NURS 6052 Assignment: Evidence-based Project Walden

NURS 6052 Assignment: Evidence-based Project Walden

NURS 6052 Assignment: Evidence-based Project Walden

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 6052 Assignment: Evidence-based Project Walden

 

Full citation of selected article Article #1 Article #2 Article #3 Article #4
Asgharipour, N., Shariati, M., & Borhani, M. (2017). Assessment of guided imagery effect on reducing anxiety and pain associated with wound dressing changes in burn patients. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences11(3). https://doi.org/10.5812/ijpbs.547.

 

 

 

Bozorg-Nejad, M., Azizkhani, H., Mohaddes Ardebili, F., Mousavi, S. K., Manafi, F., & Hosseini, A. F. (2018). The Effect of Rhythmic Breathing on Pain of Dressing Change in Patients with Burns Referred to Ayatollah Mousavi Hospital. World journal of plastic surgery7(1), 51–57.

 

Kaheni, S., Sadegh Rezai, M., Bagheri-Nesami, M., & Goudarzian, A. H. (2016). The effect of distraction technique on pain of dressing change among 3-6-year-old children. International Journal of Pediatrics4(4), 1603-1610.

 

Li, J., Zhou, L., & Wang, Y. (2017). The effects of music intervention on burn patients during treatment procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC complementary and alternative medicine17(1), 158. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-017-1669-4

 

Why you chose this article and/or how it relates to the clinical issue of interest (include a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest) The article was selected because it examines the effect of guided imagery, a non-pharmacological approach, on reducing anxiety and pain associated with wound dressing changes in burn patients. It relates to my clinical issue of interest since it addresses a non-pharmacological intervention that can alleviate pain when managing burn patients.

 

 

Ethics of research related to my clinical issue of interest include maintaining the confidentiality of the study participants’ health information (Yip, Han & Sng, 2016).

 

The article relates to my issue of interest since it examines the effect of non-pharmacologic pain therapy on Rhythmic breathing, on pain of dressing change in patients with burns.

 

Nonmaleficence and beneficence need to be upheld by ensuring that the study interventions do not harm the subject, but instead, they benefit from the interventions by improving their experience (Yip, Han & Sng, 2016).

The article was selected because it discusses how distraction techniques can be used during dressing change among children 3-6 year-olds. The article relates to my issue of interest because this age group accounts for the highest number of burn patients.

 

 

Nonmaleficence and beneficence need to be upheld by ensuring that the study interventions do not harm the subject, but instead, they benefit from the interventions by improving their experience (Yip, Han & Sng, 2016).

The article was selected for review since it discusses the effect of music as a non-pharmacological pain intervention on burn patients during treatment procedures. It relates to my issue of interest since it informs readers of music therapy as one of the non-pharmacological approaches to lower patient’s perception of pain during burns management.

 

Hey there Wendy, great discussion post, I too currently work at a psychiatric facility as a floor nurse and always wondered how effective it would be to prescribe a patient two anti-psychotics at once. I know that EPS extrapyramidal symptoms most likely occur along with other adverse reactions or even combining a first generation and second generation anti-psychotic and according to (Chokhawala & Stevens, 2021) first-generation anti-psychotic medications are more prone to EPS than second-generation anti-psychotic and causes anticholinergic side-effects. In nursing school we reference anticholinergic side-effects as “cant see, cant pee, cant spit, cant poop” which means dry mouth, blurred vision, urinary retention and constipation, and surprisingly it really helps me quickly identify patients who are experiencing these adverse reactions. In another peer reviewed scholarly article the results of combining two antipsychotic proved to have clinical benefits that were therapeutic and resulted in improvement of their symptoms ( Ortiz-Orendain, et. al, 2017). Again great post Wendy, I’m also in the PMHNP program here at Walden University. I enjoy being a psych nurse and being able to connect with other MSN students on discussion post such as this one. Good luck in all your future endeavors.

