NURS 6052 Full Course Discussions & Assignments (Week 1-11)
NURS 6052 Full Course Discussions & Assignments (Week 1-11)
NURS 6052 Module 01 Week 01 Discussion: Where in the World Is Evidence-Based Practice?
March 21, 2010, was not EBP’s date of birth, but it may be the date the approach “grew up” and left home to take on the world.
When the Affordable Care Act was passed, it came with a requirement of empirical evidence. Research on EBP increased significantly. Application of EBP spread to allied health professions, education, healthcare technology, and more. Health organizations began to adopt and promote EBP.
ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE NURS 6052 Full Course Discussions & Assignments (Week 1-11) HERE
Good News For Our New customers . We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us
In this Discussion, you will consider this adoption. You will examine healthcare organization websites and analyze to what extent these organizations use EBP.
Struggling to meet your deadline ?
Get assistance on
NURS 6052 Full Course Discussions & Assignments (Week 1-11)
done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!
Resources
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
WEEKLY RESOURCES
Learning Resources
Required Readings
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2023). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (5th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Chapter 1, “Making the Case for Evidence-Based Practice and Cultivating a Spirit of Inquiry” (pp. 7–36
Boller, J. (2017). Nurse educators: Leading health care to the quadruple aim sweet spot.
Links to an external site. Journal of Nursing Education, 56(12), 707–708. doi:10.3928/01484834-20171120-01
Crabtree, E., Brennan, E., Davis, A., & Coyle, A. (2016). Improving patient care through nursing engagement in evidence-based practice
Links to an external site.. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 13(2), 172–175. doi:10.1111/wvn.12126
Kim, S. C., Stichler, J. F., Ecoff, L., Brown, C. E., Gallo, A.-M., & Davidson, J. E. (2016). Predictors of evidence-based practice implementation, job satisfaction, and group cohesion among regional fellowship program participants
Links to an external site.. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 13(5), 340–348. doi:10.1111/wvn.12171
Melnyk, B.M., Fineout-Overhold, E., Stillwell, S.B., & Williamson, K.M. (2010). Evidence-based practice step-by-step: The seven steps of evidence-based practice
Links to an external site.. American Journal of Nursing, 110(1), 51-53.
Melnyk, B. M., Gallagher-Ford, L., Long, L. E., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2014). The establishment of evidence-based practice competencies for practicing registered nurses and advanced practice nurses in real-world clinical settings: Proficiencies to improve healthcare quality, reliability, patient outcomes, and costs
Links to an external site.. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 11(1), 5–15. doi:10.1111/wvn.12021
Sikka, R., Morath, J. M., & Leape, L. (2015). The Quadruple Aim: Care, health, cost and meaning in work
Links to an external site.. BMJ Quality & Safety, 24, 608–610. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004160
Walden University Library. (n.d.-a).Databases A-Z: Nursing
Links to an external site.. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981
Required Media
Walden University, LLC. (Producer). (2018). Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice and Research [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
To Prepare:
Review the Resources and reflect on the definition and goal of EBP.
Choose a professional healthcare organization’s website (e.g., a reimbursing body, an accredited body, or a national initiative).
Explore the website to determine where and to what extent EBP is evident.
By Day 3 of Week 1
Post a description of the healthcare organization website you reviewed. Describe where, if at all, EBP appears (e.g., the mission, vision, philosophy, and/or goals of the healthcare organization, or in other locations on the website). Then, explain whether this healthcare organization’s work is grounded in EBP and why or why not. Finally, explain whether the information you discovered on the healthcare organization’s website has changed your perception of the healthcare organization. Be specific and provide examples.
By Day 6 of Week 1
Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days by visiting the websites they shared and offering additional examples of EBP or alternative views/interpretations to those shared in your colleagues’ posts.
Search entries or author Filter replies by unread
NURS_6052_Module01_Week01_Discussion_Rubric
NURS_6052_Module01_Week01_Discussion_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Main Posting
50 to >44.0 pts
Excellent
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. … Supported by at least three current, credible sources. … Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
44 to >39.0 pts
Good
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. … At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. … Supported by at least three credible sources. … Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
39 to >34.0 pts
Fair
Responds to some of the discussion question(s). …One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. … Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. … Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. … Post is cited with two credible sources. … Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. … Contains some APA formatting errors.
34 to >0 pts
Poor
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately. … Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. … Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. … Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. … Contains only one or no credible sources. … Not written clearly or concisely. … Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. … Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
50 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Main Post: Timeliness
10 to >0.0 pts
Excellent
Posts main post by day 3.
0 pts
Poor
Does not post by day 3.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome First Response
18 to >16.0 pts
Excellent
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. …Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. … Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. … Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. …Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. …Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. … Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
16 to >14.0 pts
Good
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. … Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. … Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. … Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. … Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
14 to >12.0 pts
Fair
Response is on topic and may have some depth. … Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. … Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. … Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
12 to >0 pts
Poor
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. … Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. … Responses to faculty questions are missing. …No credible sources are cited.
18 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Second Response
17 to >15.0 pts
Excellent
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. …Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. … Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. … Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. … Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. … Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. … Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
15 to >13.0 pts
Good
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. … Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. … Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. … Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. … Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
13 to >11.0 pts
Fair
Response is on topic and may have some depth. … Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. … Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. … Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
11 to >0 pts
Poor
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. … Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. … Responses to faculty questions are missing. … No credible sources are cited.
