Benchmark -Capstone Project Change Proposal Paper

Benchmark -Capstone Project Change Proposal Paper

Benchmark -Capstone Project Change Proposal Paper

Background

            The process of recovering after surgical procedures is challenging and demanding. As such, it is critical to educate patients to create awareness and promote their recovery. Patients need to be properly informed and prepared to manage their disease and adhere to safety measures, medication, and current interventions (Kang et al., 2020). Therefore, this project seeks to advance the significance of patient education throughout their hospital stay and their understanding of it before and after discharge on a medical-surgical floor. Surgical patients can benefit from education through knowledge acquisition, improved self-esteem, enhance self-concept, enhanced self-care, enhanced pain control, minimized disruption in daily activities, increased satisfaction with care, improve compliance with medication, and reduced anxiety. Education also promotes care continuity and minimizes complications associated with surgery.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Clinical Problem Statement

            The surgical environment is characterized by many potential risks such as high chances of infections, patient falls, medication errors, and increased hospital readmissions. Therefore, the hospital should be vigilant about the patients on a medical-surgical floor to prevent these risks (Steves & Scafide, 2021). The implementation of patient education is critical in empowering patients to take active roles in their recovery process and safety. The provision of patient education is crucial in empowering patients to make informed decisions on their care and be responsible for their safety and recovery during the hospital stay and after discharge (Steves & Scafide, 2021). This nursing intervention is expected to improve clinical outcomes, improve quality of life, reduce hospital stay days, and reduce healthcare costs.

Purpose of the Change Proposal

            The purpose of this change proposal is to advance the significance of patient education throughout their hospital stay and their understanding of it before and after discharge on a medical-surgical floor. Patients need to be properly informed and prepared to manage their disease and adhere to safety measures, medication, and current interventions (Refai et al., 2018). Successful implementation of this change proposal will serve various purposes including enhancing self-care, improving compliance with medication, and reducing of cost of healthcare. Regarding self-care, patient education empowers patients to make informed personal health decisions and become responsible for their safety (Tweed et al., 2021). It also helps patients to develop effective balance among aspects of overall health and well-being and also assists in improving the clarity of thought and helps patients to determine what is essential for them.

            Concerning medication adherence, patient education is critical in empowering and creating awareness, which is critical in enhancing compliance with medication across a range of diseases and conditions that needs surgery (Steves & Scafide, 2021). Failure to provide patient education leads to poor medication compliance, which is associated with negative health outcomes such as reduced quality of life and more hospitalizations. Regarding healthcare costs, patient education empowers patients on the medical-surgical floor to get involved in their care and attain positive health outcomes and in turn, helps to minimize heavy financial load and also reduce indirect costs such as disability, loss of productivity, and mortality.

PICOT Question

            The PICOT question is; In patients admitted to a medical-surgical floor (P) does patient education throughout the hospital stay and after discharge (I) compared to lack of education (C) improve health outcomes (O) in 12 months (T).

Literature Search Strategy Employed

            The literature search strategy employed by this project entailed the use of main databases such as Science Direct, Proquest Central, PubMed, EBSCO, CINAHL, and MEDLINE. These databases are reputable for the provision of superior quality nursing and healthcare journals. The databases can also facilitate refined searches and filtering and are also highly flexible. The literature search using these databases involved the utilization of key terms such as patient education, medical-surgical floor, and discharge education. The use of keywords during literature search is vital in the generation of articles that are relevant to the topic under focus. The literature search major focused on the nursing journals but healthcare and medical journals were occasionally used to provide background information.  Only articles published within five years were used in the literature search to ensure up-to-date data and statistics for the project.

Evaluation of the Literature

            The GCU provided a literature evaluation table (LET), which was used to conduct a literature evaluation. The LET entailed a host of predetermined areas that were to be completed by students. They included the authors’ name, name of the peer-reviewed journal, permalink or working link to access the article, article’s title, year of article publication, research question or hypothesis, aim or purpose of study, study design, setting or sample, methodology, analysis, key findings, study recommendations, and how the article supports capstone project. Every article employed in the literature evaluation used these criteria.

