Lewin’s change model can help nursing students explain how a proposed practice change will be introduced, supported and maintained. A strong dissertation does more than define three stages. It connects the model with a specific problem, the people affected, practical actions and evidence that could show whether implementation worked.
This guide focuses on applying the model to a dissertation implementation plan. It uses an illustrative bedside handover project rather than claiming results from a real ward. For a broader analysis of staff concerns, see our separate guide to stakeholder resistance in nursing change assignments.
What is Lewin’s change model?
The familiar model describes unfreezing an established way of working, moving towards a different approach and stabilising the new practice. Contemporary teaching often calls these stages unfreeze, change and refreeze. Lewin’s work also addressed group dynamics and the forces that maintain existing patterns. The three stages should therefore prompt analysis of working conditions rather than serve as three empty headings.
The historical interpretation is debated. Cummings, Bridgman and Brown question how later accounts developed the familiar model. A dissertation can acknowledge that debate without becoming a history essay. Explain which interpretation you use, cite the relevant source and apply it consistently. Avoid presenting a simplified diagram as a complete theory of every organisational change.
When is this model suitable for a nursing dissertation?
Lewin’s change model is useful when the assignment asks how an evidence-informed intervention could become routine practice. It offers a manageable structure for a small implementation proposal with a clear current process and a defined intended improvement. It is less useful as a substitute for a research design or an explanation of why patients experience a condition.
First identify the dissertation type. A literature review may develop an implementation recommendation without collecting local data. A service evaluation may examine an existing process. An approved improvement project may test a change. These are different activities, with different permissions and evidence. Naming a change model does not determine whether an activity is research, audit or quality improvement.
Write a scope statement before drafting. For example: “This proposal applies the model to introducing a structured bedside handover process on one adult ward.” Specify the intended users, setting, boundaries and timescale. If the project has not been implemented, keep verbs in the future or conditional tense. Never describe a planned training session as a completed intervention.
How do you connect the stages with evidence?
A useful planning table separates the implementation task from the evidence needed to assess it. The following example is illustrative. It contains no reported ward findings and no recommended clinical threshold.
| Stage | Implementation question | Possible project action | Evidence to examine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unfreeze | Why does the current handover process need review? | Discuss an approved baseline review with staff and patient representatives. | Documented omissions, staff concerns and patient preferences. |
| Change | How will staff try the revised approach? | Co-design a prompt sheet, practise its use and run an authorised small test. | Training participation, observed use and feedback about practicality. |
| Refreeze | How could useful changes become routine? | Agree ownership, induction materials and a review schedule. | Continued use, patient experience and unintended workload effects. |
The table should guide the argument rather than repeat it. In the prose, explain why each action addresses a known barrier. If privacy is a concern, a handover checklist alone will not resolve it. The proposal needs a process for respecting patient preferences and managing confidential information according to local policy.
How do you write the unfreeze stage?
Begin with the gap between current practice and the desired standard. Identify the source of the standard and explain whether you have evidence about local performance. Published research can support the rationale for an intervention, but it cannot prove that your placement ward has the same problem. Make that distinction visible.
Next examine the forces supporting existing practice. Staff may rely on an established routine because it is quick, familiar or compatible with shift patterns. Those reasons deserve analysis. Calling staff resistant without examining workload or competing tasks weakens the dissertation and may lead to an unrealistic solution.
Consider whose perspective is missing. A senior nurse may see a standardised approach as efficient, while patients may value flexibility in how information is discussed. A junior nurse may worry about asking questions in front of colleagues. These are possible considerations for a proposal, not findings unless your project has collected relevant evidence.
Explain how stakeholders would be involved. Identify a legitimate route for consultation, what questions would be asked and how feedback would change the plan. A statement such as “all staff will be informed” describes communication, not meaningful involvement. Consultation should have a visible purpose and an accountable decision maker.
Example of analytical writing
“The preparation stage would examine whether omissions reflect inconsistent prompts, interruptions or concerns about discussing information at the bedside. Staff consultation would inform the choice of implementation actions. If interruptions were the main constraint, training alone would be unlikely to produce a sustained improvement.”
