NURS 8114 Practice Problem Evidence Changing Practice DQ

Want create site? With Free visual composer you can do it easy.

NURS 8114 Practice Problem Evidence Changing Practice DQ

NURS 8114 Practice Problem Evidence Changing Practice DQ

Your literature review should be completed at this point in the module. Working from that assumption,
you will use this Discussion to share your preliminary outcomes and analysis from your literature review
with colleagues for their comment. You may choose to incorporate feedback from peers before
submitting your Module Assignment on Day 7, although that is not required. The aim of this Discussion
is to support you in providing the kind of analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of evidence to a group that
would be involved in presenting a quality improvement initiative to stakeholders.

Photo Credit: steheap / Adobe Stock
To prepare:
 Review the Module 4 Learning Resources with guidance for analyzing and synthesizing evidence
from your literature review.
 Complete your analysis of outcomes and synthesis of evidence to inform a practice change.
 Consider the linkage between your practice problem, evidence to address it, and the need for a
practice change initiative.
 Assess the strength of this linkage and how to present it to colleagues.
With these thoughts in mind …
By Day 3 of Week 10
Post an explanation of the results of your literature review and the connection to your practice problem.
Then, explain your synthesis of evidence on which to base a practice change, and the need for a practice
change initiative. Be specific and provide examples.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ posts.
By Day 6 of Week 10
Respond to at least two colleagues on 2 different days with questions to clarify or suggestions to
sharpen or finesse their explanation of their problem-evidence-change initiative linkage.
Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view
and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the "Post to Discussion Question" link and
then select "Create Thread" to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you
cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully
before clicking on Submit!
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:
Week 10 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 of Week 10 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 10

To Participate in this Discussion:
Week 10 Discussion

Week 9: Components of Evidence-Based Practice: Appraising the Evidence
Is all evidence alike? Is some stronger or weaker or clearer or less clear? In truth, these are rhetorical
questions. Everything about your patient experiences in health care confirms that evidence varies
greatly in quality and potency. Symptoms, tests, monitoring—all of the means by which to understand a
patient’s condition may point to a clear path for response and treatment, or not.
The act of gathering evidence through a literature search is also only the place to begin in finding
answers to a critical practice question. Appraising the evidence is required to determine its value, just as
tangible objects are appraised to gauge their worth. Analysis and evaluation are the intellectual
resources to marshal for this next component of evidence-based practice.
This week your attention will be fully on your Module 4 Assignment as you appraise the evidence in the
scholarly articles you have selected. Keep in mind your goal is to determine whether the evidence
justifies a practice change and how it informs the specific outlines of a new or improved practice. This
process is very much connected to your future leadership as a DNP and your role as a social change
advocate. Leading with powerful evidence will promote your success, and that of others, for positively
impacting patient outcomes and influencing stakeholders.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
 Evaluate scholarly articles for a literature review
 Analyze scholarly literature for evidence
 Evaluate quality of evidence to inform practice changes
 Synthesize research to support nursing practice problems
 Justify quality improvement/practice change initiatives

Learning Resources

Required Readings (click to expand/reduce)

Dang, D., & Dearholt, S. L. (Eds.). (2018). Johns Hopkins nursing evidence-based             practice: Model
and guidelines (3rd ed.). Sigma Theta Tau International.
 Chapter 6, “Evidence Appraisal: Research” (pp. 97–141)
 Chapter 7, “Evidence Appraisal: Nonresearch” (pp. 145–163)

Rew, L., Cauvin, S., Cengiz, A., Pretorius, K., & Johnson, K. (2020). Application of project management
tools and techniques to support nursing intervention research. Nursing Outlook, 68(4), 396–405.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2020.01.007

(Review from Week 8)

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Synthesizing your sources.
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/assignments/literaturereview/synthesizing

(Review from Week 8)

Westlake, C. (2012). Practical tips for literature synthesis. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 26(5), 244–249.
https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0b013e318263d766

(Review from Week 8)

Document: Individual Evidence Summary Tool Template (PDF document)
Dang, D., & Dearholt, S. (2017). Johns Hopkins nursing evidence-based practice: model and guidelines.
3rd ed.  Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau International.

Optional Resources (click to expand/reduce)

Walden University Library. (n.d.). Databases A–Z: Nursing.
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981

Walden University Library. (n.d.). Evaluating resources: Primary & secondary sources.
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/evaluating/sources

Module 4 Assignment: Investigating a Critical Practice Question Through a Literature Review
Continue to develop your literature review of at least 10 current (published within the last 5 years)
scholarly articles from the Walden Library with evidence that addresses your critical practice question.
This week, review the Learning Resources for guidance in appraising the research in the articles you
select. Keep in mind you must complete and submit the Individual Evidence Summary Tool, available in
the Learning Resources, and will be graded based on the quality of information and thought captured in
this matrix document.

Photo Credit: [Steve Hix/Fuse]/[None]/Getty Images
When you complete your analysis and evaluation of the evidence, begin your critical assessment paper
in which you synthesize evidence from your literature review. This paper is also due by Day 7 of next
week. Plan your time accordingly.
Review the Module 4 Assignment Rubric for the grading points and expectations of this two-part
Assignment.
There is no submission due this week.
Submit your Module 4 Assignment by Day 7 of Week 10.
Reminder: The College of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction,
summary, and references. The Sample Paper provided at the Walden Writing Center provides an
example of those required elements (available
at https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templates/general#s-lg-box-20293632). All
papers submitted must use this formatting.

What’s Coming Up in Week 10?

