NUR 550 Benchmark – Evidence-Based Practice Project PICOT Paper
NUR 550 Benchmark – Evidence-Based Practice Project PICOT Paper
Refer to the PICOT you developed for your evidence-based practice project proposal. If your PICOT required revision, include those revisions in this assignment. You will use your PICOT paper for all subsequent assignments you develop as part of your evidence-based practice project proposal in this course and in NUR-590, during which you will synthesize all of the sections into a final written paper detailing your evidence-based practice project proposal.
Write a 750-1,000-word paper that describes your PICOT.
- Describe the population’s demographics and health concerns.
- Describe the proposed evidence-based intervention and explain how your proposed intervention incorporates health policies and goals that support health care equity for the population of focus.
- Compare your intervention to previous practice or research.
- Explain what the expected outcome is for the intervention.
- Describe the time for implementing the intervention and evaluating the outcome.
- Explain how nursing science, social determinants of health, and epidemiologic, genomic, and genetic data are applied or synthesized to support population health management for the selected population.
- Create an Appendix for your paper and attach the PICOT. Be sure to review feedback from your previous submission and revise your PICOT accordingly.
- Complete the “APA Writing Checklist” to ensure that your paper adheres to APA style and formatting criteria and general guidelines for academic writing. Include the completed checklist as the final appendix at the end of your paper.
Refer to the “Evidence-Based
Click here to ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT on NUR 550 Benchmark – Evidence-Based Practice Project PICOT Paper
Practice Project Proposal – Assignment Overview” document for an overview of the evidence-based practice project proposal assignments.
You are required to cite at least four to six peer-reviewed sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.
Struggling to Meet Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on NUR 550 Benchmark – Evidence-Based Practice Project PICOT Paper done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
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 required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
Hi Jewel, nice discussion as it relates to your research proposal, which addresses grief and loss in the pediatric nursing population, and proven validity tools. Grief and loss are something that all people will experience in their lifetime. The loss may be actual or perceived and is the absence of something that was valued. An actual loss is recognized and verified by others while others cannot verify a perceived loss. Both are real to the individual who has experienced the loss. Grief is the internal part of the loss; it is the emotional feelings related to the loss. Nurses may experience this personally, or they may be the support system for patients and their families going through grief and loss. There are normal stages of grief that people experience; however, every person’s experience is individual. The feelings of loss are commonly associated with the death of a loved one, but they can be experienced for a number of reasons. People may experience grief and feelings of loss about a significant change such as the loss of a job, loss of function, loss of a limb, loss of a pet, the feeling of loss of control, and loss of loved ones. It is the nurse’s role to provide compassionate care to the patient and loved ones, and this care will be different from person to person. It is also important for the nurse to maintain emotional resiliency, so they can provide the best care for those experiencing grief.
In addition, grief, when permitted, helps process the pain of loss and allows for the pain to heal. Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross first identified the five stages of grief in her 1969 book Death and Dying. Later, she co-authored On Grief and Grieving: Finding the Meaning of Grief through the Five Stages of Loss with David Kressler, an expert on death and grieving. Their explanations of the stages of grief are widely accepted and taught throughout the world. Initially, they explained five stages of grief, but more recently, David Kressler has discussed an additional two stages (denotes the additional two stages). They are as follows: Shock, Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Testing, and Acceptance.
Julianne R. Oates; Patricia A. Maani-Fogelman. US Navy Geisinger Medical Center Last Update: September 18, 2022, Retrieve from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/statpearls/
This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies:
MBA-MSN; MSN-Nursing Education; MSN Acute Care Nurse Practitioner-Adult-Gerontology; MSN Family Nurse Practitioner; MSN-Health Informatics; MSN-Health Care Quality and Patient Safety; MSN-Leadership in Health Care Systems; MSN-Public Health Nursing NUR 550 Benchmark – Evidence-Based Practice Project PICOT Paper
MS Nursing: Public Health
MS Nursing: Education
MS Nursing: Acute Care Nurse Practitioner
MS Nursing: Family Nurse Practitioner
MS Nursing: Health Care Quality and Patient Safety
4.1: Synthesize nursing science, determinants of health, and epidemiologic, genomic, and genetic data in the management of population health.
Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points
NUR-550 NUR-550-O503 Benchmark – Evidence-Based Practice Project: PICOT Paper 150.0
Criteria Percentage Unsatisfactory (0.00%) Less Than Satisfactory (80.00%) Satisfactory (88.00%) Good (92.00%) Excellent (100.00%)
Population Demographics and Health Concerns 5.0% The demographics and health concerns for the population are not described. The demographics and health concerns for the population are incorrect or only partially described. The demographics and health concerns for the population are summarized. More information and supporting evidence are needed. The demographics and health concerns for the population are described using sufficient evidence. The demographics and health concerns for the population are accurate and thoroughly described using substantial evidence.
Proposed Evidence-Based Intervention 13.0% The proposed evidence-based intervention is omitted. The proposed evidence-based intervention is incomplete. It is unclear how the proposed intervention incorporates health policies and goals that support health care equity for the population of focus. The proposed evidence-based intervention is outlined. Explanation of how the proposed intervention incorporates health policies and goals that support health care equity for the population of focus is general. Some aspects are unclear. More information is needed. The proposed evidence-based intervention is described. Explanation of how the proposed intervention incorporates health policies and goals that support health care equity for the population of focus is adequate. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy. The proposed evidence-based intervention is well-developed and clearly described. Explanation of how the proposed intervention incorporates health policies and goals that support health care equity for the population of focus is thorough.
Comparison of Intervention to Current Research 12.0% Comparison of intervention to previous practice or research is omitted. Comparison of intervention to previous practice or research is incomplete. Comparison of intervention to previous practice or research is generally presented. Some areas are vague. Comparison of intervention to previous practice or research is adequately presented. Comparison of intervention to previous practice or research is thorough and clearly presented.
Expected Outcome for Intervention 10.0% The expected outcome is for the intervention is omitted. The expected outcome is for the intervention is incomplete. The expected outcome is for the intervention is summarized. More information and supporting evidence is needed. The expected outcome for the intervention is explained using sufficient evidence. The expected outcome for the intervention is thoroughly explained using substantial evidence. NUR 550 Benchmark – Evidence-Based Practice Project PICOT Paper
Time Estimated for Implementing Intervention and Evaluating Outcome 10.0% A description of the timeline is not included. A description of the timeline is incomplete or incorrect. A description of the timeline is included but lacks evidence. A description of the timelines is complete and includes a sufficient amount of evidence. A description of the timeline is extremely thorough with substantial evidence.
Support for Population Health Management for Selected Population (C 4.1) 10.0% Explanation of how nursing science; social determinants of health; and epidemiologic, genomic, and genetic data are applied or synthesized to support population health management for the selected population is omitted. Explanation of how nursing science; social determinants of health; and epidemiologic, genomic, and genetic data are applied or synthesized to support population health management for the selected population is incomplete. There are major inaccuracies. Explanation of how nursing science; social determinants of health; and epidemiologic, genomic, and genetic data are applied or synthesized to support population health management for the selected population is summarized. More information and support are needed. Explanation of how nursing science; social determinants of health; and epidemiologic, genomic, and genetic data are applied or synthesized to support population health management for the selected population is adequate. Some detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. Explanation of how nursing science; social determinants of health; and epidemiologic, genomic, and genetic data are applied or synthesized to support population health management for the selected population is thorough. The narrative is insightful and demonstrates an understanding of how the various aspects contribute to population health management for selected populations.
Appendix 5.0% The appendix and required resources are omitted. The APA Writing Checklist and PICOT are attached, but an appendix has not been created. The paper does not reflect the use of the APA Writing Checklist during development. The APA Writing Checklist and PICOT are attached in the appendix. The APA Writing Checklist was generally used in development of the paper, but some aspects are inconsistent with the paper format or quality. The APA Writing Checklist and PICOT are attached in the appendix. It is apparent that the APA Writing Checklist was used in development of the paper. The APA Writing Checklist and PICOT are attached in the appendix. It is clearly evident by the quality of the paper that the APA Writing Checklist was used in development.
Required Sources 5.0% Sources are not included. Number of required sources is only partially met. Number of required sources is met, but sources are outdated or inappropriate. Number of required sources is met. Sources are current, but not all sources are appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content. Number of required resources is met. Sources are current and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.
Organization and Effectiveness 20.0%
Thesis Development and Purpose 7.0% Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
Argument Logic and Construction 8.0% Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0% Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. 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. 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. 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. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 5.0% Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent. Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct.
