NURS 8114 Investigating a Critical Practice Question Through a Literature Review

NURS 8114 Investigating a Critical Practice Question Through a Literature Review

NURS 8114 Investigating a Critical Practice Question Through a Literature Review

Complete Parts 1 and 2 of your Assignment:

This week we are discussing our literature searches. The first step with conducting a literature search is refining the EBP question. To develop the EBP question, you must clearly define the practice problem and utilizing the PICO format to formulate your EBP question (Dang & Dearholt, 2021). Last week we refined our Evidence Based Practice question. My question went from a combined double question and was narrowed down to a more specific question: What evidence-based interventions have emerged in the literature in the last 10 years for reducing nurse burnout?  Refining your EBP practice question is essential to ensure you have the appropriate key words for your literature search.

As we discussed at the beginning of this course, time management, planning, and organization are all foundational to successfully completing a Doctorate degree. Literature searches take time. Blocking times to work on literature searches (and assignments) assists with completing these in a timely fashion.

Streamlining literature searches can be achieved through bookmarking the Walden Library Academic Guide page. This ensures you can readily access the library resources with a simple click of the mouse and are not wasting precious time trying to locate the landing page for the library repeatedly.

Although some resources are foundational, most of the literature should be within the past 5 years. Selecting the date range when searching from 2017 to 2021 and selecting peer reviewed articles can help to narrow down the results to the most relevant.

Understanding the differences in the types of articles you are pulling is also important. Primary and Secondary sources are different types of literature. Primary sources are the original research. Secondary sources are literature searches such as what we are conducting on our EBP practice questions to conduct a literature review (Walden University Library, n.d.-b).

When conducting a literature search, it is imperative to understand the differences in databases you are searching. For example, I commonly utilize the Thoreau Multi-Database Search. This search tool is not all inclusive, but it does help to quickly review several of the databases for relevant resources (Walden University Library, n.d.-a). There are approximately 15 different quality EBP databases that can be found in the Walden Library Databases which are specific for Nursing. These include ProQuest, CINAHL, Medline and Ovid Nursing Journals to name a few (Walden University Library, n.d.-a). In addition to these, The Cochrane Library and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) are also reliable EBP databases (Dang & Dearholt, 2017).

Keeping a record of the searches in Microsoft Word or in the database such as PubMed can save time and prevent duplication (Dang & Dearholt, 2017). Obtaining the full text is the next step in reviewing the literature and these can often be acquired through the Walden University Library free of charge.

When conducting a literature search, I sometimes have difficulty with selecting the most appropriate search term.  Sometimes I put in a search term that is too specific or detailed and this results in an empty search. Additionally, using a search term that is too broad can also cause too many results and make it difficult to find the appropriate resources. For example, if I just put in nurse burnout into the search, I am likely to find thousands of results. Using a Boolean phrase (also called a Boolean operator) such as AND, OR, and NOT can be beneficial to narrow topics or expand your literature search (Dang & Dearholt, 2017).

Google Scholar is a free resource that may be helpful and can be linked to our Walden University Library. Dang and Dearholt (2017) caution using Google Scholar as the sole research as journals may not be indexed and searches can vary daily, making replication difficult (Dang & Dearholt, 2017).

Part 1: Literature Review: Be sure you have completed all required sections of the template (PDF) document.
Part 2: Critical Assessment paper: Reflect on comments from colleagues in response to your Week 10 Discussion post. Apply feedback of value to you in completing your synthesis of evidence to inform a practice change initiative focusing on quality improvement.

Search-Based Questions- main post

The search for evidence to address a clinical issue is both a rewarding and daunting experience. Finding evidence that can improve patient outcomes and work environments is exciting. At the same time the shear mass of evidence that is uncovered leads to bewilderment on what exactly needs to be changed to reach the goal of best practice. As I search for evidence to support a practice change in my facility, I need to focus on a clear question and work toward answering that question with the evidence I find.

What is Working?