17 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Participation
5 to >0.0 pts
Excellent
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
0 pts
Poor
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
5 pts
Total Points: 100
NURS 6052 Module 01 Week 01 Assignment: Evidence-Based Practice and the Quadruple Aim
Healthcare organizations continually seek to optimize healthcare performance. For years, this approach was a three-pronged one known as the Triple Aim, with efforts focused on improved population health, enhanced patient experience, and lower healthcare costs.
More recently, this approach has evolved to a Quadruple Aim by including a focus on improving the work life of healthcare providers. Each of these measures are impacted by decisions made at the organizational level, and organizations have increasingly turned to EBP to inform and justify these decisions.
Resources
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
WEEKLY RESOURCES
Learning Resources
Required Readings
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2023). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (5th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Chapter 1, “Making the Case for Evidence-Based Practice and Cultivating a Spirit of Inquiry” (pp. 7–36
Boller, J. (2017). Nurse educators: Leading health care to the quadruple aim sweet spot.
Links to an external site. Journal of Nursing Education, 56(12), 707–708. doi:10.3928/01484834-20171120-01
Crabtree, E., Brennan, E., Davis, A., & Coyle, A. (2016). Improving patient care through nursing engagement in evidence-based practice
Links to an external site.. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 13(2), 172–175. doi:10.1111/wvn.12126
Kim, S. C., Stichler, J. F., Ecoff, L., Brown, C. E., Gallo, A.-M., & Davidson, J. E. (2016). Predictors of evidence-based practice implementation, job satisfaction, and group cohesion among regional fellowship program participants
Links to an external site.. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 13(5), 340–348. doi:10.1111/wvn.12171
Melnyk, B.M., Fineout-Overhold, E., Stillwell, S.B., & Williamson, K.M. (2010). Evidence-based practice step-by-step: The seven steps of evidence-based practice
Links to an external site.. American Journal of Nursing, 110(1), 51-53.
Melnyk, B. M., Gallagher-Ford, L., Long, L. E., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2014). The establishment of evidence-based practice competencies for practicing registered nurses and advanced practice nurses in real-world clinical settings: Proficiencies to improve healthcare quality, reliability, patient outcomes, and costs
Links to an external site.. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 11(1), 5–15. doi:10.1111/wvn.12021
Sikka, R., Morath, J. M., & Leape, L. (2015). The Quadruple Aim: Care, health, cost and meaning in work
Links to an external site.. BMJ Quality & Safety, 24, 608–610. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004160
Walden University Library. (n.d.-a).Databases A-Z: Nursing
Links to an external site.. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981
Required Media
Walden University, LLC. (Producer). (2018). Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice and Research [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
To Prepare:
Read the articles by Sikka, Morath, & Leape (2015); Crabtree, Brennan, Davis, & Coyle (2016); and Kim et al. (2016) provided in the Resources.
Reflect on how EBP might impact (or not impact) the Quadruple Aim in healthcare.
Consider the impact that EBP may have on factors impacting these quadruple aim elements, such as preventable medical errors or healthcare delivery.
To Complete:
Write a brief analysis (no longer than 2 pages) of the connection between EBP and the Quadruple Aim.
Your analysis should address how EBP might (or might not) help reach the Quadruple Aim, including each of the four measures of:
Patient experience
Population health
Costs
Work life of healthcare providers
By Day 7 of Week 1
Submit your anaylsis.
submission information
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.
To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as MD1Assgn+last name+first initial
Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.
Rubric
NURS_6052_Module01_Week01_Assignment_Rubric
NURS_6052_Module01_Week01_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Write a brief analysis of the connection between evidence-based practice and the Quadruple Aim. Your analysis should address how evidence-based practice might (or might not) help reach the Quadruple Aim, including each of the four measures of:· Patient experience· Population health· Costs· Work life of healthcare providers
85 to >76.0 pts
Excellent
The analysis clearly and accurately addresses in detail how evidence-based practice either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim. … The analysis accurately and thoroughly explains in detail how the four measures of patient experience, population health, costs, and work-life of healthcare providers either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim. … The analysis provides a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources reviewed on the four measures supporting or not supporting the Quadruple Aim. The response fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the analysis provided with credible and detailed examples.
76 to >67.0 pts
Good
The analysis accurately addresses how evidence-based practice either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim. … The analysis accurately explains how the four measures of patient experience, population health, and work life of healthcare providers either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim. … The analysis provides an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource reviewed on the four measures supporting or not supporting the Quadruple Aim. The response integrates at least 1 outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the analysis provided and may include some detailed examples.
67 to >59.0 pts
Fair
The analysis inaccurately or vaguely addresses how evidence-based practice either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim. … The analysis inaccurately or vaguely explains how the four measures of patient experience, population health, and work life of healthcare providers either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim. … The analysis provides an inaccurate or vague analysis of the four measures supporting or not supporting the Quadruple Aim with a vague or inaccurate analysis of outside resources. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the analysis provided and may include vague or inaccurate examples.
59 to >0 pts
Poor
The analysis inaccurately and vaguely addresses how evidence-based practice either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim or is missing. … The analysis inaccurately and vaguely explains how the four measures of patient experience, population health, and work life of healthcare providers either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim or is missing. … The analysis provides a vague and inaccurate analysis of the four measures supporting or not supporting the Quadruple Aim with a vague and inaccurate analysis of outside resources. The response fails to integrate any resources to support the analysis provided or is missing.