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5.0% Sources are not documented. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
Topic 4 DQ 1
Distinguish between reliability and validity in research design. Using a translational research article from your graphic organizer, analyze the methods and results sections to discuss reliability and validity as it relates to the translational research. Include the permalink to the article in your reference.
Re: Topic 4 DQ 1
Although both reliability and validity are used to assess and evaluate the quality of a research study, the difference between reliability and validity in research design is typically based on the consistency and accuracy of a measure (Heale & Twycross, 2015). On the one hand, reliability is measured using one of the four methods, namely, internal consistency test, test-retest, split-halves, and alternative-form tests (Heale & Twycross, 2015). For instance, while testing the internal consistency, one intends to measure the correlation between original and alternative measures. On the other hand, reliability measures the proportion of actual variance to total variance from a statistical perspective. On the other hand, validity measures the proportion of shared variance to the total variance, that is, the accuracy of the measure, which is calculated using three methods. These methods include content validation, contrast validation, and criterion-related validation (Heale & Twycross, 2015). For example, content validation attempts to assess the quality of items in a research test.
Patient falls are among the complications that hospitals can prevent by implementing evidence-based clinical interventions which are practical and efficient. In translational research, Morgan, and associates (2017) evaluated the correlation between patient falls and intentional rounding using variances such as teamwork, communication activities, coaching, and engagements. As far as reliability is concerned in this research, the chances of making errors while determining the correlation between the identified measures are very low. For example, teamwork between patients and care providers is influenced by communication activities, support, and engagement. Further, Morgan et al. (2017) used the iterative Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) to assess the relationship between staff engagement, teamwork, and patient falls for content validation. This is because these assessment tools measured what they are supposed to measure. Therefore, the aspects of reliability and validity have been considered in this translational research study.
NUR 550 Benchmark – Evidence-Based Practice Project PICOT Paper References
Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence-
based nursing, 18(3), 66-67.
Morgan, L., Flynn, L., Robertson, E., New, S., Forde-Johnston, C., & McCulloch, P. (2017).
Intentional Rounding: a staff-led quality improvement intervention in the prevention of patient falls. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26(1-2), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13401
Re: Topic 4 DQ 1
Great post Listra. I am very interested in your research topic. Patient falls are a serious issue and in fact 30-50% of patient falls result in some form of injury (Morris & O’Riordan, 2017). My first job as a nurse was working on a neuro/stroke floor. When I started, we had the highest fall rate of a very large hospital. There were certain nurses that had more patient falls than others and I realized quickly the reason why. They were not as attentive to their patients and were not making frequent rounds. I still even dream about those bed alarms, because as soon as I heard one, I was walking very quickly if not running to that room, even if it was not my patient. Teamwork and engagement are crucial for patient safety.
NUR 550 Benchmark – Evidence-Based Practice Project PICOT Paper References
Morris, R., & O’Riordan, S. (2017). Prevention of falls in hospital. Clinical Medicine, 17(4), 360–362. https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.17-4-360
Topic 4 DQ 2
Identify a data collection tool you could use for your research. Consider how you could employ translational research to potentially overcome barriers, which may arise during data collection. Identify the best type of translational research to address this barrier and provide rationale for the type you have chosen. What strategies would you employ to provide an understanding of your chosen type of translational research and to gather collaborative support?
Re: Topic 4 DQ 2
One data collection tool that can be utilized for research is a questionnaire that includes a comprehensive five-point Likert scale. Likert scales are widely used in research to obtain insight into participants’ opinions, attitudes, or behaviors (Awang et al., 2016). The data acquired can be analyzed to measure the frequency of an occurrence, for example how often are patients engaging in positive behaviors that influence blood pressure control.
Translational research is knowledge obtained from basic sciences and is applied in clinical and community settings (Vukotich, 2016). T0 is basic biomedical research that involves the use of preclinical and animal studies (Fort et al., 2016). Simply stated, T0 is basic scientific discovery that focuses on identification of the needs and concerns of individuals in a community or clinical setting. Translational research, specifically T0 translational research can overcome challenges in data collection, for example recruitment of participants. Because T0 translational research does not involve human subjects, recruitment of participants is not required.