Applicable Change or Nursing Theory Utilized

            Various change or nursing theories can be used in nursing change projects. However, the identified nursing theory for this project is Orem’s Self-Care Deficit Theory. This theory seeks to augment the nursing quality and is anchored on the notion that a person has a responsibility to take charge of self-care through proactive involvement in activities to uphold good health (Hellqvist, 2021).  Based on this theory, self-care can be influenced by factors such as gender, family, and age. Therefore, patients are not fully responsible for their health but should make effort to enhance their health and self-care. In this project, patient education is intended to empower surgical patients to spearhead self-care before and after surgery and eventually enhance their health outcomes.

Proposed Implementation Plan with Outcome Measures

            Every project has an implementation plan. In this project, there is an elaborate implementation plan entailing different steps. The first step is to select the participants and obtain their informed consent. The needs assessment then follows to determine the facilitators and probable project barriers. Then, the objectives of the project are created and the context of patient education is identified (Kerzner, 2018). The context of patient education intervention consists of factors such as hypothetical background, needs assessment, expert opinions, and systematic reviews to provide sound solutions. The last step is to categorize the context of the change proposal and assess the intervention to determine if the project is fit for implementation. If the assessment shows the appropriateness and practicability of the intervention, the project is implemented and adopted in the organization.

How Evidence-Based Practice was used in Creating the Intervention Plan

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is a vital component in the success of this project. EBP ensures that project decisions are anchored on the best available evidence from advanced studies. As such, nurses should use evidence-based approaches in the provision of patient education on a medical-surgical floor. EBP can also be used to determine the level of learning in patients, select the best patient teaching strategies, assess the advancement of education programs, and ascertain the suitability of the educational intervention (Kilbourne et al., 2019).

Plan for Evaluating the Proposed Nursing Intervention

            The project outcomes will form the basis for evaluating the proposed nursing intervention. Evaluation will be done using the information gathered after implementing the project (Nakagaki et al., 2022). If the evaluation portrays improvement in critical measures such as reduction of infections, reduced rates of hospital readmissions, and reduced post-surgery complications, patient education intervention will be deemed significant.  Also, nursing intervention can be evaluated using tools such as questionnaires, interviews, and follow-ups.

Identification of Potential Barriers to Plan Implementation and how to overcome them

            There are different potential barriers to the plan implementation. According to Waltz et al., (2019), they include organizational, structural, cultural, and social barriers. These barriers can be mitigated by reviewing the available structures and developing sound policies to address them. The other barrier is inadequate knowledge by nurses to provide patient education. The barrier can be addressed through continuous training and the development of nurses.  The other potential barrier is poor stakeholder support. This barrier can be mitigated by cultivating healthy communication among stakeholders.

Conclusion

            The purpose of this capstone project is to advance the significance of patient education throughout their hospital stay and their understanding of it before and after discharge on a medical-surgical floor. The provision of patient education is crucial in empowering patients to make informed decisions on their care and be responsible for their safety and recovery during the hospital stay and after discharge. The literature search was done using main databases such as Science Direct, Proquest Central, PubMed, EBSCO, CINAHL, and MEDLINE. The literature evaluation table (LET) was employed in the literature evaluation. The selected nursing theory for the project was Orem’s Self-Care Deficit Theory. EBP was extensively used to guide the project implementation. The project laid a sound implementation and evaluation plan.

References

Hellqvist, C. (2021). Promoting Self-Care in Nursing Encounters with Persons Affected by Long-Term Conditions—A Proposed Model to Guide Clinical Care. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(5), 2223.