85 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 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.
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. … A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.
4 to >3.5 pts
Good
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. … Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated yet is brief and not descriptive.
3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair
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.
3 to >0 pts
Poor
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. … No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards:Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
4 to >3.5 pts
Good
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Written Expression and Formatting—The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
4 to >3.5 pts
Good
Contains a few (one or two) APA format errors.
3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (three or four) APA format errors.
3 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (five or more) APA format errors.
5 pts
Total Points: 100
NURS 6052 MODULE 02 WEEK 03 ASSIGNMENT: EVIDENCE-BASED PROJECT, PART 1: IDENTIFYING RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES
Is there a difference between “ common practice€ and “ best practice€?
When you first went to work for your current organization, experienced colleagues may have shared with you details about processes and procedures. Perhaps you even attended an orientation session to brief you on these matters. As a “rookie,†you likely kept the nature of your questions to those with answers that would best help you perform your new role.
Over time and with experience, perhaps you recognized aspects of these processes and procedures that you wanted to question further. This is the realm of clinical inquiry.
Clinical inquiry is the practice of asking questions about clinical practice. To continuously improve patient care, all nurses should consistently use clinical inquiry to question why they are doing something the way they are doing it. Do they know why it is done this way, or is it just because we have always done it this way? Is it a common practice or a best practice?
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.
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
WEEKLY RESOURCES
 LEARNING RESOURCES
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
Links to an external site.
, 26, 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Hoare, Z., & Hoe, J. (2013). Understanding quantitative research: Part 2. Nursing Standard
Links to an external site.
, 27(18), 48–55. doi:10.7748/ns2013.01.27.18.48.c9488
Hoe, J., & Hoare, Z. (2012). Understanding quantitative research: Part 1. Nursing Standard
Links to an external site.
, 27(15), 52–57. doi:10.7748/ns2012.12.27.15.52.c9485
Walden University Library. (n.d.-a). Databases A-Z: Nursing
Links to an external site.
. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981
Walden University Library. (n.d.-b). Evaluating resources: Primary & secondary sources
Links to an external site.
Links to an external site.
Retrieved January 22, 2020, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/evaluating/sources
Walden University Library. (n.d.-f). Keyword searching: Finding articles on your topic: Boolean terms.
Links to an external site.
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
Links to an external site.
. 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?
Links to an external site.
Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicanswers.waldenu.edu/faq/73299
Document: Matrix Worksheet Template (Word Document)
Download Document: Matrix Worksheet Template (Word Document)
Required Media
Centers for Research Quality. (2015a, August 13). Overview of qualitative research methods
Links to an external site.
[Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/IsAUNs-IoSQ
Centers for Research Quality. (2015b, August 13).Overview of quantitative research methods
Links to an external site.
[Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/cwU8as9ZNlA
Walden University, LLC. (Producer). (2018). Review of research: Anatomy of a research study
Links to an external site.
[Mutlimedia file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Schulich Library McGill. (2017, June 6). Types of reviews
Links to an external site.
[Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/5Rv9z7Mp4kg
To Prepare:
Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry. Keep in mind that the clinical issue you identify for your research will stay the same for the entire course.
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: 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 your Evidence-Based Project.
SUBMISSION INFORMATION
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.
To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as MD2Assgn+last name+first initial
Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.
Rubric
NURS_6052_Module02_Week03_Assignment_Rubric
NURS_6052_Module02_Week03_Assignment_Rubric
CriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Part 1: 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 article. 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 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.90 to >80.0 pts
Excellent
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.
80 to >71.0 pts
Good
The response accurately provides a full citation of each article in APA format. …The responses accurately 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 describe the aims of the research. …The responses accurately describe the research methodology used, and clearly identify the type of methodology used with specific and relevant examples. …The responses accurately 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.
71 to >62.0 pts
Fair
The response provides incomplete or inaccurate citations 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.
62 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format or is missing. …The responses inaccurately & 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.
90 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Resource Synthesis5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
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 in addition to the four articles reviewed in the matrix.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource related to the selection of articles. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources in addition to the four articles reviewed in the matrix.
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
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 in addition to the four articles reviewed in the matrix.
2 to >0 pts
Poor
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 synthesis is missing.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3 pts
Fair
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
5 pts
Total Points: 100
Previous
Next
NURS 6052 MODULE 03 WEEK 04 DISCUSSION: SEARCHING DATABASES
When you decide to purchase a new car, you first decide what is important to you. If mileage and dependability are the important factors, you will search for data focused more on these factors and less on color options and sound systems.
The same holds true when searching for research evidence to guide your clinical inquiry and professional decisions. Developing a formula for an answerable, researchable question that addresses your need will make the search process much more effective. One such formula is the PICO(T) format.
In this Discussion, you will transform a clinical inquiry into a searchable question in PICO(T) format, so you can search the electronic databases more effectively and efficiently. You will share this PICO(T) question and examine strategies you might use to increase the rigor and effectiveness of a database search on your PICO(T) question.
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
WEEKLY RESOURCES
LEARNING RESOURCES
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 3, “Finding Relevant Evidence to Answer Clinical Questions†(pp. 55–92)
Davies, K. S. (2011). Formulating the evidence based practice question: A review of the frameworks
Links to an external site.
for LIS professionals. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6(2), 75–80.