 

References:

Chokhawala K, Stevens L. Antipsychotic Medications. [Updated 2021 Oct 2]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519503/?msclkid=99e933c4ad7311ec8443849f63599054

Ortiz-Orendain J, Castiello-de Obeso S, Colunga-Lozano L, Hu Y, Maayan N, Adams CE. Antipsychotic combinations for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD009005. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009005.pub2

The first step is to make a list of the things that are important to you before beginning your search for a new car. You gather evidence and seek to appreciate the scope of that evidence as you hunt for cars that score highly on those parameters. It’s encouraging to discover that a specific brand and model of car has a high mileage. Who was the author of the report? How reliable is it? What method was used to collect data, and how large was the sample?

In this Assignment, you will delve deeper into clinical investigation by carefully reviewing your PICO(T) question. You also begin to go over the evidence you’ve gathered.

To Get Ready:

Examine the Resources and select an intriguing clinical problem that could serve as the foundation for a clinical investigation.

Create a PICO(T) question to address the clinical issue of interest you mentioned in Module 2 of the Assignment. This PICOT question will be the same throughout the course.

Conduct at least four different Walden Library database searches using the terms from your PICO(T) query. Choose at least four high-level evidence sources that are relevant systematic reviews, such as meta-analyses, critically acclaimed subjects (evidence syntheses), and highly valued individual articles (article synopses). Choose the most important ideas to seek for and the best evidence you can find, although the evidence may not address all of the components of your PICO(T) investigation.

Think about the steps involved in creating a PICO(T) inquiry and finding peer-reviewed research.

The Initiative (Evidence-Based Project)

Part 2: Systematic Reviews and Advanced Clinical Inquiry Levels

Create a PowerPoint presentation with six to seven slides that includes the following:

Also Read: Essay assignments: NURS 6053 Interprofessional Organizational & Systems Leadership Paper

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 6052 Assignment: Evidence-based Project Walden

Decide on a clinical topic of interest and give a brief description of it.

Tell us how you developed a PICO(T) question that was focussed on the clinical issue you were interested in.

The four research resources you utilized to locate the peer-reviewed papers you selected should be named.

Cite four pertinent, systematic reviews of peer-reviewed literature that are pertinent to your research question in APA format. Use the strongest level of evidence available from a peer-reviewed paper if there are no systematic reviews or meta-analyses on your topic.

Describe the strengths and weaknesses of employing systematic reviews in clinical research, as well as the levels of evidence in each of the four peer-reviewed publications you selected. Give details and examples.

 

 

By Week 5’s Day 7,

 

Part 2 of your Evidence-Based Project must be submitted.

Information on Submission and Grading

 

Do the following to submit your completed Assignment for review and grading:

 

Please save your Assignment with the name “WK5Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the extension.

To review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment, click the Week 5 Assignment Rubric.

Navigate to the Week 5 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for this area’s grading criteria.

Then, in the Attach File section, click the Browse My Computer button. Open the document you saved as “WK5Assgn+last name+first initial. (extension)”.

If applicable, click the checkbox next to I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database in the Plagiarism Tools section.

To finish your submission, click the Submit button.

Students will:
  • Differentiate between quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method research methodologies
  • Analyze the relationship between peer-reviewed articles and clinical issues
  • Analyze research ethics related to clinical issues and peer-reviewed research
  • Analyze the aims of research studies presented in peer-reviewed articles
  • Analyze research methodologies described in peer-reviewed articles
  • Analyze strengths, reliability, and validity of research methodologies in peer-reviewed research

Photo Credit: Tetra Images / Getty Images / Getty Images


Learning Resources

Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.

