical analysis in DNP projects. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners. 2025;21(9):105492. doi:10.1016/j.nurpra.2025.105492

6. Reynolds SS, Waldrop J. Misuse of the p-value: Using quality improvement methodologies to identify clinically significant improvements. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing. 2024;43(2):96-101. doi:10.1097/DCC.0000000000000623

7. Dunlap JJ, Waldrop JB, Brewer TL, Mainous RO. Differentiation and integration of research, evidence-based practice, and quality improvement. Journal of Nursing Education. 2025;64(6):e44-e47. doi:10.3928/01484834-20240514-01

8. American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). The essentials: Core competencies for professional nursing education. 2021. Accessed January 12, 2026. https://www.aacnnursing.org/essentials

9. Reynolds SS, Waldrop JB, Dunlap JJ. Evidence-based practice quality improvement reporting guidelines. Journal of Nursing Care Quality. 2026; 41(1):1-6. doi:10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000890

Authors: Julee Briscoe Waldrop, Staci S. Reynolds, and Jayne Jennings Dunlap.

Guest Counselor Bio: Staci Reynolds is a Professor at Duke University School of Nursing, where she teaches in the DNP program. Her clinical background includes neuroscience care and infection prevention. Her scholarship focuses on evidence-based practice and quality improvement, and she is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Nursing Care Quality.

Reviewed and Edited by: Jenny Chicca and Leslie Nicoll

Copyright © 2026 Writer’s Camp and Julee Briscoe Waldrop, Staci S. Reynolds, and Jayne Jennings Dunlap. CC-BY-ND 4.0

Citation: Waldrop JB, Reynolds SS, Dunlap JJ. When reporting methods, accurate language matters. The Writer’s Camp Journal. 2026; 2(1):10. doi:10.5281/zenodo.18355843