I have delved into the Walden library on previous occasions and am familiar with the search engines therein. The CIHNAHL and Medline combined search engine tends to be my favorite as it is easy to use and results in a myriad of relevant articles. Boolean operators and specific search parameters have enabled me to pin down articles that best fit my critical question of “How can incident reporting systems be used to create a stronger culture of patient safety within the hospital setting?” By searching Culture of safety and incident reporting, I was able to find a plethora of appropriate articles. I have been able to further whittle the results down by clarifying parameters to include only peer reviewed articles published since 2018. Reading the summaries of the resulting studies has allowed me to find articles most suited to answer my question.

Challenges and Concerns

The challenge I am facing is in reading those articles with a critical eye on how this information can be utilized to change the safety culture of my facility. Is this article relevant to the needs of and resources available to my hospital? I am also plagued with the doubt that I am not asking the right question. When I was presented with this clinical, I only had a vague idea of what was needed. As I have conducted my literature search, I have come across so much information that it is hard to find a focus. Do I concentrate on educational methods to overcome the barriers to incident reporting or is it better to focus on providing timely responses to reported incidents? Ultimately, to find my aim, I need to consult with management. They can help steer me in the direction that will yield the needed results.

 Conclusion

Overall, I feel that the research is going well. I have found many articles and studies that will help with a practice change proposal. Once I am able to focus the goal of my search, I am confident that I will be able to make a positive change in my facility’s safety of patient culture.

Photo Credit: [Steve Hix/Fuse]/[None]/Getty Images

Reminder: The College of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references. The Sample Paper provided at the Walden Writing Center provides an example of those required elements (available at https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templates/general#s-lg-box-20293632). All papers submitted must use this formatting.

By Day 7 of Week 10

Submit Parts 1 and 2 of your Assignment.

Submission and Grading Information

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

Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “M4Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
Click the Module 4 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
Click the Module 4 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 “M4Assgn+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 here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:NURS 8114 Investigating a Critical Practice Question Through a Literature Review

Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Module 4 Assignment Rubric

Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity

To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:

Submit your Module 4 Assignment draft and review the originality report.

Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 10

To participate in this Assignment:

Module 4 Assignment

What’s Coming Up in Module 5!

Photo Credit: [BrianAJackson]/[iStock / Getty Images Plus]/Getty Images

In the next module, you will wrap up the course with a 1-week focus on challenges and opportunities as a DNP to advocate for quality improvement by leading practice change initiatives. Prepare to inspire colleagues and be inspired as you look ahead to beginning your DNP Project in the future.

NURS 8114 Investigating a Critical Practice Question Through a Literature Review

Next Module

To go to the next module:

Module 5

Name: NURS_8114_Module4_Assignment_Rubric

Grid View
List View

Excellent

90%–100%

Good

80%–89%

Fair

70%–79%

Poor

0%–69%

The Assignment:
Part 1: Literature Review of at least 10 scholarly articles:

• Using the Walden Library as your source, search to select at least 10 scholarly articles that represent current literature (i.e., published within the previous 5 years) with evidence that addresses your critical question and could inform a practice change initiative for quality improvement. Using the Individual Evidence Summary Tool template document, complete all sections for each article.

Points Range: 90 (45%) – 100 (50%)
The response uses the Individual Evidence Summary Tool template to clearly, accurately, and in detail complete all sections for at least 10 scholarly articles with evidence that addresses your critical question and could inform a practice change initiative for quality improvement.

Points Range: 80 (40%) – 89 (44.5%)
The response uses the Individual Evidence Summary Tool template to clearly and accurately complete all sections for at least 10 scholarly articles with evidence that addresses your critical question and could inform a practice change initiative for quality improvement. There may be a few minor errors in the document.