  • Chapter 2, “Asking Compelling Clinical Questions” (pp. 33–54)
  • Chapter 21, “Generating Evidence Through Quantitative and Qualitative Research” (pp. 607–653)

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Hoare, Z., & Hoe, J. (2013). Understanding quantitative research: Part 2. Nursing Standard, 27(18), 48–55. doi:10.7748/ns2013.01.27.18.48.c9488

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Hoe, J., & Hoare, Z. (2012). Understanding quantitative research: Part 1. Nursing Standard, 27(15), 52–57. doi:10.7748/ns2012.12.27.15.52.c9485

ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT: Assignment: Evidence-based Project

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Walden University Library. (n.d.-a). Databases A-Z: Nursing. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981

Walden University Library. (n.d.-b). Evaluating resources: Primary & secondary sources. Retrieved January 22, 2020, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/evaluating/sources

ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT: NURS 6052 Assignment: Evidence-based Project

Walden University Library. (n.d.-f). Keyword searching: Finding articles on your topic: Boolean terms. Retrieved September 19, 2018, from http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/keyword/boolean

Walden University Library. (n.d.-g). Keyword searching: Finding articles on your topic: Introduction to keyword searching. Retrieved September 19, 2018, from http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/keyword/searching-basics

Walden University Library. (n.d.-i). Quick Answers: What are filtered and unfiltered resources in nursing? Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicanswers.waldenu.edu/faq/73299

Document: Matrix Worksheet Template (Word document)

Required Media

Centers for Research Quality. (2015a, August 13). Overview of qualitative research methods [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/IsAUNs-IoSQ

Centers for Research Quality. (2015b, August 13). Overview of quantitative research methods [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/cwU8as9ZNlA

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Review of research: Anatomy of a research study [Mutlimedia file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Schulich Library McGill. (2017, June 6). Types of reviews [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/5Rv9z7Mp4kg

https://www.onlinenursingessays.com/nurs-6052-assignment-evidence-based-project-walden/

Quiz: Is It Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Methods?

An effective understanding and application of research requires an understanding of the underlying methodologies employed. This quiz will assess your understanding of the quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method research methodologies.

To Prepare:

  • Review the research methodology terms and concepts presented to you this week.

By Day 7 of Week 2

Submit your Quiz.

Note: You may submit your Quiz as many times as you like until Day 7 of Week 2.

Submission and Grading Information

Submit Your Quiz by Day 7 of Week 2

To submit your Quiz:

Week 2 Quiz

Assignment: Evidence-Based Project

Is there a distinction to be made between “common practice” and “best practice”?

When you first started at your current company, experienced colleagues may have shared details about processes and procedures with you. Perhaps you even attended an orientation session to get acquainted with these issues. As a “rookie,” you probably limited the nature of your questions to those that would best assist you in your new role.

With time and experience, you may have identified aspects of these processes and procedures that you wanted to investigate further. This is the domain of clinical investigation.

The practice of asking questions about clinical practice is known as clinical inquiry. To continuously improve patient care, all nurses should use clinical inquiry to question why they do things the way they do them. Do they know why it’s done this way, or is it just the way we’ve always done it? Is it standard procedure or best practice? NURS 6052 Walden’s Assignment: Evidence-Based Project

In this Assignment, you will identify clinical areas of interest and inquiry and practice searching for research in support of maintaining or changing these practices. You will also analyze this research to compare research methodologies employed.

To Prepare:

  • Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry.
  • Based on the clinical issue of interest and using keywords related to the clinical issue of interest, search at least four different databases in the Walden Library to identify at least four relevant peer-reviewed articles related to your clinical issue of interest. You should not be using systematic reviews for this assignment, select original research articles.
  • Review the results of your peer-reviewed research and reflect on the process of using an unfiltered database to search for peer-reviewed research.
  • Reflect on the types of research methodologies contained in the four relevant peer-reviewed articles you selected.

Part 1: An Introduction to Clinical Inquiry

Create a 4- to 5-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:

  • Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest. This clinical issue will remain the same for the entire course and will be the basis for the development of your PICOT question
  • Describe how you used keywords to search on your chosen clinical issue of interest.
  • Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected.
  • Provide APA citations of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected.

Part 2: Identifying Research Methodologies

After reading each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, use the Matrix Worksheet template to analyze the methodologies applied in each of the four peer-reviewed articles. Your analysis should include the following:

  • The full citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format.
  • A brief (1-paragraph) statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest, including a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest.
  • A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article.
  • A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the research methodology used. Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific.
  • A brief (1- to 2-paragraph) description of the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles you selected.