One interesting method that has been found to be effective in understanding translation research is the Translational Journal Club. This organization educates PhD and MD/PhD trainees in their graduate year regarding the process of translation of research from discovery to dissemination and implementation employing a team-based approach (Feghali-Bostwick et al., 2019). According to Feghali-Bostwick et al. (2019), this method proved to be successful in assisting trainees with understanding translational research while working cohesively as a team.
NUR 550 Benchmark – Evidence-Based Practice Project PICOT Paper References
Awang, Z., Afthanorhan, A. & Mamat, M. (2016). The Likert scale analysis using parametric based Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Computational Methods in Social Sciences, 13-21.
Feghali-Bostwick, C., Harvey, J., Hasseler, C., Lee-Chavarria, D., & Halushka, P. (2019). A team-based translational journal club: Understanding the translational research highway. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 3(6), 291–294. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2019.414
Fort, D. G., Herr, T. M., Shaw, P. L., Gutzman, K. E., & Starren, J. B. (2017). Mapping the evolving definitions of translational research. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 1(1), 60-66. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2016.10
Vukotich, C. J., Jr. (2016). Challenges of T3 and T4 translational research. Journal of Research Practice, 12(2). Retrieved from http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/552/454
The need for increased patient safety and quality care implores healthcare providers, especially nurses, to develop evidence-based practice interventions using translational research to prevent and reduce medication administration errors (MAEs). Medication administration errors are a serious safety concern and the use of best practices like application of health information technology approaches can prevent and reduce their occurrence and prevalence in health care settings (Alotaibi & Federico, 2017). The purpose of this assignment is to describe the PICOT developed for the evidence-based practice (EBP) project that entails the use of health information technology by healthcare workers to reduce and prevent the occurrence of medication administration errors among critically-ill patients.
Population’s Demographics and Health Concerns
The critically-ill patients require close monitoring and use different types of medications to ensure that their conditions are stable. Healthcare workers, particularly nurses, commit medication administration n errors (MAEs) that threaten patient safety and quality care delivery. MAEs are a health concern due to the adverse effects that they cause to patients and the need for providers to implement evidence-based practice interventions to address them (Jheeta & Franklin, 2017). These errors cause harm and sometimes not. However, in a majority of cases, they devastate patients and their families as they lead to increased duration of stay in hospitals, poor patient outcomes, and even adverse events like fatalities. Nurses are a crucial part of care provision and have a professional and ethical duty to protect patients against the adverse effects emanating from these errors to guarantee patient safety.
The critically-ill patients need keen monitoring and nurses should be accountable to anything that happens to the patients. They should implement interventions that lead to better protection and quality care delivery aimed at minimizing and preventing the possibility of the errors from happening. Close monitoring requires effective deployment of technology like the use of health information technologies to enhance care delivery.
Proposed Evidence-Based Intervention
The integration of health information technology (HIT) is essential in reducing and preventing the occurrence of medication administration errors. Health information technology improves and transforms healthcare delivery because of the convenience it provides in responding to distress calls by patients. By utilizing interventions like electronic medication administration, barcode scanning and e-prescribing, healthcare workers and other stakeholders can mitigate medication administration errors that may affect critically-ill patients. In their study, Jeffries et al. (2017) observe that monitoring of possible hazardous prescribing is essential in enhancing medications safety. The authors deploy different qualitative realistic evaluation approaches to assess the effects of implementing and adopting use of health information technology models like an electronic medicines optimization system. The findings suggest that health information models improve patient safety by reducing and preventing errors through reviewing patients at risk of adverse drug events.
In their study, Lapkin et al. (2017) evaluate the effectiveness or interventions meant to reduce medication administration errors by synthesizing findings using systematic reviews. The authors suggest that using multifaceted approaches entailing the application of education and risk management strategies alongside barcode technology helps in reducing and preventing medication administration errors. These interventions demonstrate the need to integration other components like double-checking and the effects of interruptions and self-administration. As such, the study shows that despite challenges that may arise in the medication administration process, health information technology interventions like barcoding mitigates the occurrence of errors.