Library of Congress. (n.d.). Search/browse help – Boolean operators and nesting
Links to an external site.
. Retrieved September 19, 2018, from https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/ui/en_US/htdocs/help/searchBoolean.html
Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Williamson, K. M. (2010). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Asking the clinical question: A key step in evidence-based practice.
Links to an external site.
American Journal of Nursing, 110(3), 58–61.
Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2009).Evidence-based practice: Step by step: Igniting a spirit of inquiry
Links to an external site.
Links to an external site.
American Journal of Nursing, 109(11), 49–52. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000363354.53883.58
Stillwell, S.B., Fineout-Overhold, E., Melnyk, B.M., & Williamson, K.M. (2010). Evidence-based practice step-by-step: Searching for evidence.
Links to an external site.
American Journal of Nursing, 110(5), 41-47.
Walden University Library. (n.d.-a). Databases A-Z: Nursing
Links to an external site.
. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981
Walden University Library. (n.d.-c).Evidence-based practice research: CINAHL search help
Links to an external site.
. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/cinahlsearchhelp
Walden University Library. (n.d.-d). Evidence-based practice research: Joanna Briggs Institute search help
Links to an external site.
. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/jbisearchhelp
Walden University Library. (n.d.-e). Evidence-based practice research: MEDLINE search help
Links to an external site.
. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/medlinesearchhelp
Walden University Library. (n.d.-f). Keyword searching: Finding articles on your topic: Boolean terms
Links to an external site.
. 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
Links to an external site.
. Retrieved September 19, 2018, from http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/keyword/searching-basics
Walden University Library. (n.d.-h). Quick Answers: How do I find a systematic review article related to health, medicine, or nursing?
Links to an external site.
Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicanswers.waldenu.edu/faq/72670
Walden University Library. (n.d.-i). Systematic review.
Links to an external site.
Retrieved January 22, 2020, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/types#s-lg-box-1520654
Required Media
Walden University, LLC. (Producer). (2018). Searching the Evidence [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
To Prepare:
Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry.
Review the materials offering guidance on using databases, performing keyword searches, and developing PICO(T) questions provided in the Resources.
Based on the clinical issue of interest and using keywords related to the clinical issue of interest, search at least two 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 Resources for guidance and develop a PICO(T) question of interest to you for further study. It is suggested that an Intervention-type PICOT question be developed as these seem to work best for this course.
*Library tip:
Walden Library recommends starting your search broadly with one concept or search word and adding more elements one at a time. Depending on your topic, the evidence will not necessarily address all the aspects of your PICO(T) question in one article. Select the most important concepts to search and find the best evidence available, even if that means assembling evidence from multiple articles.
Nursing Research Page
Links to an external site.
– databases and resources specifically for Nursing
Evidence-Based Practice guide: Evidence Types
Links to an external site.
Nursing and Health research videos
Links to an external site.
, including a 15-minute introduction
Get Help
Links to an external site.
page, including Ask a Librarian
Links to an external site.
service
Quick Answers:
How do I find an article that reports on research that uses a specific methodology?
Links to an external site.
How do I find original or primary research that analyzes empirical data?
Links to an external site.
What is the Find at Walden button?
Links to an external site.
BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 4
Post a brief description of your 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 your search results in terms of the number of articles returned on original research and how this changed as you added search terms using your Boolean operators. Finally, explain strategies you might make to increase the rigor and effectiveness of a database search on your PICO(T) question. Be specific and provide examples.
BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 4
Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days and provide further suggestions on how their database search might be improved.
NURS_6052_Module03_Week04_Discussion_Rubric
NURS_6052_Module03_Week04_Discussion_Rubric
CriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Main Posting50 to >44.0 pts
Excellent
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. … Supported by at least three current, credible sources. … Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
44 to >39.0 pts
Good
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. … At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. … Supported by at least three credible sources. … Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
39 to >34.0 pts
Fair
Responds to some of the discussion question(s). … One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. … Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. … Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. … Post is cited with two credible sources. … Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. … Contains some APA formatting errors.
34 to >0 pts
Poor
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately. … Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. … Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. … Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. … Contains only one or no credible sources. … Not written clearly or concisely. … Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. … Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
50 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Main Post: Timeliness10 to >0.0 pts
Excellent
Posts main post by day 3.
0 pts
Poor
Does not post by day 3.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
First Response18 to >16.0 pts
Excellent
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. … Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. … Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. … Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. … Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. … Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. … Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
16 to >14.0 pts
Good
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. … Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. … Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. … Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. … Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
14 to >12.0 pts
Fair
Response is on topic and may have some depth. … Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. … Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. …Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
12 to >0 pts
Poor
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. …Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. … Responses to faculty questions are missing. … No credible sources are cited.
18 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Second Response17 to >15.0 pts
Excellent
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. … Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. … Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. … Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. … Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. … Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. … Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
15 to >13.0 pts
Good
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. … Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. … Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. … Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. … Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
13 to >11.0 pts
Fair
Response is on topic and may have some depth. … Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. … Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. … Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
11 to >0 pts
Poor
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. … Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. … Responses to faculty questions are missing. … No credible sources are cited.
17 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Participation5 to >0.0 pts
Excellent
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
0 pts
Poor
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
5 pts
Total Points: 100
NURS 6052 MODULE 3 WEEK 05 ASSIGNMENT: EVIDENCE-BASED PROJECT, PART 2: 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.