By Day 7 of Week 3

Submit Part 1 and Part 2 of your Evidence-Based Project.

Note: Part 1 is a 4-5 slide PowerPoint and Part 2 is the Matrix. Be sure to attach both of your documents (Part 1 and Part 2) before you click Submit.

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

  • Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK#Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
  • Click the Weeks 2 and 3 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
  • Click the Weeks 2 and 3 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
  • Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK3Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
  • If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
  • Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
  • Due to the nature of this assignment, your instructor may require more than 5 days to provide you with quality feedback.
Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Weeks 2 and 3 Assignment Rubric

Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity

To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:

Submit your Weeks 2 and 3 Assignment drafts and review the originality report.

Submit Part 1 and Part 2 of Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 3

To submit your Assignment:

Weeks 2 and 3 Assignment

To go to the next week:

Module 3

Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 3: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

Your quest to purchase a new car begins with an identification of the factors important to you. As you conduct a search of cars that rate high on those factors, you collect evidence and try to understand the extent of that evidence. A report that suggests a certain make and model of automobile has high mileage is encouraging. But who produced that report? How valid is it? How was the data collected, and what was the sample size?

In this Assignment, you will delve deeper into clinical inquiry by closely examining your PICO(T) question. You also begin to analyze the evidence you have collected.

To Prepare:

  • Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry.
  • Develop a PICO(T) question to address the clinical issue of interest you identified in Module 2 for the Assignment. This PICOT question will remain the same for the entire course.
  • Use the key words from the PICO(T) question you developed and search at least four different databases in the Walden Library. Identify at least four relevant systematic reviews or other filtered high-level evidence, which includes meta-analyses, critically-appraised topics (evidence syntheses), critically-appraised individual articles (article synopses). The evidence will not necessarily address all the elements of your PICO(T) question, so select the most important concepts to search and find the best evidence available.
  • Reflect on the process of creating a PICO(T) question and searching for peer-reviewed research.

The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)

Part 3: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

Create a 6- to 7-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:

  • Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest.
  • Describe how you developed a PICO(T) question focused on your chosen clinical issue of interest.
  • Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected.
  • Provide APA citations of the four relevant peer-reviewed articles at the systematic-reviews level related to your research question. If there are no systematic review level articles or meta-analysis on your topic, then use the highest level of evidence peer reviewed article.
  • Describe the levels of evidence in each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, including an explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. Be specific and provide examples.

By Day 7 of Week 5

Submit Part 3 of your Evidence-Based Project.

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

  • Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK5Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
  • Click the Week 5 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
  • Click the Week 5 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
  • Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK5Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
  • If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
  • Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
  • Due to the nature of this assignment, your instructor may require more than 5 days to provide you with quality feedback.
Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 5 Assignment Rubric

Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity

To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:

Submit your Week 5 Assignment draft and review the originality report.

Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 5

To submit your Assignment:

Week 5 Assignment

To go to the next week:

Module 4

NURS 6052 Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 4: Critical Appraisal of Research

Realtors rely on detailed property appraisals—conducted using appraisal tools—to assign market values to houses and other properties. These values are then presented to buyers and sellers to set prices and initiate offers.

Research appraisal is not that different. The critical appraisal process utilizes formal appraisal tools to assess the results of research to determine value to the context at hand. Evidence-based practitioners often present these findings to make the case for specific courses of action.

In this Assignment, you will use an appraisal tool to conduct a critical appraisal of published research. You will then present the results of your efforts.

To Prepare:

  • Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and the four systematic reviews (or other filtered high- level evidence) you selected in Module 3.
  • Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and analyzed in Module 3.
  • Review and download the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template provided in the Resources.

The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)

Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research

Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected by completing the Evaluation Table within the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Choose a total of four peer- reviewed articles that you selected related to your clinical topic of interest in Module 2 and Module 3.

Note: You can choose any combination of articles from Modules 2 and 3 for your Critical Appraisal. For example, you may choose two unfiltered research articles from Module 2 and two filtered research articles (systematic reviews) from Module 3 or one article from Module 2 and three articles from Module 3. You can choose any combination of articles from the prior Module Assignments as long as both modules and types of studies are represented.

