DNP 801 Week 6 PICOT-D Draft GCU

DNP 801 Week 6 PICOT-D Draft GCU

DNP 801 Week 6 PICOT-D Draft GCU

DNP 801 Week 6 PICOT-D Draft GCU

The purpose of this assignment is for the learners to develop the first draft of their PICOT-D for their proposed practice problem.
General Requirements:
• Refer to the “PICOT-D Selection Guidelines,” located in the DC Network, for assistance in completing this assignment.
• Use the “PICOT-D Question Template,” located in the DC Network, to complete this assignment.
• Refer to the “Levels of Evidence in Research,” located in the Class Resources, as needed for assistance.
• A minimum of three primary quantitative research articles, published within 5 years of your anticipated graduation date, are required to complete this assignment.
• While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
• This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
• You are not required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.
Directions:
1. Use the “PICOT-D Question Template,” located in the DC Network, to develop a PICOT-D question for your proposed topic. If you are using the topic from your Selecting a Practice Problem assignment from Topic 3, be sure to make any changes as indicated by your instructor for that assignment.
2. Find three primary quantitative research articles to support your PICOT-D question. Two of the articles must demonstrate support for the proposed intervention. List these accordingly on the “PICOT-D Question Template” and include a working link for each article.
3. PICOT-D: Draft – Rubric
4. Collapse All PICOT-D: Draft – RubricCollapse All
5. Population
6. 8 points
7. Criteria Description
8. Appropriate patient population includes a direct link to practice improvements that can be measured through patient and practice outcomes.
9. 5. Target
10. 8 points
11. A description of an appropriate patient population being assessed can be linked to direct practice improvements and is extremely thorough with substantial supporting evidence.
12. 4. Acceptable
13. 7.36 points
14. A description of an appropriate patient population being assessed is complete and includes a direct link to practice improvements that can be measured through patient and practice outcomes.
15. 3. Approaching
16. 7.04 points
17. A description of an appropriate patient population being assessed is included but lacks a link to direct practice improvements that could be measured through patient and practice outcomes.
18. 2. Insufficient
19. 6.4 points
20. A description of population being assessed is incomplete or does not to meet the criteria for an appropriate patient population.
21. 1. Unsatisfactory
22. 0 points
23. A description of population being assessed is not included.
24. Intervention
25. 8 points
26. Criteria Description
27. Evidence-based intervention is described and includes primary quantitative research articles that directly support the intervention.
28. 5. Target
29. 8 points
30. A description of the intervention is extremely thorough with substantial evidence and supporting literature.
31. 4. Acceptable
32. 7.36 points
33. A description of the intervention is complete, includes a sufficient amount of evidence, and is supported by literature.
34. 3. Approaching
35. 7.04 points
36. A description of the intervention is included but lacks a sufficient amount of evidence.
37. 2. Insufficient
38. 6.4 points
39. A description of the intervention is incomplete or incorrect.
40. 1. Unsatisfactory
41. 0 points
42. A description of the intervention is not included.
43. Comparison
44. 8 points
45. Criteria Description
46. Comparison of proposed intervention to current practice is presented with evidence and measurable outcomes.
47. 5. Target
48. 8 points
49. A description of the comparison information is extremely thorough with substantial evidence and measurable outcomes.
50. 4. Acceptable
51. 7.36 points
52. A description of the comparison information is complete and includes a sufficient amount of evidence and measurable outcomes.
53. 3. Approaching
54. 7.04 points
55. A description of the comparison information is included but lacks evidence and measurable outcomes.
56. 2. Insufficient
57. 6.4 points
58. A description of the comparison information is incomplete or incorrect.
59. 1. Unsatisfactory
60. 0 points
61. A description of the comparison information is not included.
62. Outcome
63. 8 points
64. Criteria Description
65. Outcome is patient-focused, specific, and measurable, including supporting research that demonstrates how the evidence-based intervention impacts stated patient outcome.
66. 5. Target
67. 8 points
68. A description of the outcome is extremely thorough with substantial evidence pertaining to a measurable population or patient outcome.
69. 4. Acceptable
70. 7.36 points
71. A description of the outcome is complete and includes a sufficient amount of evidence pertaining to a measurable population or patient outcome.
72. 3. Approaching
73. 7.04 points
74. A description of the outcome is included but lacks evidence pertaining to a measurable population or patient outcome.
75. 2. Insufficient
76. 6.4 points
77. A description of the outcome is incomplete or incorrect pertaining to a measurable population or patient outcome.
78. 1. Unsatisfactory
79. 0 points
80. A description of the outcome is not included.
81. Timeline
82. 8 points
83. Criteria Description
84. Required 8-week timeline.
85. 5. Target
86. 8 points
87. The timeline is specified as 8 weeks.
88. 4. Acceptable
89. 7.36 points
90. NA
91. 3. Approaching
92. 7.04 points
93. NA
94. 2. Insufficient
95. 6.4 points
96. NA
97. 1. Unsatisfactory
98. 0 points
99. The timeline is not specified or is deviates from the 8-week requirement.
100. PICOT-D Question
101. 16 points
102. Criteria Description
103. PICOT-D question succinctly reflects individual P.I.C.O.T.D criteria.
104. 5. Target
105. 16 points
106. The criteria of the P.I.C.O.T.D are present in one statement.
107. 4. Acceptable
108. 14.72 points
109. NA