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
WEEKLY RESOURCES
 LEARNING RESOURCES
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 3, “Finding Relevant Evidence to Answer Clinical Questions†(pp. 55–92)
Davies, K. S. (2011). Formulating the evidence based practice question: A review of the frameworks
Links to an external site.
for LIS professionals. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6(2), 75–80.
Library of Congress. (n.d.). Search/browse help – Boolean operators and nesting
Links to an external site.
. Retrieved September 19, 2018, from https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/ui/en_US/htdocs/help/searchBoolean.html
Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Williamson, K. M. (2010). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Asking the clinical question: A key step in evidence-based practice.
Links to an external site.
American Journal of Nursing, 110(3), 58–61.
Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2009).Evidence-based practice: Step by step: Igniting a spirit of inquiry
Links to an external site.
Links to an external site.
American Journal of Nursing, 109(11), 49–52. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000363354.53883.58
Stillwell, S.B., Fineout-Overhold, E., Melnyk, B.M., & Williamson, K.M. (2010). Evidence-based practice step-by-step: Searching for evidence.
Links to an external site.
American Journal of Nursing, 110(5), 41-47.
Walden University Library. (n.d.-a). Databases A-Z: Nursing
Links to an external site.
. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981
Walden University Library. (n.d.-c).Evidence-based practice research: CINAHL search help
Links to an external site.
. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/cinahlsearchhelp
Walden University Library. (n.d.-d). Evidence-based practice research: Joanna Briggs Institute search help
Links to an external site.
. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/jbisearchhelp
Walden University Library. (n.d.-e). Evidence-based practice research: MEDLINE search help
Links to an external site.
. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/medlinesearchhelp
Walden University Library. (n.d.-f). Keyword searching: Finding articles on your topic: Boolean terms
Links to an external site.
. 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
Links to an external site.
. Retrieved September 19, 2018, from http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/keyword/searching-basics
Walden University Library. (n.d.-h). Quick Answers: How do I find a systematic review article related to health, medicine, or nursing?
Links to an external site.
Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicanswers.waldenu.edu/faq/72670
Walden University Library. (n.d.-i). Systematic review.
Links to an external site.
Retrieved January 22, 2020, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/types#s-lg-box-1520654
Required Media
Walden University, LLC. (Producer). (2018). Searching the Evidence [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
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 2: 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 2 of your Evidence-Based Project.
SUBMISSION INFORMATION
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.
To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as MD3Assgn+last name+first initial
Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.
Rubric
NURS_6052_Module03_Week05_Assignment_Rubric
NURS_6052_Module03_Week05_Assignment_Rubric
CriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Part 2: 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. · 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.80 to >71.0 pts
Excellent
The presentation clearly and accurately identifies and describes in detail the chosen clinical issue of interest. …The presentation clearly and accurately describes in detail the developed PICO(T) question. …The presentation clearly and accurately identifies four or more research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected. …The presentation includes specific and relevant examples that fully support the research. …The presentation provides a complete, detailed, and accurate synthesis of two outside resources related to the peer-reviewed articles selected, and fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the presentation.
71 to >63.0 pts
Good
The presentation accurately identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest. …The presentation accurately describes the developed PICO(T) question focused on the chosen clinical issue of interest. …The presentation accurately identifies at least four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected. …The presentation includes relevant examples that support the research presented.
63 to >55.0 pts
Fair
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest. …The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes the developed PICO(T) question focused on the chosen clinical issue of interest. …The presentation inaccurately or vaguely identifies at least four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected. …The presentation includes inaccurate or vague examples to support the research presented.
55 to >0 pts
Poor
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest or is missing. …The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes the developed PICO(T) question or is missing. …The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies less than four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected or is missing. …The presentation includes inaccurate and vague examples to support the research presented or is missing.
80 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Resource Synthesis5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Using proper in-text citations, the presentation clearly and accurately provides at least four peer-reviewed systematic review type articles selected, describes the levels of evidence in each of the four articles selected, including a thorough and detailed explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Using proper in-text citations, the presentation accurately provides at least four systematic review type peer-reviewed articles selected including adequate explanation of the levels of evidence, the strengths of using a systematic review for
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Using proper in-text citations, the presentation provides a vague or inaccurate synthesis or outside resources related to the systematic review type peer-reviewed articles selected. The response minimally explains the levels of evidence and the strengths of using a systematic review and/or minimally integrates resources that may support the presentation.
2 to >0 pts
Poor
The presentation provides a vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources related to the articles selected and fails to integrate any resources to support the presentation or is missing.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Resource FormattingAppropriate peer-reviewed articles are included and citations use APA format.5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Presentation includes 4 or more peer-reviewed articles selected using systematic reviews for clinical research. …Citations use correct APA format with no errors.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Presentation includes 3 peer-reviewed articles selected using systematic reviews for clinical research. …Citations use correct APA format with few (1-2) errors.
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Presentation includes 2 peer-reviewed articles selected using systematic reviews for clinical research. …Citations contain several (3-4) APA format errors.
2 to >0 pts
Poor
Presentation includes 1 or no resources. … Citations contain many >5 APA format errors.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
PowerPoint Presentation:The presentation is professional; images are appropriately attributed; images are clear. The presentation text is readable. Presentation flows well and is presented in a logical order.5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
The presentation is professional; images are appropriately attributed; images are clear. The presentation text is readable. Presentation flows well and is presented in a logical order.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Eighty percent of the presentation is professional; images are appropriately attributed; images are clear. The presentation text is readable. Presentation flows well and is presented in a logical order.
