The conclusion is the last thing your grader reads. A strong conclusion leaves them with a clear sense of why your project matters, what nursing should do next, and that you understand the boundaries of your own work. A weak conclusion — which is what most students write when they are exhausted from completing the rest of the paper — is a padded repetition of the introduction that adds no new synthesis and ends with a vague statement about the importance of patient care.
What the conclusion section must accomplish
Unlike the introduction (which frames a problem) or the literature review (which presents evidence), the conclusion synthesizes — it connects what you found to what it means for practice, and what would still need to happen for this work to be complete. It has five specific jobs:
- Restate the project purpose without repeating the introduction verbatim — anchor the reader in what this project set out to do, in fresh language
- Summarize the key evidence findings — 2–3 sentences that distill the most important takeaways from your literature review without re-listing every source
- Articulate implications for nursing practice — how would implementing this intervention change what nurses do, and what patient outcomes would improve?
- Acknowledge limitations honestly — what are the genuine constraints on your evidence or your proposed implementation that a reader should know about?
- Make a specific recommendation for future research — what is the most important gap that remains, and what study design would address it?
How to summarize without repeating
The word "summary" in a conclusion does not mean "paste a shorter version of the introduction." It means: given everything the paper has argued and evidenced, what is the essential claim? The difference is synthesis vs. restatement. Restatement says what was already said. Synthesis says what the combined evidence means.
Weak — restatement
"This paper discussed the problem of patient falls in acute care settings. Falls affect approximately 700,000 patients annually. The STRATIFY tool was examined as an evidence-based intervention. The Iowa Model was used as the theoretical framework. An implementation plan and evaluation plan were described."
Strong — synthesis
"The accumulated evidence from this review demonstrates that transitioning from universal fall precautions to individualized risk-stratified assessment using a validated tool such as STRATIFY represents a clinically meaningful upgrade in fall prevention practice — one supported by Level I and Level II evidence and feasible within the staffing and technological constraints of the proposed unit."
The strong version does not list what was in the paper — it states what the paper proved. That is the standard for a conclusion that earns full marks.
Implications for nursing practice
This subsection answers: so what? If nurses implement this intervention, what changes? Write implications at three levels:
Three levels of practice implications
| Level | What to address | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Direct patient care | How the intervention changes what nurses do at the bedside | "Nurses on the proposed unit would conduct a structured 5-item STRATIFY assessment on every patient aged 65+ at admission and every 24 hours thereafter, replacing the current informal fall risk judgment." |
| Unit / organizational | How the change affects unit operations, staffing, EHR documentation, policy | "EHR templates would require a one-time update to embed the STRATIFY scoring tool; falls would be tracked in real time via the existing quality dashboard, reducing retrospective auditing burden on the charge nurse." |
| Nursing profession / system | How this project connects to broader nursing goals — quality, safety, cost, policy | "Widespread adoption of risk-stratified fall prevention aligns with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' goal of reducing hospital-acquired conditions and supports the nursing profession's leadership role in patient safety improvement." |
You do not need equal length on all three levels. Direct care and unit-level implications are expected; the professional/system level adds depth and demonstrates graduate-level thinking, particularly for MSN and DNP students.
Writing limitations that strengthen your paper
Students often avoid limitations because they worry it makes the paper look weak. The opposite is true: a conclusion that acknowledges genuine limitations demonstrates intellectual honesty and scholarly maturity. Faculty who read a paper with no limitations section assume either that the student did not understand the concept of research limitations or that they lacked the critical thinking to identify them.
Write limitations at two levels: limitations of your evidence and limitations of your proposed implementation.
Evidence limitations to consider
- Sample heterogeneity: studies conducted in different settings (ICU, long-term care, community hospital) may have limited applicability to your specific unit context
- Short follow-up periods: most RCTs in nursing EBP measure outcomes at 3–6 months; long-term sustainability evidence is limited
- Publication bias: the published literature systematically overrepresents positive findings; null results are underrepresented in your evidence base
- Single-site studies: if most of your evidence comes from large academic medical centers and your setting is a critical access hospital, generalizability is limited
Implementation limitations to consider
- Absence of a control group: a QI implementation without randomization cannot rule out confounders (seasonal variation in patient acuity, concurrent safety initiatives)
- Short pilot window: a 12-week pilot may not capture enough fall events to detect a statistically significant change in a low-volume unit
- Staff turnover: training gains may erode if new staff are not oriented to the protocol
- Feasibility constraints: what you proposed may face real-world barriers (lack of administrative support, competing quality priorities) that the paper acknowledges but cannot solve
Future research recommendations
The future research section is not a throwaway sentence ("future studies should continue to examine this topic"). It is a specific recommendation for what kind of study, in what population, measuring what outcome, would meaningfully advance the evidence base. One well-articulated future research recommendation demonstrates more intellectual rigor than three vague ones.
Weak
"Future research should continue to examine fall prevention interventions in nursing practice to better understand their effectiveness."
Strong
"Future research should examine the long-term sustainability of structured fall risk assessment protocols beyond 12 months using a multi-site stepped-wedge cluster randomized design, with attention to fall-related injury rates (not fall rates alone) as the primary outcome — a distinction that matters clinically and was inconsistently reported in the current evidence base."
The closing sentence
The final sentence of the conclusion — and therefore the final sentence of your paper before the references — should be memorable, specific, and forward-looking. It should not be a platitude ("nursing is essential to patient safety"), a repetition of the introduction's opening, or a generic statement about the importance of EBP. It should state, concisely and with conviction, why this particular project matters.
Formula: [This intervention] represents [a meaningful step / a feasible pathway / strong evidence-based support] for [the clinical outcome at stake], positioning [nurses / this unit / this program] to [specific benefit] and contributing to [broader nursing goal].
Do not introduce new evidence in the conclusion
The conclusion is synthesis territory, not new content territory. If you find yourself wanting to cite a source you have not already cited elsewhere in the paper, that source belongs in the literature review, not the conclusion. A new citation in the conclusion section raises an immediate red flag for faculty reviewers — it suggests you are still building your argument rather than concluding it.
Need your conclusion — or your whole capstone — written?
Our nursing writers produce conclusions that synthesize, not just repeat — implications, limitations, and recommendations that earn full rubric marks.
Start your capstone Capstone outline guideRelated guides
Frequently asked questions
For a standard BSN RN-BSN capstone of 4,000–5,000 words, the conclusion (Discussion and Conclusion section, combined) should be approximately 400–600 words. If your program separates Discussion and Conclusion into two labeled subsections, the Discussion handles evidence interpretation and implications (~250–350 words) while the Conclusion proper — limitations, future research, closing statement — runs ~150–250 words. MSN and DNP capstones have longer conclusions, typically 600–900 words, because the implications for practice, policy, and the profession are expected to be more deeply developed. Never pad the conclusion to hit a word count — a sharp 400-word conclusion beats a repetitive 700-word one.
When a rubric lists "Discussion and Conclusion" as a single criterion, it typically expects both functions in one section without necessarily requiring separate labeled headings. You can write it as a flowing section with logical progression: interpretation of findings → implications for practice → limitations → future research → closing statement. If the rubric assigns separate point values to "Discussion" and "Conclusion" as distinct criteria, treat them as separate sections with separate APA Level 2 subheadings. When in doubt about your specific program's expectation, look at the point breakdown on the rubric — separate point values = separate sections.