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: DNP 801 Week 6 PICOT-D Draft GCU 

DNP 801 Week 6 PICOT-D Draft GCU
DNP 801 Week 6 PICOT-D Draft GCU

110. 3. Approaching
111. 14.08 points
112. NA
113. 2. Insufficient
114. 12.8 points
115. NA
116. 1. Unsatisfactory
117. 0 points
118. Not all of the P.I.C.O.T.D elements are present in the statement.
119. Problem Statement
120. 1.6 points
121. Criteria Description
122. Problem Statement
123. 5. Target
124. 1.6 points
125. The templated statement is present.
126. 4. Acceptable
127. 1.47 points
128. NA
129. 3. Approaching
130. 1.41 points
131. NA
132. 2. Insufficient
133. 1.28 points
134. NA
135. 1. Unsatisfactory
136. 0 points
137. The templated statement is not present.
138. Purpose Statement
139. 1.6 points
140. Criteria Description
141. Purpose Statement
142. 5. Target
143. 1.6 points
144. The templated statement is present.
145. 4. Acceptable
146. 1.47 points
147. NA
148. 3. Approaching
149. 1.41 points
150. NA
151. 2. Insufficient
152. 1.28 points
153. NA
154. 1. Unsatisfactory
155. 0 points
156. The templated statement is not present.
157. References
158. 12 points
159. Criteria Description
160. Meets criteria for primary quantitative research; published within 5 years of anticipated graduation date; working links are provided for each article. Clinical practice guideline included, if applicable.
161. 5. Target
162. 12 points
163. Three primary quantitative research articles, published within 5 years of the anticipated graduation date, are presented. All three articles meet the criteria for primary research on the Levels of Evidence chart. Any applicable clinical practice guideline is included.
164. 4. Acceptable
165. 11.04 points
166. NA
167. 3. Approaching
168. 10.56 points
169. Two primary quantitative research articles, published within 5 years of the anticipated graduation date, and meet the criteria for primary research on the Levels of Evidence chart. Any applicable clinical practice guideline is included.
170. 2. Insufficient
171. 9.6 points
172. One primary quantitative research article, published within 5 years of the anticipated graduation date, is presented and meet the criteria for primary research on the Levels of Evidence chart. A clinical practice guideline should be listed but is omitted.
173. 1. Unsatisfactory
174. 0 points
175. Articles are omitted; or, the articles presented do not meet the specified criteria.
176. Paper Format
177. 2.4 points
178. Criteria Description
179. Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment.
180. 5. Target
181. 2.4 points
182. All format elements are correct.
183. 4. Acceptable
184. 2.21 points
185. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style
186. 3. Approaching
187. 2.11 points
188. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
189. 2. Insufficient
190. 1.92 points
191. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.
192. 1. Unsatisfactory
193. 0 points
194. Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
195. Mechanics of Writing
196. 2.4 points
197. Criteria Description
198. Includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use.
199. 5. Target
200. 2.4 points
201. The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
202. 4. Acceptable
203. 2.21 points
204. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.
205. 3. Approaching
206. 2.11 points
207. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.
208. 2. Insufficient
209. 1.92 points
210. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct, but not varied.
211. 1. Unsatisfactory
212. 0 points
213. Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.
214. Documentation of Sources
215. 4 points
216. Criteria Description
217. Includes citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style.
218. 5. Target
219. 4 points
220. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of errors.
221. 4. Acceptable
222. 3.68 points
223. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
224. 3. Approaching
225. 3.52 points
226. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
227. 2. Insufficient
228. 3.2 points
229. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
230. 1. Unsatisfactory
231. 0 points
232. Sources are not documented.
233. Total 80 points

