Assignment: NURS 6052 Evidence-Based Project (Part 1-4) Identifying Research Methodologies

Assignment: NURS 6052 Evidence-Based Project (Part 1-4) Identifying Research Methodologies

Assignment: NURS 6052 Evidence-Based Project (Part 1-4) Identifying Research Methodologies

Please be mindful of plagiarism and APA format, I have included the rubric as directed and a Template. Please use my course resources as one of my references as instructed. Please use the template. Thank you.

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.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE Assignment: NURS 6052 Evidence-Based Project (Part 1-4) Identifying Research Methodologies HERE

Chapter 2, Asking Compelling Clinical Questions (pp. 33–54)
Chapter 21, Generating Evidence Through Quantitative and Qualitative Research (pp. 607–653)
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Document: Matrix Worksheet Template (Word Document)

Required Media

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

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

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

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

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.

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.
Include a title page, introduction, summary, and reference page.

Matrix Worksheet Template

Use this document to complete Part 1 of the Module 2 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies

Full citation of selected article	Article #1	Article #2	Article #3	Article #4
Why you chose this article and/or how it relates to the clinical issue of interest (include a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest)
Brief description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article
Brief description of the research methodology used Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific.
A brief 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.
General Notes/Comments

Name: NURS_6052_Module02_Week03_Assignment_Rubric

Grid View List View

Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor

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- 81 (81%) – 90
(90%)
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 72 (72%) – 80
(80%)
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 63 (63%) – 71
(71%)
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. 0 (0%) – 62
(62%)
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

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.

Poor
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.

Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor

Resource Synthesis 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
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 (4%) – 4 (4%)
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 (3%) – 3 (3%)
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. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
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.

Written Expression and Formatting— English
Writing Standards:

Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar,
spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two)
grammar,
spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains
several (three or four)
grammar,
spelling, and punctuation errors. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (five or more) grammar,
spelling, and punctuation errors that
interfere with the reader’s
understanding.

Name: NURS_6052_Module02_Week03_Assignment_Rubric

NURS 6052 Evidence-Based Project, Part 2 Assignment: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

Please be mindful of plagiarism and APA format, I have included the rubric as directed. Please use my course resources as one of my references as instructed. Please include Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer in the references. Thank you.

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 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. 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. 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. 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. American Journal of Nursing, 110(5), 41-47.

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

Walden University Library. (n.d.-c). Evidence-based practice research: CINAHL search help. 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. 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. 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. Retrieved September 19, 2018, from http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/keyword/boolean

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

Walden University Library. (n.d.-h). Quick Answers: How do I find a systematic review article related to health, medicine, or nursing? Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicanswers.waldenu.edu/faq/72670

Walden University Library. (n.d.-i). Systematic review. 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.

Accessible player –Downloads–Download Video w/CCDownload AudioDownload Transcript

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

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

To Prepare:

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

My clinical issue of interest was gastrointestinal upset after the use of antibiotics and other acute disorders.

PICOT Question:Why does the use of antibiotics to treat acute disorders lead to gastrointestinal upset among adult patients than when using other medications?

I need 7 slides of PowerPoint presentation.
Please follow the instructions and answer all the required questions.

NURS_6052_Module03_Week05_Assignment_Rubric

Grid View List View

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

Excellent

72 (72%) – 80
(80%)
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

Good

64 (64%) – 71
(71%)
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

Fair

56 (56%) – 63
(63%)
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

Poor

0 (0%) – 55
(55%)
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

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.

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Excellent   Good    Fair    Poor

Written Expression and
Formatting— English Writing Standards:

Correct
grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no
errors. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar,
spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and
punctuation errors that
interfere with the reader’s understanding.

Name: NURS_6052_Module03_Week05_Assignment_Rubric

NURS 6052 Evidence-Based Project, Part 3 Assignment: Critical Appraisal of Research

Please be mindful of plagiarism and APA format, I have included the rubric as directed and a template. Please use my course-required readings materials for the references.