Kang, E., Tobiano, G. A., Chaboyer, W., & Gillespie, B. M. (2020). Nurses’ role in delivering discharge education to general surgical patients: A qualitative study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76(7), 1698-1707. https://publons.com/publon/10.1111/jan.14379

Kerzner, H. (2018). Project management best practices: Achieving global excellence. John Wiley & Sons.

Kilbourne, A. M., Goodrich, D. E., Miake-Lye, I., Braganza, M. Z., & Bowersox, N. W. (2019). Quality enhancement research initiative implementation roadmap: toward sustainability of evidence-based practices in a learning health system. Medical care, 57(10 Suppl 3), S286. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001144

Nakagaki, M., Gavin, N. C., Hayes, T., Fichera, R., Stewart, C., Naumann, L., … & Kennedy, G. A. (2022). Implementation and evaluation of a nurse-allied health clinic for patients after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Supportive Care in Cancer, 30(1), 647-657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06461-w

Refai, M., Andolfi, M., Gentili, P., Pelusi, G., Manzotti, F., & Sabbatini, A. (2018). Enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery: patient information and care-plans. Journal of thoracic disease, 10(Suppl 4), S512. DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2017.12.87

Steves, S. L., & Scafide, K. N. (2021). Multimedia in preoperative patient education for adults undergoing cancer surgery: A systematic review. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 52, 101981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2021.101981

Tweed, T. T., Woortman, C., Tummers, S., Bakens, M. J., van Bastelaar, J., & Stoot, J. H. (2021). Reducing hospital stay for colorectal surgery in ERAS setting by means of perioperative patient education of expected day of discharge. International Journal of Colorectal Disease, 36(7), 1535-1542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-021-03948-0

Waltz, T. J., Powell, B. J., Fernández, M. E., Abadie, B., & Damschroder, L. J. (2019). Choosing implementation strategies to address contextual barriers: diversity in recommendations and future directions. Implementation Science, 14(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0892-4

BUY A CUSTOM- PAPER HERE

Assessment Description
In this assignment, students will pull together the capstone project change proposal components they have been working on throughout the course to create a proposal inclusive of sections for each content focus area in the course. For this project, the student will apply evidence-based research steps and processes required as the foundation to address a clinically oriented problem or issue in future practice.

Develop a 1,250-1,500 written project that includes the following information as it applies to the problem, issue, suggestion, initiative, or educational need profiled in the capstone change proposal:

1. Background
2. Clinical problem statement.
3. Purpose of the change proposal in relation to providing patient care in the changing health care system.
4. PICOT question.
5. Literature search strategy employed.
6. Evaluation of the literature.
7. Applicable change or nursing theory utilized.
8. Proposed implementation plan with outcome measures.
9. Discussion of how evidence-based practice was used in creating the intervention plan.
10. Plan for evaluating the proposed nursing intervention.
11. Identification of potential barriers to plan implementation, and a discussion of how these could be overcome.
12. Appendix section, if tables, graphs, surveys, educational materials, etc. are created.

Review the feedback from your instructor on the Topic 3 assignment, PICOT Question Paper, and Topic 6 assignment, Literature Review. Use this feedback to make appropriate revisions to these before submitting.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

 Benchmark – Capstone Project Change Proposal

Rubric

Revisions Incorporated as Directed by Instructor assessment

Revisions Incorporated as Directed by Instructor

10 points

Criteria Description

Revisions Incorporated as Directed by Instructor

5. 5: Excellent

10 points

All revisions are incorporated. The revision greatly improves the accuracy and clarity of the project.

4. 4: Good

8.9 points

The key aspects were revised. The revision generally improves the accuracy and clarity of the project.

3. 3: Satisfactory

7.9 points

Most key aspects were revised. Some aspects are still vague or contain minor inaccuracies.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

7.5 points

Revision is incomplete. Many aspects are still incomplete, inaccurate, or unclear.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Revision is omitted.

collapse Background assessment

Background

10 points

Criteria Description

Background

5. 5: Excellent

10 points

Background of clinical problem are clearly and logically presented. Relevant support and rationale are evident.