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Sixty to seventy nine percent of the presentation follows these guidelines: presentation is professional; images are appropriately attributed; images are clear. The presentation text is readable. Presentation flows well and is presented in a logical order.
2 to >0 pts
Poor
Less than sixty percent of the presentation follows these guidelines: presentation is professional; images are appropriately attributed; images are clear. The presentation text is readable. Presentation flows well and is presented in a logical order.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards:Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
2 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
5 pts
Total Points: 100
Previous
Next
ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE NURS 6052 Full Course Discussions & Assignments (Week 1-11) HERE
NURS 6052 Module 04 Week 07 Assignment: EVIDENCE-BASED PROJECT, PART 3: 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.
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
WEEKLY RESOURCES
 LEARNING RESOURCES
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 5, “Critically Appraising Quantitative Evidence for Clinical Decision Making†(pp. 124–188)
Chapter 6, “Critically Appraising Qualitative Evidence for Clinical Decision Making†(pp. 189–218)
Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010). Evidence-based practice step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part I. American Journal of Nursing
Links to an external site.
, 110(7), 47–52. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000383935.22721.9c
Fineout-Overhold, E., Melnyk, B.M., Stillwell, S.B., & Williamson, K.M. (2010). Evidence-based practice step-by-step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part II. American Journal of Nursing
Links to an external site.
, 110(7), 47-52
Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B., Stillwell, S., & Williamson, K. (2010). Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part III the process of synthesis: Seeing similarities and differences across the body of evidence.American Journal of Nursing
Links to an external site.
, 110(11), 43-51. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000390523.99066.b5
Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Critical appraisal of qualitative evidence. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association
Links to an external site.
, 15(3), 202–207. doi:10.1177/1078390309338733
Document: Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template (Word document)
Download Document: Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template (Word document)
Required Media
Walden University, LLC. (Producer). (2018). Appraising the Research [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Walden University, LLC. (Producer). (2018). Interpreting Statistics [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Walden University, LLC. (Producer). (2018). Review of research: Hierarchy of evidence pyramid
Links to an external site.
[Mutlimedia file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Schulich Library McGill. (2017, June 6). Types of reviews
Links to an external site.
[Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/5Rv9z7Mp4kg
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 3A: 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 3B: 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 3A and 3B of your Evidence-Based Project.
SUBMISSION INFORMATION
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.
To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as MD4Assgn+last name+first initial.
Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.
Rubric
NURS_6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment_Rubric
NURS_6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment_Rubric
CriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Part 3A: Critical Appraisal of ResearchCritical Appraisal of Research Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected and analyzed by completing the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Be sure to include: · An Evaluation Table45 to >40.0 pts
Excellent
The critical appraisal accurately and clearly provides a detailed evaluation table. …The responses provide a detailed, specific, and accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected.
40 to >35.0 pts
Good
The critical appraisal accurately provides an evaluation table. …The responses provide an accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected with some specificity.
35 to >31.0 pts
Fair
The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate or vague. …The responses provide an inaccurate or vague evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected.
31 to >0 pts
Poor
The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate and vague or is missing.
45 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Part 3B: Evidence-Based Best PracticesEvidence-Based Best Practices Based on your appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with the selected resources.35 to >31.0 pts
Excellent
The responses accurately and clearly suggest a detailed best practice that is fully aligned to the research reviewed. …The responses accurately and clearly explain in detail the best practice, with sufficient justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. …The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of the four peer reviewed articles.
31 to >27.0 pts
Good
The responses accurately suggest a best practice that is adequately aligned to the research reviewed. …The responses accurately explain the best practice, with adequately justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. …The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource reviewed on the best practice explained.
27 to >24.0 pts
Fair
The responses inaccurately or vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed. …The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate or vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field. …The responses provide a vague or inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained.
24 to >0 pts
Poor
The responses inaccurately and vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed or are missing. …The responses inaccurately and vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate and vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field or are missing. …A vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained is provided or is missing.
35 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Resource Synthesis5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
The response fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the responses provided.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the responses provided.
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
The response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided.
2 to >0 pts
Poor
The response fails to integrate any resources to support the responses provided.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
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.5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
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.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
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.
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
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.
2 to >0 pts
Poor
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.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
2 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Written Expression and Formatting:The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Contains a few (one or two) APA format errors.
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (three or four) APA format errors.
2 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (five or more) APA format errors.
5 pts
Total Points: 100
NURS 6052 Module 05 Week 09 Discussion: DEVELOPING A CULTURE OF EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE
As your EBP skills grow, you may be called upon to share your expertise with others. While EBP practice is often conducted with unique outcomes in mind, EBP practitioners who share their results can both add to the general body of knowledge and serve as an advocate for the application of EBP.
In this Discussion, you will explore strategies for disseminating EBP within your organization, community, or industry.
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
WEEKLY RESOURCES
To Prepare:
Review the Resources and reflect on the various strategies presented throughout the course that may be helpful in disseminating effective and widely cited EBP.
This may include: unit-level or organizational-level presentations, poster presentations, and podium presentations at organizational, local, regional, state, and national levels, as well as publication in peer-reviewed journals.
Reflect on which type of dissemination strategy you might use to communicate EBP.
BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 9
Post at least two dissemination strategies you would be most inclined to use and explain why. Explain which dissemination strategies you would be least inclined to use and explain why. Identify at least two barriers you might encounter when using the dissemination strategies you are most inclined to use. Be specific and provide examples. Explain how you might overcome the barriers you identified.
BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 9
Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days by offering additional ideas to overcome the barriers to strategies suggested by your colleagues and/or by offering additional ideas to facilitate dissemination.
NURS_6052_Module05_Week09_Discussion_Rubric
NURS_6052_Module05_Week09_Discussion_Rubric
CriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Main Posting50 to >44.0 pts
Excellent
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. … Supported by at least three current, credible sources. … Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
44 to >39.0 pts
Good
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. … At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. … Supported by at least three credible sources. … Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
39 to >34.0 pts
Fair
Responds to some of the discussion question(s). … One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. … Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. …Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. … Post is cited with two credible sources. … Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. … Contains some APA formatting errors.
34 to >0 pts
Poor
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately. … Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. … Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. … Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. … Contains only one or no credible sources. … Not written clearly or concisely. …Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. … Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
50 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Main Post: Timeliness10 to >0.0 pts
Excellent
Posts main post by day 3.
0 pts
Poor
Does not post by day 3.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
First Response18 to >16.0 pts
Excellent
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. … Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. …Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. … Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. … Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. … Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. … Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
16 to >14.0 pts
Good
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. … Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. … Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. … Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. … Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
14 to >12.0 pts
Fair
Response is on topic and may have some depth. … Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. … Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. … Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
12 to >0 pts
Poor
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. … Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. … Responses to faculty questions are missing. … No credible sources are cited.
18 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Second Response17 to >15.0 pts
Excellent
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. … Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. … Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. … Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. … Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. … Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. … Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
15 to >13.0 pts
Good
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. … Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. … Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. … Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. … Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
13 to >11.0 pts
Fair
Response is on topic and may have some depth. … Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. … Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. … Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
11 to >0 pts
Poor
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. … Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. … Responses to faculty questions are missing. … No credible sources are cited.
17 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Participation5 to >0.0 pts
Excellent
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
0 pts
Poor
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
5 pts
Total Points: 100
NURS 6052 Module 06 Week 10 Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 4: 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.
• Consider the best method of disseminating the results of your presentation to an audience.
The Assignment: (Evidence-Based Project)
Part 4: Recommending an Evidence-Based Practice Change
Create an 8- to 9-slide narrated 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.
• Explain how you would disseminate the results of your project to an audience. Provide a rationale for why you selected this dissemination strategy.
• 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:
o A summary of the critical appraisal of the peer-reviewed articles you previously submitted
o 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 10
Submit Part 4 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 “WK10Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)†as the name.
• Click the Week 10 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
• Click the Week 10 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 “WK10Assgn+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 10 Assignment Rubric
Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity
To check your Assignment Draft for Authenticity
Submit your Week 10 Assignment Draft and review the originality report
Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 10
To participate in this Assignment:
Week 10 Assignment
Module 6: Changing the World Through Evidence-Based Practice (Weeks 10-11)
Walden University, LLC. (Producer). (2018). Evidence-based Practice and Outcomes [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Due By Assignment
Week 10, Days 1-3 Read the Learning Resources.
Begin to compose your assignment.
Week 10, Days 4-6 Continue to compose your Assignment.
Week 10, Day 7 Deadline to submit your Assignment.
Week 11, Days 1-2 Read the Learning Resources.
Compose your initial Discussion post.
Week 11, Day 3 Post your initial Discussion post.
Week 11, Days 4-5 Review your Discussion posts.
Compose your peer Discussion responses.
Week 11, Day 6 Post two peer Discussion responses.
Week 11, Day 7 Wrap up Discussion
Learning Objectives
Students will:
• Analyze opportunities for change within healthcare organizations
• Recommend evidence-based organizational changes using an evidence-based practice approach to decision making
• Identify measurable outcomes addressed by evidence-based changes
• Justify dissemination strategies
• Analyze the impact of patient preferences on clinical decision making
• Analyze decision aids
________________________________________
Learning Resources
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 7, “Patient Concerns, Choices and Clinical Judgement in Evidence-Based Practice†(pp. 219–232)
Hoffman, T. C., Montori, V. M., & Del Mar, C. (2014). The connection between evidence-based medicine and shared decision making. Journal of the American Medical Association, 312(13), 1295–1296. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.10186
Kon, A. A., Davidson, J. E., Morrison, W., Danis, M., & White, D. B. (2016). Shared decision making in intensive care units: An American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society policy statement. Critical Care Medicine, 44(1), 188–201. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000001396
Opperman, C., Liebig, D., Bowling, J., & Johnson, C. S., & Harper, M. (2016). Measuring return on investment for professional development activities: Implications for practice. Journal for Nurses in Professional Development, 32(4), 176–184. doi:10.1097/NND.0000000000000483
Schroy, P. C., Mylvaganam, S., & Davidson, P. (2014). Provider perspectives on the utility of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid for facilitating shared decision making. Health Expectations, 17(1), 27–35. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00730.x
The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. (2019). Patient decision aids. Retrieved from https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/
Optional Resources
Review these instructions for guidance on how to create a narrated PowerPoint presentation.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/record-a-slide-show-with-narration-and-slide-timings-0b9502c6-5f6c-40ae-b1e7-e47d8741161c
________________________________________
Name: NURS_6052_Module06_Week10_Assignment_Rubric
• Grid View
• List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Part 4: Recommending an Evidence-Based Practice Change
Create a, 8-9-slide narrated PowerPoint presentation of your Evidence-Based Project:
Briefly describe the following: your healthcare organization and culture, current opportunity for change, scope of issue, and EBP best practice recommendation.