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, 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, 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, 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, 15(3), 202–207. doi:10.1177/1078390309338733

Document: Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template (Word document)

Required Media
Walden University, LLC. (Producer). (2018). Appraising the Research [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Accessible player
Walden University, LLC. (Producer). (2018). Interpreting Statistics [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Accessible player
Walden University, LLC. (Producer). (2018). Review of research: Hierarchy of evidence pyramid [Mutlimedia file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

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

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.

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.
Include a title page, an introduction and a summary.

NOTE:
I HAVE ATTACHED THE ARTICLE USED FOR MODULE 2 AND 3. PLEASE USE THE REQUIRED READING FOR THE REFERENCES.
LET ME KNOW IF YOU NEED ACCESS TO WALDEN LIBRARY.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE Assignment: NURS 6052 Evidence-Based Project (Part 1-4) Identifying Research Methodologies HERE

Module 2 Articles

Article #1	Article #2
Skrzydło-Radomańska, B., Prozorow-Król, B., Cichoż-Lach, H., Majsiak, E., Bierła, J. B., Kanarek, E., Sowińska, A., & Cukrowska, B. (2021). The effectiveness and safety of multi-strain probiotic preparation in patients with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome: A randomized controlled study. Nutrients, 13(3), 756. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13030756	Hibberd, A. A., Yde, C. C., Ziegler, M. L., Honoré, A. H., Saarinen, M. T., Lahtinen, S., Stahl, B., Jensen, H. M., & Stenman, L. K. (2019). Probiotic or synbiotic alters the gut microbiota and metabolism in a randomized controlled trial of weight management in overweight adults. Beneficial Microbes, 10(2), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2018.0028

Article #3	Article #4
Rui, X., & Ma, S.-X. (2020). A retrospective study of probiotics for the treatment of children with antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Medicine, 99(23), e20631. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000020631	Arnold, L. E., Luna, R. A., Williams, K., Chan, J., Parker, R. A., Wu, Q., Hollway, J. A., Jeffs, A., Lu, F., Coury, D. L., Hayes, C., & Savidge, T. (2019). Probiotics for gastrointestinal symptoms and quality of life in autism: A placebo-controlled pilot trial. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 29(9), 659–669. https://doi.org/10.1089/cap.2018.0156

Module 3:

Four articles were selected from the systematic search. The first article, by Nasiri et al. (2018) was a systematic review and metanalyses of randomized control trials thus level I evidence. The second article by Agamennone et al. (2018) is also a systematic review and metanalysis of various clinical studies thus level I evidence. The third article displayed is by Goodman et al. (2021) provides level I evidence because it is from a systematic review and metanalysis study. The fourth article, by Cai et al. (2018) was also a systematic review with network metanalysis thus level I evidence.

Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template

Evaluation Table

Use this document to complete the evaluation table requirement of the Module 4 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 3A: Critical Appraisal of Research

Full APA formatted citation of selected article.	Article #1	Article #2	Article #3	Article #4
Evidence Level * (I, II, or III)
Conceptual Framework   Describe the theoretical basis for the study (If there is not one mentioned in the article, say that here).**
Design/Method   Describe the design and how the study was carried out (In detail, including inclusion/exclusion criteria).
Sample/Setting   The number and characteristics of patients, attrition rate, etc.
Major Variables Studied   List and define dependent and independent variables
Measurement   Identify primary statistics used to answer clinical questions (You need to list the actual tests done).
Data Analysis Statistical or Qualitative findings   (You need to enter the actual numbers determined by the statistical tests or qualitative data).
Findings and Recommendations   General findings and recommendations of the research
Appraisal and Study Quality     Describe the general worth of this research to practice.   What are the strengths and limitations of study?   What are the risks associated with implementation of the suggested practices or processes detailed in the research?   What is the feasibility of use in your practice?
Key findings
Outcomes
General Notes/Comments

*These levels are from the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice: Evidence Level and Quality Guide

• Level I

Experimental, randomized controlled trial (RCT), systematic review RTCs with or without meta-analysis

• Level II

Quasi-experimental studies, systematic review of a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental studies, or quasi-experimental studies only, with or without meta-analysis