4. 4: Good

8.9 points

Background of clinical problem are presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support.

3. 3: Satisfactory

7.9 points

Background of clinical problem are summarized. There are minor omissions or inaccuracies. Some support or information is needed.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

7.5 points

Background of clinical problem is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Background of clinical problem omitted.

collapse Clinical Problem Statement assessment

Clinical Problem Statement

10 points

Criteria Description

Clinical Problem Statement

5. 5: Excellent

10 points

Clinical problem statement is clearly and logically presented. Relevant support and rationale are evident.

4. 4: Good

8.9 points

Clinical problem statement is presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support.

3. 3: Satisfactory

7.9 points

Clinical problem statement is summarized. There are minor omissions or inaccuracies. Some support or information is needed.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

7.5 points

Clinical problem statement is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Clinical problem statement omitted.

collapse Purpose of Change Proposal assessment

Purpose of Change Proposal

10 points

Criteria Description

Purpose of Change Proposal

5. 5: Excellent

10 points

Purpose of the change proposal in relation to providing patient care in the changing health care system is logically presented. Relevant support and rationale are evident.

4. 4: Good

8.9 points

Purpose of the change proposal in relation to providing patient care in the changing health care system is presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support.

3. 3: Satisfactory

7.9 points

Purpose of the change proposal in relation to providing patient care in the changing health care system is summarized. There are minor omissions or inaccuracies. Some support or information is needed.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

7.5 points

Purpose of the change proposal in relation to providing patient care in the changing health care system is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Purpose of the change proposal in relation to providing patient care in the changing health care system is omitted.

collapse PICOT Question assessment

PICOT Question

10 points

Criteria Description

PICOT Question

5. 5: Excellent

10 points

Topic and criteria are clearly and logically presented. Relevant support and rationale are evident.

4. 4: Good

8.9 points

Topic and criteria are presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support.

3. 3: Satisfactory

7.9 points

Topic and most criteria are presented. There are minor omissions or inaccuracies. Some support or information is needed.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

7.5 points

Topic is presented but criteria is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

PICOT questions is omitted.

collapse Literature Search assessment

Literature Search

10 points

Criteria Description

Literature Search

5. 5: Excellent

10 points

Topic and criteria are clearly and logically presented. Relevant support and rationale are evident.

4. 4: Good

8.9 points

Topic and criteria are presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support.

3. 3: Satisfactory

7.9 points

Topic and most criteria are presented. There are minor omissions or inaccuracies. Some support or information is needed.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

7.5 points

Topic is presented but criteria is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Literature search strategy employed omitted.

collapse Evaluation of Literature assessment

Evaluation of Literature

10 points

Criteria Description

Evaluation of Literature

5. 5: Excellent

10 points

Evaluation of literature is clearly and logically presented. Relevant support and rationale are evident.

4. 4: Good

8.9 points

Evaluation of literature is presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support.

3. 3: Satisfactory

7.9 points

Evaluation of literature is summarized. There are minor omissions or inaccuracies. Some support or information is needed.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

7.5 points

Evaluation of literature is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Evaluation of literature omitted.

collapse Change or Nursing Theory assessment

Change or Nursing Theory

10 points

Criteria Description

Change or Nursing Theory

5. 5: Excellent

10 points

Change or nursing theory is logically presented. Relevant support and rationale are evident.

4. 4: Good

8.9 points

Change or nursing theory is presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support.

3. 3: Satisfactory

7.9 points

Change or nursing theory is summarized. There are minor omissions or inaccuracies. Some support or information is needed.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

7.5 points

Change or nursing theory is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Change or nursing theory omitted.

collapse Implementation Plan and Outcome Measures assessment

Implementation Plan and Outcome Measures

20 points

Criteria Description

Implementation Plan and Outcome Measures

5. 5: Excellent

20 points

Implementation plan and outcome measures are clearly and logically presented. Relevant support and rationale are evident.