This paragraph links a possible cause with an appropriate response. It does not invent an audit result. Adapt the reasoning to your actual evidence and cite sources for claims about the intervention, setting or implementation problem.
How do you write the change stage?
Describe the intervention precisely enough for a reader to understand what would happen. In the handover example, identify what the prompt sheet would contain, who would introduce it and how staff would practise using it. Explain which aspects could be adjusted during testing and which are governed by policy or professional requirements.
Connect training with opportunity. Staff may understand a process but lack protected time, access to materials or support from colleagues. Your proposal should address these practical conditions. A short demonstration might help with skill, while an agreed workflow and visible leadership support might help staff use the approach during a busy shift.
Specify the test arrangements without promising success. State who would authorise the test, how participants would be informed and what feedback would be collected. Explain how the team would respond if the intervention created delays, confusion or confidentiality concerns. A credible implementation plan includes the possibility of modifying or stopping an unsuitable approach.
Use a clear distinction between implementation measures and patient outcomes. Training attendance shows exposure to training. It does not establish competent practice, better patient experience or safer care. A dissertation that treats attendance as the final outcome leaves a major gap between the planned activity and the improvement claim.
What does refreezing mean in modern nursing practice?
Refreezing can be interpreted as supporting a useful new routine rather than preventing future change. In a dissertation, discuss how the practice would be maintained, reviewed and adapted. Avoid language suggesting that a ward should permanently preserve a process regardless of new evidence, staffing changes or patient feedback.
Identify responsibility for maintenance. A named role could oversee induction materials, check that resources remain available and coordinate periodic review. Explain what would happen when temporary staff join or the project champion leaves. Reliance on one enthusiastic person is a weakness that deserves explicit consideration.
Describe feedback arrangements. The team needs a way to learn whether the intervention remains workable and whether benefits are sustained. If early compliance falls after active support ends, that observation would inform the next implementation decision. It should not be concealed to preserve a positive narrative.
Link maintenance to proportionate governance. Adding a new form to policy does not automatically mean practice has changed. Conversely, repeated audits that create excessive burden may undermine the improvement. Explain how your proposed review frequency balances useful information with the resources available.
How can force-field analysis strengthen the application?
A force-field analysis identifies pressures supporting change and pressures maintaining the current position. Use it to generate decisions. For example, support from a ward leader may help with coordination, while inconsistent access to a private discussion space may limit bedside handover. The plan should respond to those particular conditions.
Do not assign numerical scores simply because a template provides boxes for them. If you score forces, explain who judged their strength, what evidence informed the judgement and how uncertainty was handled. An unsupported score of five is still an opinion. A short, well-evidenced narrative can be more convincing than an elaborate chart.
Prioritise actions that address the strongest plausible constraints within the project’s control. A student proposal cannot resolve every organisational staffing issue. It can recognise that staffing may affect implementation and explain the limits this places on feasibility. Scope control makes the argument more credible.
How should the project be evaluated?
Define evaluation before describing success. State the intended improvement, the evidence needed and the timing of assessment. A baseline and follow-up comparison may be useful, but any interpretation must consider changing case mix, staffing, concurrent initiatives and the quality of measurement. A change observed after implementation is not automatically caused by it.
Include measures that could reveal unintended effects. In the handover illustration, these might concern time burden, patient comfort or disruption to other tasks. Select measures for the actual project rather than copying an extensive list. Each measure needs a clear definition, feasible data source and a reason for inclusion.
For help distinguishing measurement categories, use our guide to outcome, process and balancing measures in nursing QI. That guide addresses measurement selection; this article addresses the application of a change model. The two should support different parts of your dissertation.
How do you critically evaluate Lewin’s change model?
Discuss what the model helps you see and what it leaves unexplained. Its accessible structure can organise an implementation argument, especially in a limited student project. However, three broad stages do not specify how to manage every interaction between professional groups, organisational pressures and changing priorities.
Avoid generic criticism such as “the model is old, so it is unsuitable.” Age alone does not establish usefulness or weakness. Instead, explain a concrete limitation. For example, a sequential presentation may conceal repeated consultation and revision during a ward project. Show how the proposal would accommodate that iteration.