Comparison with Previous Practices
The need to enhance patient safety and quality of care remains a critical aspect of integrating health information technology to reduce and prevent medication errors. In their study, Yogini et al. (2020) assert that errors in medication administration are prevalent and there are many interventions that can help to reduce their occurrence. The study shows that previous practices of not incorporating health information technology have led to serious effects on patient safety and even providers. Another study by Gait et al. (2019) discusses the use of health information technology as compared to previous practices among pharmacists in efforts to reduce medication errors. The authors identify practices like workload, insufficient integration of technology, and disruptive work environment that make it difficult for pharmacists to have accurate prescription and administration of medications. The lack of effective vigilance and close monitoring are previous practices attributed to increased incidences of medication administration errors. Therefore, it is important for providers to implement interventions that will enhance safety of patients and increase the quality of care outcomes. Health information technology integration remains a core aspect of addressing the problem and ensuring that patients are not harmed and providers do not register errors or near misses in the medication process.
Expected Outcomes of the Intervention
At the core of this intervention is to reduce and prevent the occurrence and prevalence of medication administration errors and enhance overall patient safety. The integration of health information technology will result in significant quality and safety outcomes for patients and their healthcare providers. Healthcare workers need to appreciate the significance of HIT as a way of helping them address factors associated with medication administration errors like workload and near misses caused by human weaknesses. The use of health information technology models like barcode scanning will enhance adherence and compliance to evidence-based practice approaches and enable facilities and healthcare workers to address medication process errors.
Period for the Implementation
The intervention will be executed for the duration that critically-ill patients are in hospitals; which implies that medication administration process is not a one-off issue but requires continual adherence and compliance to existing interventions. However, an initial implementation period will focus on the first five days of a patient’s admission or in proportion to the number of days that one will stay in a facility getting medications.
Nursing Science, Social Determinants of Health, Epidemiologic, Genomic and Genetic Data
The chosen population include critically-ill patients and healthcare workers and how both can work to reduce and prevent medication administration errors. Healthcare workers, especially nurses, need to understand the genomic effect of medication errors on patients and integrate evidence-based practice interventions that include health information technology (Ahonen et al., 2018). Critically-ill patients may experience adverse events that may lead to mortality based on their genomic and genetic interactions from medications.
Social determinants of health impact access to health care and use of health information technology among the critically-ill patients. Nurses have training on the best way to integrate these technologies to enhance patient safety. They should focus on health promotion, and prevention of medication administration errors that impact patient safety.
Medication administration errors impact patient safety and quality of care for patients. The implication is that using health information technology like barcode scanning and smart devices as well as other interventions can prevent their occurrence. Nurses and other healthcare workers should understand that critically-ill patients require effective monitoring to reduce the occurrence of medication administration errors.
NUR 550 Benchmark – Evidence-Based Practice Project PICOT Paper References
Ahonen, E. Q., Fujishiro, K., Cunningham, T., & Flynn, M. (2018). Work as an inclusive part of
population health inequities research and prevention. American journal of public health, 108(3), 306-311. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.304214.
Alotaibi, Y. K., & Federico, F. (2017). The impact of health information technology on patient
safety. Saudi medical journal, 38(12), 1173. doi: 10.15537/smj.2017.12.20631
Galt, K. A., Fuji, K. T., Kaufman, T. K., & Shah, S. R. (2019). Health information technology
use and patient safety: study of pharmacists in Nebraska. Pharmacy, 7(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy7010007
Jani, Y., Chumbley, G. M., Furniss, D., Blandford, A., & Franklin, B. (2020). The potential role
of smart infusion devices in preventing or contributing to medication administration errors: a descriptive study of two datasets. Journal of Patient Safety. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000751
Jeffries, M., Phipps, D. L., Howard, R. L., Avery, A. J., Rodgers, S., & Ashcroft, D. M. (2017).
Understanding the implementation and adoption of a technological intervention to improve medication safety in primary care: a realist evaluation. BMC health services research, 17(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2131-5
Jheeta, S. & Franklin, B. D. (2017). The impact of a hospital electronic prescribing and
medication administration system on medication administration safety: an observational study. BMC Health Services Research, 17(547). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2462-2
Lapkin, S., Levett‐Jones, T., Chenoweth, L., & Johnson, M. (2017). The effectiveness of
interventions designed to reduce medication administration errors: a synthesis of findings from systematic reviews. Journal of nursing management, 24(7), 845-858. DOI:10.1111/jonm.12390
Don’t wait until the last minute
Fill in your requirements and let our experts deliver your work asap.