NURS 8114 Translation Models and Frameworks DQ

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

NURS 8114 Translation Models and Frameworks DQ

NURS 8114 Translation Models and Frameworks DQ

Collaboration offers the advantage of other experiences and viewpoints to confirm or challenge your
own. Discussions can do the same and for some topics, getting early feedback is especially valuable. This
Discussion is one such example. As you dig into the science of translation and select a framework or
model for your proposed EBP QI project, you can look to your class colleagues for a check on your choice
and your reasoning.

Photo Credit: steheap / Adobe Stock
To prepare:
 Review the Week 5 Learning Resources. Pay particular attention to the featured
frameworks/models, below, in the White, Dudley-Brown, and Terhaar text.
 Identify the translation science framework or model that is most relevant to your practice
problem from among the following three models and consider your reasoning:
o Roger’s Diffusion of Innovations (pp. 36–39);
o Knowledge-to-Action (pp. 42–45);
o Theory of Reasoned Action (pp. 66–67).
 Assess your understanding of “translation science” and how you would explain it in the context
of evidence-based practice and quality improvement.
With these thoughts in mind …
By Day 3 of Week 5
Post an explanation of the translation science framework or model that you selected and explain why it
is most relevant to your practice problem. Be specific and provide examples.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ posts.
By Day 6 of Week 5
Respond to at least two colleagues on 2 different days, with preference to colleagues who selected
different translation science frameworks or models from the one you chose. Recommend another
framework/model they might consider and/or clarify their explanation of translation science. Cite
sources to support your posts.
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 5 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 of Week 5 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 5

To Participate in this Discussion:
Week 5 Discussion

Module 3 Assignment: Exploring EBP Quality Improvement
Continue to develop the Module 3 Assignment you began in Week 4. This week, identify or confirm the
translation science framework or model you would use to implement an EBP Quality Improvement
project to address a hypothetical practice problem.
Be aware that you are not limited to the three frameworks/models you examined for the Week 5
Discussion. Select the translation science framework/model that is the best fit for your practice problem
and be prepared to explain your reasoning.
There is no submission this week.

Photo Credit: [Steve Hix/Fuse]/[None]/Getty Images
Submit your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 6.
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 6?

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

Next week you will complete your Module 3 Assignment, which requires a written paper describing the
three sites you are exploring for a future EBP QI project and the PowerPoint presentation you would
make to stakeholders at one of those sites. Although you will not make your presentation as part of this
course, your work now can support a future presentation. Approach your preparation with the
seriousness that a presentation to a Quality Improvement office or executive administrators, as well as
senior nursing staff, would demand.
There is no Discussion, so that you can devote the week to completing the Assignment. Refer to the
Module 3 Assignment Rubric for grading expectations.
Next Week

To go to the next week:
Week 6

Week 5: Introduction to the Science of Translation, I
From your experience, what are the roadblocks to change? What keeps stale practices in place when
fresh approaches are needed? And when innovations are introduced, what influences how they are
viewed and accepted? What conditions can create subpar results or mediocre outcomes?
When considering how to initiate and lead an evidence-based practice quality improvement project,
these are not academic questions. The success of an initiative can depend on understanding the
variables involved in introducing a practice change. As science supports finding the evidence, other
applications of theory provide insight into “the interrelationships and complex organizational
dimensions that are relevant to the translation of research or new knowledge into practice” (White,
Dudley-Brown, & Terhaar, 2019, p. 34)—and, importantly, routes to action.
This week you will explore translation frameworks and models, with the goal of identifying one that is
the best fit for your Module 3 EBP QI project.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
 Evaluate translation science frameworks and models for application to practice problems
 Apply implementation science frameworks/models for evidence-based practice quality
improvement projects

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 2, “The Science of Translation and Major Frameworks” (pp. 27–58)
(Review from Week 4)
 Chapter 3, “Change Theory and Models: Framework for Translation” (pp. 59–73)

Boehm, L. M., Stolldorf, D. P., & Jeffery, A. D. (2020). Implementation science training and resources for
nurses and nurse scientists. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 52(1), 47–54.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12510

(Review from Week 4)

Dunagan, P. B. (2017). The quality improvement attitude survey: Development and      preliminary
psychometric characteristics. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26(23–24), 5113–5120.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14054

(Review from Week 4)

Hammersla, M., Belcher, A., Ruccio, L. R., Martin, J., & Bingham, D. (2021). Practice and quality
improvement leaders survey of expectations of DNP graduates’ quality improvement expertise. Nurse
Educator [Epub ahead of print]. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000001009

(Review from Week 4)

Jones-Schenk, J., & Bleich, M. R. (2019). Implementation science as a leadership and doctor of nursing
practice competency. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 50(11), 491–492.
https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20191015-03

(Review from Week 4)

Powell, B. J., Waltz, T. J., Chinman, M. J., Damschroder, L. J., Smith, J. L., Matthieu, M. M., Proctor, E. K.,
& Kirchner, J. E. (2015). A refined compilation of implementation strategies: Results from the Expert
Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implementation Science, 10:21.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1

(Review from Week 4)

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 4)

Shea, C. M., Jacobs, S. R., Esserman, D. A., Bruce, K., & Weiner, B. J. (2014).                Organizational
readiness for implementing change: A psychometric assessment of a new measure. Implementation
Science, 9(7), 1–15.

(Review from Week 4)

Walden University Academic Skills Center. (n.d.). How do I create a strong PowerPoint presentation?
https://academicanswers.waldenu.edu/faq/72804

(Review from Week 4)

Walden University Academic Skills Center. (n.d.). MS PowerPoint resources: Getting started.
https://academicanswers.waldenu.edu/faq/330533

(Review from Week 4)

Document: College of Nursing PowerPoint Template (PPT document)

Document: Handout: Preparing for an EBP QI Presentation to Stakeholders at a Practice Site (Word
document)

Required Media (click to expand/reduce)

Walden University. (2021). DNP glossary [Interactive media]. Walden University
Blackboard. https://class.waldenu.edu

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_Week5_Discussion_Rubric

Exit

 Grid View
 List View

 

Excellent
90%–100%

Good
80%–89%

Fair
70%–79%

Poor
0%–69%

Main Posting: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the
Discussion question(s).

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the
Discussion question(s).

31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the
Discussion question(s).

0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the
Discussion question(s). Lacks
depth or superficially

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.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:NURS 8114 Translation Models and Frameworks DQ

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.

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.

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.

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
date.

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements
for full participation.
Does not post main
Discussion by due date.

First 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.

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:
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

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

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.

in standard, edited English. standard, edited English.

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_Week5_Discussion_Rubric

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