Part 4B: Critical Appraisal of Research

Based on your appraisal, in a 1-2-page critical appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research.

By Day 7 of Week 7

Submit Part 4A and 4B of your Evidence-Based Project.

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

  • Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK7Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
  • Click the Week 7 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
  • Click the Week 7 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
  • Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK7Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
  • If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
  • Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 7 Assignment Rubric

Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity

To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:

Submit your Week 7 Assignment draft and review the originality report.

Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 7

To submit your Assignment:

Week 7 Assignment

To go to the next week:

Module 5

Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 5: Recommending an Evidence-Based Practice Change

The collection of evidence is an activity that occurs with an endgame in mind. For example, law enforcement professionals collect evidence to support a decision to charge those accused of criminal activity. Similarly, evidence-based healthcare practitioners collect evidence to support decisions in pursuit of specific healthcare outcomes.

In this Assignment, you will identify an issue or opportunity for change within your healthcare organization and propose an idea for a change in practice supported by an EBP approach.

To Prepare:

  • Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you critically appraised in Module 4, related to your clinical topic of interest and PICOT.
  • Reflect on your current healthcare organization and think about potential opportunities for evidence-based change, using your topic of interest and PICOT as the basis for your reflection.

The Assignment: (Evidence-Based Project)

Part 5: Recommending an Evidence-Based Practice Change

Create an 8- to 9-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:

  • Briefly describe your healthcare organization, including its culture and readiness for change. (You may opt to keep various elements of this anonymous, such as your company name.)
  • Describe the current problem or opportunity for change. Include in this description the circumstances surrounding the need for change, the scope of the issue, the stakeholders involved, and the risks associated with change implementation in general.
  • Propose an evidence-based idea for a change in practice using an EBP approach to decision making. Note that you may find further research needs to be conducted if sufficient evidence is not discovered.
  • Describe your plan for knowledge transfer of this change, including knowledge creation, dissemination, and organizational adoption and implementation.
  • Describe the measurable outcomes you hope to achieve with the implementation of this evidence-based change.
  • Be sure to provide APA citations of the supporting evidence-based peer reviewed articles you selected to support your thinking.
  • Add a lessons learned section that includes the following:
    • A summary of the critical appraisal of the peer-reviewed articles you previously submitted
    • An explanation about what you learned from completing the Evaluation Table within the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template (1-3 slides)

By Day 7 of Week 9

Submit Part 5 of your Evidence-Based Project.

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

  • Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK9Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
  • Click the Week 9 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
  • Click the Week 9 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
  • Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK9Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
  • If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
  • Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
  • Due to the nature of this assignment, your instructor may require more than 5 days to provide you with quality feedback.
Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 9 Assignment Rubric

Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity

To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:

Submit your Week 9 Assignment draft and review the originality report.

Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 9

To submit your Assignment:

Week 9 Assignment

To go to the next week:

Module 6

The dissemination of EBP results serves multiple important roles. Sharing results makes the case for your decisions. It also adds to the body of knowledge, which creates opportunities for future practitioners. By presenting results, you also become an advocate for EBP, creating a culture within your organization or beyond that informs, educates, and promotes the effective use of EBP.

To Prepare:

  • Review the final PowerPoint presentation you submitted in Module 5, and make any necessary changes based on the feedback you have received and on lessons you have learned throughout the course.
  • Consider the best method of disseminating the results of your presentation to an audience.

To Complete:

Create a 5-minute, 5- to 6-slide narrated PowerPoint presentation of your Evidence-Based Project.

  • Be sure to incorporate any feedback or changes from your presentation submission in Module 5.
  • Explain how you would disseminate the results of your project to an audience. Provide a rationale for why you selected this dissemination strategy.

By Day 5 of Week 11

Submit Part 6, your revised PowerPoint presentation of your Evidence-Based Project.

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

  • Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK11Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
  • Click the Week 11 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
  • Click the Week 11 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
  • Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK11Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
  • If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
  • Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 11 Assignment Rubric

Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity

To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:

Submit your Week 11 Assignment draft and review the originality report.