Why Do We Read Many Articles With Bad Statistics?: What Does the New American Statistical Association’s Statement on P-Values Mean?

Online Nursing Essays

Struggling to Meet Your Deadline?

Get your assignment on DNP 801 Week 6 PICOT-D Draft GCU done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!

Read:

Sangseok, L. (2016). Why do we read many articles with bad statistics?: What does the new American Statistical Association’s

… Read More

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/l

  1. PICOT-D: Draft – Rubric
  2. Collapse All PICOT-D: Draft – RubricCollapse All
  3. Population
  4. 8 points
  5. Criteria Description
  6. Appropriate patient population includes a direct link to practice improvements that can be measured through patient and practice outcomes.
  7. Target
  8. 8 points
  9. A description of an appropriate patient population being assessed can be linked to direct practice improvements and is extremely thorough with substantial supporting evidence.
  10. Acceptable
  11. 36 points
  12. A description of an appropriate patient population being assessed is complete and includes a direct link to practice improvements that can be measured through patient and practice outcomes.
  13. Approaching
  14. 04 points
  15. A description of an appropriate patient population being assessed is included but lacks a link to direct practice improvements that could be measured through patient and practice outcomes.
  16. Insufficient
  17. 4 points
  18. A description of population being assessed is incomplete or does not to meet the criteria for an appropriate patient population.
  19. Unsatisfactory
  20. 0 points
  21. A description of population being assessed is not included.
  22. Intervention
  23. 8 points
  24. Criteria Description
  25. Evidence-based intervention is described and includes primary quantitative research articles that directly support the intervention.
  26. Target
  27. 8 points
  28. A description of the intervention is extremely thorough with substantial evidence and supporting literature.
  29. Acceptable
  30. 36 points
  31. A description of the intervention is complete, includes a sufficient amount of evidence, and is supported by literature.
  32. Approaching
  33. 04 points
  34. A description of the intervention is included but lacks a sufficient amount of evidence.
  35. Insufficient
  36. 4 points
  37. A description of the intervention is incomplete or incorrect.
  38. Unsatisfactory
  39. 0 points
  40. A description of the intervention is not included.
  41. Comparison
  42. 8 points
  43. Criteria Description
  44. Comparison of proposed intervention to current practice is presented with evidence and measurable outcomes.
  45. Target
  46. 8 points
  47. A description of the comparison information is extremely thorough with substantial evidence and measurable outcomes.
  48. Acceptable
  49. 36 points
  50. A description of the comparison information is complete and includes a sufficient amount of evidence and measurable outcomes.
  51. Approaching
  52. 04 points
  53. A description of the comparison information is included but lacks evidence and measurable outcomes.
  54. Insufficient
  55. 4 points
  56. A description of the comparison information is incomplete or incorrect.
  57. Unsatisfactory
  58. 0 points
  59. A description of the comparison information is not included.
  60. Outcome
  61. 8 points
  62. Criteria Description
  63. Outcome is patient-focused, specific, and measurable, including supporting research that demonstrates how the evidence-based intervention impacts stated patient outcome.
  64. Target
  65. 8 points
  66. A description of the outcome is extremely thorough with substantial evidence pertaining to a measurable population or patient outcome.
  67. Acceptable