Points Range: 70 (35%) – 79 (39.5%)
The response uses the Individual Evidence Summary Tool template to complete most sections for 10 or fewer scholarly articles with evidence that vaguely or somewhat addresses your critical question and could inform a practice change initiative for quality improvement. There are several errors throughout the document.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 69 (34.5%)
The response is an incomplete use of the Individual Evidence Summary Tool template with fewer than 10 scholarly articles, a substantial number of missing sections and inaccuracies and vague, inaccurate, and/or missing evidence in some to most articles addressing your critical question and informing a practice change initiative for quality improvement.
The Assignment:
Part 2: Critical Assessment

In a paper of at least 7 pages, plus cover page and references page, include the following:

• Write a critical assessment of your search outcomes that synthesizes the evidence from your literature review.

Points Range: 36 (18%) – 40 (20%)
The response provides a clear, accurate, and detailed assessment of your search outcomes that fully synthesizes the evidence from your literature review.

Points Range: 32 (16%) – 35 (17.5%)
The response provides a clear and accurate assessment of your search outcomes that synthesizes the evidence from your literature review.

Points Range: 28 (14%) – 31 (15.5%)
The response provides a vague and/or inaccurate assessment of your search outcomes that somewhat synthesizes the evidence from your literature review.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 27 (13.5%)
The response provides a vague, inaccurate, or missing assessment of your search outcomes that minimally or fails to synthesize the evidence from your literature review.
• Demonstrate clear connections between the practice problem that informs your critical question, your appraisal of evidence that addresses the critical question, and resulting clarification on the need for a practice change initiative focusing on quality improvement. Be specific and provide examples.

Points Range: 40 (20%) – 45 (22.5%)

The response clearly, accurately, and in detail demonstrates connections between the practice problem that informs your critical question, your appraisal of evidence that addresses the critical question, and resulting clarification on the need for a practice change initiative focusing on quality improvement.

The response fully synthesizes and integrates at least four scholarly resources that fully support the connections provided.

Points Range: 40 (20%) – 44 (22%)

The response clearly and accurately demonstrates connections between the practice problem that informs your critical question, your appraisal of evidence that addresses the critical question, and resulting clarification on the need for a practice change initiative focusing on quality improvement.

The response synthesizes and integrates at least three scholarly resources that support the connections provided.

Points Range: 35 (17.5%) – 39 (19.5%)

The response vaguely or inaccurately demonstrates connections between the practice problem that informs your critical question, and/or your appraisal of evidence that addresses the critical question, and/or resulting clarification on the need for a practice change initiative focusing on quality improvement.

The response somewhat synthesizes and integrates three scholarly resources that may support the connections provided.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (17%)

The response vaguely and inaccurately demonstrates, and/or is missing connections between the practice problem that informs your critical question, and/or your appraisal of evidence that addresses the critical question, and/or resulting clarification on the need for a practice change initiative focusing on quality improvement.

The response minimally and/or inaccurately synthesizes and integrates one or two scholarly resources, or resources are not scholarly, or are missing.

Written Expression and Formatting: Paragraph/
Sentence Structure
Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are clearly structured and carefully focused–neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance.

Points Range: 5 (2.5%) – 5 (2.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity, and clarity.

Points Range: 4 (2%) – 4 (2%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Points Range: 3 (1.5%) – 3 (1.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (1%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.
Written Expression and Formatting: English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.

Points Range: 5 (2.5%) – 5 (2.5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

Points Range: 4 (2%) – 4 (2%)
Contains a few (1–2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

Points Range: 3.5 (1.75%) – 3.5 (1.75%)
Contains several (3–4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (1.5%)
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
Written Expression and Formatting: The assignment contains parenthetical/in-text citations, and at least 10 evidence-based references are listed.

Points Range: 5 (2.5%) – 5 (2.5%)
Contains parenthetical/in-text citations and at least 10 evidence-based references are listed.

Points Range: 4 (2%) – 4 (2%)
Contains parenthetical/in-text citations and 10 evidence-based references are listed.

Points Range: 3.5 (1.75%) – 3.5 (1.75%)
Contains parenthetical/in-text citations and fewer than 10 evidence-based references are listed.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (1.5%)
Contains no parenthetical/in-text citations and significantly fewer than 10 evidence-based references are listed, or there is no references page.

Total Points: 200