4. 4: Good

17.8 points

Implementation plan and outcome measures are presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support.

3. 3: Satisfactory

15.8 points

Implementation plan and outcome measures are summarized. There are minor omissions or inaccuracies. Some support or information is needed.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

15 points

Implementation plan and outcome measures are presented is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Implementation plan and outcome measures are omitted.

collapse Use of Evidence-Based Practice in Intervention Plan assessment

Use of Evidence-Based Practice in Intervention Plan

20 points

Criteria Description

Use of Evidence-Based Practice in Intervention Plan

5. 5: Excellent

20 points

Use of evidence-based practice in intervention plan is clearly and logically presented. Relevant support and rationale are evident.

4. 4: Good

17.8 points

Use of evidence-based practice in intervention plan is presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support.

3. 3: Satisfactory

15.8 points

Use of evidence-based practice in intervention plan is summarized. There are minor omissions or inaccuracies. Some support or information is needed.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

15 points

Use of evidence-based practice in intervention plan is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Use of evidence-based practice in intervention plan omitted.

collapse Plan for Evaluating Proposed Nursing Intervention assessment

Plan for Evaluating Proposed Nursing Intervention

20 points

Criteria Description

Plan for Evaluating Proposed Nursing Intervention

5. 5: Excellent

20 points

Plan for evaluating proposed nursing intervention is clearly and logically presented. Relevant support and rationale are evident.

4. 4: Good

17.8 points

Plan for evaluating proposed nursing intervention is presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support.

3. 3: Satisfactory

15.8 points

Plan for evaluating proposed nursing intervention is summarized. There are minor omissions or inaccuracies. Some support or information is needed.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

15 points

Plan for evaluating proposed nursing intervention is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Plan for evaluating proposed nursing intervention omitted.

collapse Potential Barriers and Plan to Overcome Barriers assessment

Potential Barriers and Plan to Overcome Barriers

20 points

Criteria Description

Potential Barriers and Plan to Overcome Barriers

5. 5: Excellent

20 points

Potential barriers and plan to overcome barriers are clearly and logically presented. Relevant support and rationale are evident.

4. 4: Good

17.8 points

Potential barriers and plan to overcome barriers are presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support.

3. 3: Satisfactory

15.8 points

Potential barriers and plan to overcome barriers are summarized. There are minor omissions or inaccuracies. Some support or information is needed.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

15 points

Potential barriers and plan to overcome barriers are incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Potential barriers and plan to overcome barriers are omitted.

collapse Thesis Development and Purpose assessment

Thesis Development and Purpose

10 points

Criteria Description

Thesis Development and Purpose

5. 5: Excellent

10 points

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

4. 4: Good

8.9 points

Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

3. 3: Satisfactory

7.9 points

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

7.5 points

Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

collapse Argument Logic and Construction assessment

Argument Logic and Construction

10 points

Criteria Description

Argument Logic and Construction

5. 5: Excellent

10 points

Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

4. 4: Good

8.9 points

Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

3. 3: Satisfactory

7.9 points

Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

7.5 points

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

collapse Criteria 3Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) assessment

Criteria 3Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

10 points

Criteria Description

Criteria 3Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

5. 5: Excellent

10 points

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. 4: Good

8.9 points

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.

3. 3: Satisfactory

7.9 points

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

7.5 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.

collapse Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) assessment

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

4 points

Criteria Description

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

5. 5: Excellent

4 points

All format elements are correct.

4. 4: Good

3.56 points

Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.16 points

Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3 points

Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.

collapse Documentation of Sources assessment

Documentation of Sources

6 points

Criteria Description

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)

5. 5: Excellent

6 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

4. 4: Good

5.34 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

3. 3: Satisfactory

4.74 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

4.5 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Sources are not documented.