Consider power and participation. Who defines the problem? Who can reject or revise the intervention? Whose workload increases? A plan that treats consultation as a formality may reproduce a top-down approach even while claiming to involve staff. Critical analysis examines those relationships and their consequences.
Use comparisons sparingly. You may briefly explain why you selected Lewin rather than another model, but avoid turning the chapter into a catalogue of theories. The main assessment question is whether your chosen approach supports a coherent, feasible and ethically appropriate implementation argument.
Where should the model appear in the dissertation?
Introduce the model where the brief expects an implementation framework or conceptual rationale. Explain its relevance before applying it. Later sections can use the stages to structure the proposed actions, while the evaluation section should explain how implementation and outcomes would be assessed.
If the dissertation is a review, keep the review methods separate. Search strategy, eligibility criteria and critical appraisal are not unfreeze, change and refreeze stages. The model may inform recommendations arising from the synthesis, but it should not replace the methodology used to find and analyse studies.
Follow your university’s required structure. Some programmes expect a dedicated implementation chapter; others integrate recommendations into discussion. Use the marking rubric to decide the location and depth. A well-applied model in the wrong section can still create confusion for the reader.
What mistakes should you remove before submission?
- Three definitions with no connection to the nursing problem.
- Invented baseline findings or consultation responses.
- Training presented as the solution to every barrier.
- Success inferred only from attendance or a new policy document.
- Refreezing described as a ban on further adaptation.
- A change model presented as proof that an intervention is clinically effective.
Check every paragraph for the connection between evidence, action and evaluation. Where a statement describes what staff or patients believe, identify the evidence. Where evidence is unavailable, frame the point as a question for consultation or a limitation of the proposal.
How can you check that the application is specific enough?
Try removing the name of the intervention from your draft. If the remaining sentences could describe almost any project, the application needs more detail. “Staff will receive training” is generic. “Staff would practise the agreed handover prompts using an anonymised scenario, then discuss where confidential information should be shared” describes a concrete implementation activity.
Check the connection between each proposed action and the evidence supporting it. A paragraph about patient involvement should explain how patient preferences would influence the process. A paragraph about maintaining practice should identify who owns the materials and when they would be reviewed. These details make the stages useful to a reader who needs to assess feasibility.
Finally, read the plan from the perspective of someone joining the ward after the project starts. Could that person identify the intended practice, find the resources, ask questions and report difficulties? If the answer is unclear, strengthen the maintenance section. This practical check can reveal gaps that a neatly drawn three-stage diagram hides.
A supervisor can also help you test whether the model fits the scale of the assignment. Bring a short table of stage, action, evidence and limitation to the discussion. Record agreed revisions and check them against the assessment brief before expanding the chapter. This keeps theory selection connected with the actual dissertation task.
Frequently asked questions
Can I use Lewin’s change model in a literature review dissertation?
Yes, when the brief allows an implementation recommendation. Apply the stages to a proposed use of the review findings. Make clear that the implementation has not occurred and keep the literature review methods separate.
Do I need to compare it with Kotter’s model?
Only if the brief requires comparison or a brief contrast helps justify selection. A detailed comparison is unnecessary when the task is to apply one suitable framework critically.
Can I claim the model improved patient safety?
Only with appropriate project evidence and a defensible interpretation. The model organises implementation thinking; it does not itself demonstrate clinical benefit or establish causation.
Is a diagram essential?
Follow the brief. A concise table can show the relationship between stages, actions and evidence. Any diagram should clarify the argument and be discussed in the text.
Need feedback on your implementation chapter?
Our nursing dissertation section review can help you check the fit between your chosen model, proposed actions and evaluation plan. You retain responsibility for the research, evidence and submitted work. Share an anonymised draft and your marking criteria through our contact page. Get My Nursing Assignment Quote.
Conclusion
Apply Lewin’s change model by explaining the current practice gap, matching implementation actions to real constraints and planning how a useful change would be maintained and reviewed. A convincing dissertation makes its assumptions visible, distinguishes proposals from completed work and evaluates the model’s limitations.
Sources and further reading
- Cummings, S., Bridgman, T. and Brown, K.G. (2016) Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management.
- Burnes, B. (2004) Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal.
Sources checked 30 October 2026.