Photo Credit: [BrianAJackson]/[iStock / Getty Images Plus]/Getty Images
Next week you will wrap up Module 4 and your examination of components of evidence-based practice.
The Week 10 Discussion offers an opportunity to share results of your analysis and evaluation of the
evidence to address your critical question and to benefit from your colleague’s feedback as you
complete your critical assessment paper. Aim to schedule your writing time to incorporate comments
that can strengthen your final submission.
Next Week

To go to the next week:
Week 10
Week 10: Components of Evidence-Based Practice: Grading the Evidence
What grade would you require of evidence to justify a practice change? Must it be an A or a solid 100?
Would B+ or, say, 90, be enough? How would you attach a grading equivalent to the evidence you have
appraised?
This final component of evidence-based practice does not require literally assigning a grade. However, it
does involve evaluating what level of evidence in quantity and quality can justify a particular practice
change, and the time, effort, and expense of a quality improvement initiative. Each situation and grading
scale may be different depending on the specific practice problem, the potential outcomes, the urgency
of the problem, and the attitudes—encouraging or uncompromising—of the stakeholders.
This week you complete this module with a critical assessment of the evidence from your literature
review. Both in your Discussion with colleagues and your module Assignment, the strength and
substance of what links your practice problem, evidence to address it, and the need for a practice
change initiative, will be yours to explain and grade.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
 Evaluate scholarly articles for a literature review
 Analyze scholarly literature for evidence
 Evaluate quality of evidence to inform practice change
 Synthesize research to support nursing practice problems
 Synthesize evidence to inform practice change
 Justify quality improvement/practice change initiatives

Learning Resources

Required Readings (click to expand/reduce)

White, K. M., Dudley-Brown, S., & Terhaar, M. F. (Eds.). (2019). Translation of evidence into nursing and
healthcare (3rd ed.). Springer.
 Chapter 5, “Translation of Evidence for Improving Quality and Safety” (pp. 103–123)

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Synthesizing your sources.
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/assignments/literaturereview/synthesizing

(Review from Weeks 8 and 9)

Westlake, C. (2012). Practical tips for literature synthesis. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 26(5), 244–249.
https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0b013e318263d766

(Review from Weeks 8 and 9)

Optional Resources (click to expand/reduce)

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Webinars: Scholarly writing.
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/webinars/scholarlywriting#s-lg-box-9094031

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Writing as a process.
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/doctoral/capstone/preproposal/writingasaprocess

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.
Name: NURS_8114_Week10_Discussion_Rubric

Exit

 Grid View
 List View

 

Excellent
90%–100%

Good
80%–89%

Fair
70%–79%

Poor
0%–69%

Main Posting:

Response to the Discussion
question is reflective with
critical analysis and
synthesis representative of
knowledge gained from the
course readings for the
module and current credible
sources.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the
Discussion question(s).
Is reflective with critical
analysis and synthesis
representative of knowledge
gained from the course
readings for the module and
current credible sources.
No less than 75% of post has
exceptional depth and
breadth.
Supported by at least three
current credible sources.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the
Discussion question(s).
Is somewhat reflective with
critical analysis and synthesis
representative of knowledge
gained from the course
readings for the module.
50% of the post has
exceptional depth and
breadth.
Supported by at least three
credible references.

31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the
Discussion question(s).
One to 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.
Cited with fewer than two
credible references.

0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the
Discussion question(s). 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 references.

Main Posting:

Writing

6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely.
Contains no grammatical or
spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA
manual writing rules and style.

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely.
May contain one to two
grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA
manual writing rules and style.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely.
May contain more than two
spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting
errors.

0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
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 Posting:

Timely and full participation

9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely,
full, and active participation.
Posts main Discussion by due
date.

8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Meets requirements for full
participation.
Posts main Discussion by due
date.

7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main Discussion by due

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:NURS 8114 Practice Problem Evidence Changing Practice DQ

date.

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements
for full participation.
Does not post main
Discussion by due date.
First Response: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Post to colleague's main
post that is reflective and
justified with credible
sources.

Response exhibits critical
thinking and application to
practice settings.
Responds to questions posed
by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources
to support ideas demonstrates
synthesis and understanding
of learning objectives.

Response has some depth
and may exhibit critical
thinking or application to
practice setting.

Response is on topic and may
have some depth.

Response may not be on topic
and lacks depth.

First Response:
Writing

6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional
and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions
are fully 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.

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly
professional and respectful to
colleagues.
Response to faculty questions
are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas
that are supported by few
credible sources.
Response is written in
standard, edited English.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the
Discussion may lack effective
professional communication.
Response to faculty questions
are somewhat answered, if
posed.
Few or no credible sources
are cited.

0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the
Discussion lack effective
communication.
Response to faculty questions
are missing.
No credible sources are cited.

First Response:
Timely and full participation

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely,
full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full
participation.
Posts by due date.

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements
for full participation.
Does not post by due date.

Second Response:
Post to colleague's main
post that is reflective and
justified with credible
sources.

9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical
thinking and application to
practice settings.
Responds to questions posed
by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources
to support ideas demonstrates
synthesis and understanding
of learning objectives.

8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth
and may exhibit critical
thinking or application to
practice setting.

7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may
have some depth.

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic
and lacks depth.

Second Response: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Writing Communication is professional
and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions
are fully 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.

Communication is mostly
professional and respectful to
colleagues.
Response to faculty questions
are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas
that are supported by few
credible sources.
Response is written in
standard, edited English.

Response posed in the
Discussion may lack effective
professional communication.
Response to faculty questions
are somewhat answered, if
posed.
Few or no credible sources
are cited.

Responses posted in the
Discussion lack effective
communication.
Response to faculty questions
are missing.
No credible sources are cited.

Second Response:
Timely and full participation

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely,
full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full
participation.
Posts by due date.

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements
for full participation.
Does not post by due date.

Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_8114_Week10_Discussion_Rubric

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.