  68. 36 points
  69. A description of the outcome is complete and includes a sufficient amount of evidence pertaining to a measurable population or patient outcome.
  70. Approaching
  71. 04 points
  72. A description of the outcome is included but lacks evidence pertaining to a measurable population or patient outcome.
  73. Insufficient
  74. 4 points
  75. A description of the outcome is incomplete or incorrect pertaining to a measurable population or patient outcome.
  76. Unsatisfactory
  77. 0 points
  78. A description of the outcome is not included.
  79. Timeline
  80. 8 points
  81. Criteria Description
  82. Required 8-week timeline.
  83. Target
  84. 8 points
  85. The timeline is specified as 8 weeks.
  86. Acceptable
  87. 36 points
  88. NA
  89. Approaching
  90. 04 points
  91. NA
  92. Insufficient
  93. 4 points
  94. NA
  95. Unsatisfactory
  96. 0 points
  97. The timeline is not specified or is deviates from the 8-week requirement.
  98. PICOT-D Question
  99. 16 points
  100. Criteria Description
  101. PICOT-D question succinctly reflects individual P.I.C.O.T.D criteria.
  • Target
  1. 16 points
  2. The criteria of the P.I.C.O.T.D are present in one statement.
  • Acceptable
  1. 72 points
  2. NA
  • Approaching
  1. 08 points
  2. NA
  • Insufficient
  1. 8 points
  2. NA
  • Unsatisfactory
  1. 0 points
  2. Not all of the P.I.C.O.T.D elements are present in the statement.
  3. Problem Statement
  4. 6 points
  5. Criteria Description
  6. Problem Statement
  • Target
  1. 6 points
  2. The templated statement is present.
  • Acceptable
  1. 47 points
  2. NA
  • Approaching
  1. 41 points
  2. NA
  • Insufficient
  1. 28 points
  2. NA
  • Unsatisfactory
  1. 0 points
  2. The templated statement is not present.
  3. Purpose Statement
  4. 6 points
  5. Criteria Description
  6. Purpose Statement
  • Target
  1. 6 points
  2. The templated statement is present.
  • Acceptable
  1. 47 points
  2. NA
  • Approaching
  1. 41 points
  2. NA
  • Insufficient
  1. 28 points
  2. NA
  • Unsatisfactory
  1. 0 points
  2. The templated statement is not present.
  3. References
  4. 12 points
  5. Criteria Description
  6. Meets criteria for primary quantitative research; published within 5 years of anticipated graduation date; working links are provided for each article. Clinical practice guideline included, if applicable.
  • Target
  1. 12 points
  2. Three primary quantitative research articles, published within 5 years of the anticipated graduation date, are presented. All three articles meet the criteria for primary research on the Levels of Evidence chart. Any applicable clinical practice guideline is included.
  • Acceptable
  1. 04 points
  2. NA
  • Approaching
  1. 56 points
  2. Two primary quantitative research articles, published within 5 years of the anticipated graduation date, and meet the criteria for primary research on the Levels of Evidence chart. Any applicable clinical practice guideline is included.
  • Insufficient
  1. 6 points
  2. One primary quantitative research article, published within 5 years of the anticipated graduation date, is presented and meet the criteria for primary research on the Levels of Evidence chart. A clinical practice guideline should be listed but is omitted.
  • Unsatisfactory
  1. 0 points
  2. Articles are omitted; or, the articles presented do not meet the specified criteria.
  3. Paper Format
  4. 4 points
  5. Criteria Description
  6. Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment.
  • Target
  1. 4 points
  2. All format elements are correct.
  • Acceptable
  1. 21 points
  2. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style

3. Approaching

Don’t wait until the last minute

Fill in your requirements and let our experts deliver your work asap.