Submit Your Assignment by Day 5 of Week 11

To submit your Assignment:

Week 11 Assignment

Congratulations! After you have finished all of the assignments for this Module, you have completed the course. Please submit your Course Evaluation by Day 7.

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6052_Module02_Week03_Assignment_Rubric

Grid View
List View

Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Part 1: An Introduction to Clinical Inquiry

Create a 4- to 5-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:

·   Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest.

·   Describe how you used keywords to search on your chosen clinical issue of interest.

·   Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected.

·   Provide APA citations of the four-peer reviewed articles you selected.

Points Range: 36 (36%) – 40 (40%)
The presentation clearly and accurately identifies and describes in detail the chosen clinical issue of interest.

The presentation accurately and thoroughly describes in detail how keywords were used to search on the chosen clinical issue of interest.

The presentation accurately and clearly identifies in detail four or more research databases that were used to conduct a search for selected peer-reviewed articles.

The presentation accurately provides APA citations of four or more peer-reviewed articles selected.

Points Range: 32 (32%) – 35 (35%)
The presentation accurately identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest.

The presentation accurately describes how keywords were used to search on the chosen clinical issue of interest.

The presentation accurately identifies at least four research databases that were used to conduct a search for selected peer-reviewed articles.

The presentation accurately provides APA citations of at least four peer-reviewed articles selected.

Points Range: 28 (28%) – 31 (31%)
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest.

The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes how keywords were used to search on the chosen clinical issue of interest.

The presentation inaccurately or vaguely identifies at least four research databases that were used to conduct a search for selected peer-reviewed articles.

The presentation inaccurately provides APA citations of the peer-reviewed articles selected.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 27 (27%)
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes how keywords were used to search on the chosen clinical issue of interest or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies less than four research databases that were used to conduct a search for selected peer-reviewed articles or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately provides APA citations of the peer-reviewed articles selected.
Part 2: Identifying Research Methodologies

After reading each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, use the Matrix Worksheet template to analyze the methodologies applied in each of the four peer-reviewed articles. Your analysis should include the following:

·  The full citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format.

·   A brief statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest, including a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest.

·   A brief description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article.

·  A brief description of the research methodology used. Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific.

Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
The response accurately and clearly provides a full citation of each article in APA format.

The responses accurately and thoroughly explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including a detailed explanation of the ethics of research.

The responses accurately and clearly describe the aims of the research.

The responses accurately and clearly describe the research methodology used, and clearly identify the type of methodology used with specific and relevant examples.

The responses accurately and clearly describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including a detailed explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the articles selected.

The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources related to the selection of articles and two or three course-specific resources.

Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
The response accurately provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format.

The responses accurately explain the selection of these peer-reviewed articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including an accurate explanation of ethics.

The responses accurately describe the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article.

The responses accurately describe the research methodology used and type of methodology used with some examples.

The responses accurately describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including an explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles selected.

The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource related to the selection of the peer-reviewed articles. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources.

Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
The response inaccurately or vaguely provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format.

The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including the explanation of the ethics.

The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the aims of the research of each article.

The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the research methodology used and the type of methodology used, with only some examples.

The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including the explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the articles selected.

The responses provided vaguely or inaccurately synthesize outside resources related to the selection of the articles. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
The response inaccurately and vaguely provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format or is missing.

The responses inaccurately and vaguely explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue, including the explanation of ethics of research, or they are missing.

The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the aims of the research, or they are missing.

The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the research methodology used, the type of methodology used with no examples present, or they are missing.

The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the strengths of each of the methodologies used, including the explanation of the reliability and validity of the methodology, or they are missing.

The responses provide a vague and inaccurate synthesis of outside resources related to the selection of the articles and fail to integrate any resources to support the responses provided, or is missing.
Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided, which delineates all required criteria.

Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria.

Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated but are brief and not descriptive.

Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time.

No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion is provided.
Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards:

Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.

Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6052_Module02_Week03_Assignment_Rubric