NUR 590 Benchmark Evidence-Based Practice Project: PICOT

Sample Answer for NUR 590 Benchmark Evidence-Based Practice Project: PICOT Included After Question

Description:

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.

1. Describe the population’s demographics and health concerns.
   2. 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.
   3. Compare your intervention to previous practice or research.
   4. Explain what the expected outcome is for the intervention.
   5. Describe the time for implementing the intervention and evaluating the outcome.
   6. 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.
   7. Create an Appendix for your paper and attach the PICOT. Be sure to review feedback from your previous submission and revise your PICOT accordingly.
   8. 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 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.

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.

Benchmark Information

This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies:

BA-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

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.

Topic 4 DQ 1

Description:

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.

Topic 4 DQ 2

Description:

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?

Topic 4 Participation

Topic 4: Critical Appraisal of Research

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NUR 590 Benchmark Evidence-Based Practice Project: PICOT

Description

Objectives:

1. Distinguish between reliability and validity in research design.
   2. Analyze the reliability and validity of methods and results in a translational research article.
   3. Describe strategies to maintain the integrity of translational research.
   4. Discuss challenges of research design and data collections.
   Study Materials

Population Health: Creating a Culture of Wellness

Description:

Read Chapters 1 and 6 in Population Health: Creating a Culture of Wellness.

Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Healthcare

Description:

Read Chapters 5 and 6 in Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Healthcare.

Work as an Inclusive Part of Population Health Inequities Research and Prevention

Description:

Read “Work as an Inclusive Part of Population Health Inequities Research and Prevention,” by Ahonen et al., from American Journal of Public Health(2018).

Aligning Evidence-Based Practice With Translational Research: Opportunities for Clinical Practice Research

Description:

Read “Aligning Evidence-Based Practice With Translational Research: Opportunities for Clinical Practice Research,” by Weiss et al., from JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration (2018).

Environmental Health Sciences in a Translational Research Framework: More than Benches and Bedsides

Description:

Read “Environmental Health Sciences in a Translational Research Framework: More than Benches and Bedsides,” by Kaufman and Curl, from Environmental Health Perspectives (2019).

Scoping Implementation Science for the Beginner: Locating Yourself on the “Subway Line” of Translational Research

Description:

Read “Scoping Implementation Science for the Beginner: Locating Yourself on the ‘Subway Line’ of Translational Research,” by Lane-Fall, Curran, and Beidas, from BMC Medical Research Methodology (2019).

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%)
Content 70.0%
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.

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. Benchmark – Evidence-Based Practice Project: PICOT Paper NUR 550

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.

Format 10.0%

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.  Benchmark – Evidence-Based Practice Project: PICOT Paper NUR 550

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.

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: NUR 590 Benchmark Evidence-Based Practice Project: PICOT

Title: NUR 590 Benchmark Evidence-Based Practice Project: PICOT

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.

Conclusion

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 590 Benchmark Evidence-Based Practice Project: PICOT 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