Explain how you would plan knowledge transfer and dissemination.
Describe measurable outcomes with the implementation of EBP best practice.
Summarize lessons learned. Points Range: 81 (81%) – 90 (90%)
The narrated presentation accurately and completely summarizes the evidence-based project. The narrated presentation is professional in nature and thoroughly addresses all components of the evidence-based project.
The narrated presentation accurately and clearly describes in detail the healthcare organization and culture, current opportunity for change, scope of the issue, and EBP best practice recommendation.
The narrated presentation accurately and clearly describes how to plan for knowledge transfer, disseminate the results of the project to an audience, citing specific and relevant examples.
The narrated presentation clearly and accurately describes measurable outcomes with the implementation of the EBP best practice and summarizes lessons learned.
The narrated presentation fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the presentation. Points Range: 72 (72%) – 80 (80%)
The narrated presentation adequately summarizes the evidence-based project. The narrated presentation is professional in nature and adequately addresses the components of the evidence-based project.
The narrated presentation accurately describes in detail the healthcare organization and culture, current opportunity for change, scope of the issue, and EBP best practice recommendation.
The narrated presentation accurately describes how to plan for knowledge transfer, disseminate the results of the project to an audience, citing specific and relevant examples.
The narrated presentation accurately describes measurable outcomes with the implementation of the EBP best practice and summarizes lessons learned.
The narrated presentation integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the presentation. Points Range: 63 (63%) – 71 (71%)
The narrated presentation vaguely, inaccurately, or incompletely summarizes the evidence-based project. The narrated presentation may be professional in nature and somewhat addresses the components of the evidence-based project.
The narrated presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes the healthcare organization and culture, current opportunity for change, scope of the issue, and EBP best practice recommendation.
The narrated presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes how to plan for knowledge transfer, disseminate the results of the project to an audience, citing specific and relevant examples.
The narrated presentation vaguely or inaccurately describes measurable outcomes with the implementation of the EBP best practice and summarizes lessons learned.
The narrated presentation minimally integrates resources that may support the presentation. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 62 (62%)
The narrated presentation vaguely and inaccurately summarizes the evidence-based project or is missing. The narrated presentation is not professional in nature and inaccurately and incompletely addresses the components of the evidence-based project or is missing.
The narrated presentation vaguely and inaccurately describes the healthcare organization and culture, current opportunity for change, scope of the issue, and EBP best practice recommendation, no examples are provided, or it is missing.
The narrated presentation vaguely and inaccurately describes how to plan for knowledge transfer, disseminate the results of the project to an audience, citing no specific and relevant examples.
The narrated presentation vaguely or inaccurately describes measurable outcomes with the implementation of the EBP best practice and summarizes lessons learned.
The narrated presentation fails to integrate any or presents minimal resources to support the presentation.
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 is 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 is stated yet is 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 was 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_Module06_Week10_Assignment_Rubric
NURS 6052 Module 06 Week 11 Discussion: Patient Preferences and Decision Making
Changes in culture and technology have resulted in patient populations that are often well informed and educated, even before consulting or considering a healthcare need delivered by a health professional. Fueled by this, health professionals are increasingly involving patients in treatment decisions. However, this often comes with challenges, as illnesses and treatments can become complex.
What has your experience been with patient involvement in treatment or healthcare decisions?
In this Discussion, you will share your experiences and consider the impact of patient involvement (or lack of involvement). You will also consider the use of a patient decision aid to inform best practices for patient care and healthcare decision making.
To Prepare:
• Review the Resources and reflect on a time when you experienced a patient being brought into (or not being brought into) a decision regarding their treatment plan.
• Review the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute’s Decision Aids Inventory at https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/.
o Choose “For Specific Conditions,†then Browse an alphabetical listing of decision aids by health topic.
• NOTE: To ensure compliance with HIPAA rules, please DO NOT use the patient’s real name or any information that might identify the patient or organization/practice.
By Day 3 of Week 11
Post a brief description of the situation you experienced and explain how incorporating or not incorporating patient preferences and values impacted the outcome of their treatment plan. Be specific and provide examples. Then, explain how including patient preferences and values might impact the trajectory of the situation and how these were reflected in the treatment plan. Finally, explain the value of the patient decision aid you selected and how it might contribute to effective decision making, both in general and in the experience you described. Describe how you might use this decision aid inventory in your professional practice or personal life.
By Day 6 of Week 11
Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days and offer alternative views on the impact of patient preferences on treatment plans or outcomes, or the potential impact of patient decision aids on situations like the one shared.
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 11 Discussion Rubric
Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 11
To participate in this Discussion:
Week 11 Discussion
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.
Name: NURS_6052_Module06_Week11_Discussion_Rubric
• Grid View
• List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Post: Timeliness Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Points Range: 15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Points Range: 13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Second Response Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Participation Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6052_Module06_Week11_Discussion_Rubric
Struggling to meet your deadline ?
Get assistance on
NURS 6052 Full Course Discussions & Assignments (Week 1-11)
done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!