• Level III

Nonexperimental, systematic review of RCTs, quasi-experimental with/without meta-analysis, qualitative, qualitative systematic review with/without meta-synthesis

• Level IV

Respected authorities’ opinions, nationally recognized expert committee/consensus panel reports based on scientific evidence

• Level V

Literature reviews, quality improvement, program evaluation, financial evaluation, case reports, nationally recognized expert(s) opinion based on experiential evidence

**Note on Conceptual Framework

• The following information is from Walden academic guides which helps explain conceptual frameworks and the reasons they are used in research. Here is the link https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/conceptualframework

• Researchers create theoretical and conceptual frameworks that include a philosophical and methodological model to help design their work. A formal theory provides context for the outcome of the events conducted in the research. The data collection and analysis are also based on the theoretical and conceptual framework.

• As stated by Grant and Osanloo (2014), “Without a theoretical framework, the structure and vision for a study is unclear, much like a house that cannot be constructed without a blueprint. By contrast, a research plan that contains a theoretical framework allows the dissertation study to be strong and structured with an organized flow from one chapter to the next.”

• Theoretical and conceptual frameworks provide evidence of academic standards and procedure. They also offer an explanation of why the study is pertinent and how the researcher expects to fill the gap in the literature.

• Literature does not always clearly delineate between a theoretical or conceptual framework. With that being said, there are slight differences between the two.

References

The Johns Hopkins Hospital/Johns Hopkins University (n.d.). Johns Hopkins nursing evidence-based practice: appendix C: evidence level and quality guide. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/evidence-based-practice/_docs/appendix_c_evidence_level_quality_guide.pdf

Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your house. Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 12-26.

Walden University Academic Guides (n.d.). Conceptual & theoretical frameworks overview. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/conceptualframework

Name: NURS_6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment_Rubric

Grid View List View

Part 3A: Critical Appraisal of Research
Critical
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 Table

Excellent

41 (41%) – 45
(45%)
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.

Good

36 (36%) – 40
(40%)
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.

Fair

32 (32%) – 35
(35%)
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.

Poor

0 (0%) – 31
(31%)
The critical appraisal
provides an evaluation table that is
inaccurate and vague or is missing.

Excellent

Good

Fair

Excellent

Good

Fair

Excellent

Good

Fair

Excellent   

Good

Fair

Poor
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 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct APA format with no errors. 4 (4%) – 4
(4%)
Contains a few (one or two) APA
format errors. 3 (3%) – 3
(3%)
Contains several
(three or four) APA format
errors. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (five or more)
APA format errors.

Name: NURS_6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment_Rubric

NURS 6052 Evidence-Based Project, Part 4 Assignment: Recommending an Evidence-Based Practice Change

Please be mindful of plagiarism and APA format, I have included the rubric. Please use my course resources as one of my references as instructed. Please include Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer in the references. Thank you.

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/

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 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:
A summary of the critical appraisal of the peer-reviewed articles you previously submitted
An explanation about what you learned from completing the Evaluation Table within the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template (1-3 slides)

Please use my required reading for the references.
Include a title page and an introduction.
I have attached the articles used for module 4, PICOT, and my clinical interest.
I want 8-9 slides and please answer all the questions.

Name: NURS_6052_Module06_Week10_Assignment_Rubric

Grid View List View

Part 4:
Disseminating Results
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.

Excellent

68 (68%) – 75 (75%)
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

Good

60 (60%) – 67 (67%)
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

Fair

53 (53%) – 59 (59%)
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

Poor

0 (0%) – 52 (52%)
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

Excellent   

Good

Fair

Poor
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 (5%) – 5 (5%)
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 (4%) – 4 (4%)
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 (3%) – 3 (3%)
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. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
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.

Written Expression and Formatting— English Writing Standards:

Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and
punctuation with no errors. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and
punctuation errors. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and
punctuation errors. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and
punctuation errors that
interfere with the reader’s understanding.

Name: NURS_6052_Module06_Week10_Assignment_Rubric