NUR 720: Evidence-Based Practice Assignment

NUR 720: Evidence-Based Practice Assignment

NUR 720: Evidence-Based Practice Assignment

NUR 720: Evidence-Based Practice
Print Version of Syllabus [PDF] Download Print Version of Syllabus [PDF]
Term

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
NUR 720: Evidence-Based Practice Assignment
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Fall 2022
Course Credit Hour

3 semester course hour
Prerequisites/Co-Requisites

DNP Major
Course Description

This course introduces the learner to theories related to Research Utilization (RU) and Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) and provides opportunities to explore issues and refine questions related to quality and cost-effective healthcare delivery for the best client outcomes. There will be discussions on methods to collect evidence, plan changes for the transformation of practice and evaluate quality improvement methods. There is an emphasis on best practice based on evidence and preferences of the client.
Instructor Information

Lead Instructor: Judy Walloch, Ed.D

Email: jwalloch@fsmail.bradley.edu

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Course Outcomes

Analyze methods to collect appropriate data to generate evidence.
Critically appraise existing evidence to identify appropriate questions for clinical practice improvement.
Analyze ethical considerations in clinical research.
Interpret the relevance of data analysis in clinical research.
Explore the process for planning a clinical practice improvement project.
Determine how to evaluate outcomes in terms of practice improvement and patient outcomes.
Compare and contrast methods to disseminate evidence to guide practice.

Required Textbooks

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (Links to an external site.) (7th ed.)

Melnyk, B. & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2019). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Additional Software or Recommended Textbooks

*Kellar, S. P. & Kevin, E.A. (2013). Munro’s statistical methods for health care research (6th ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

*This text is required for ENC 510, so I suggest that you purchase and not rent it.

**Moran, K., Burson, R., & Condrad, S. (2020). The Doctor of Nursing Practice Project: A Framework for Success. (3rd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

**This text is required for NUR 625, NUR 725, NUR 826, and NUR 827, so I suggest that you purchase, not rent it.
Turnitin

Select assignments will be scanned using Turnitin software. Turnitin is an online service that highlights matching text in written work. It indexes Internet sources, databases of subscription services, and written work submitted through its website. Assignments sent through Turnitin are scanned against all of its sources and a report is generated that summarizes and highlights matching text and where it was found. It is up to instructors and students to interpret the report to determine if plagiarism occurred. You may submit your assignment to Turnitin prior to its due date to assess your work against Turnitin’s database. You may use the Originality Report’s results to address any originality concerns in your work, and then resubmit your assignment for grading. You may resubmit until the assignment’s due date. Any work that has been submitted at the time the assignment is due will be considered your final submission, and this will be the submission used for grading.

Turnitin Resources and Guides

Visit the Bradley University TurnitinLinks to an external site. student page for tips and resources, including a video tutorial on how to submit an assignment using Turnitin.
Multiple Submissions for Assignments

Some assignments in your course allow for multiple submissions however, students must follow these guidelines:

Students should not resubmit after the due date.
Any submissions that are received may be graded, so submit only final work.
Do not resubmit after you have received a grade; there is no regrading of work in this program.
Assignments that go through Turnitin are limited to two submissions.

Required Policies

Evaluation of Student Learning

Minimum Passing Standard:

Students must earn a “B” or better in all nursing courses (any course that starts with NUR). Students must repeat nursing courses where a grade of “B” is not achieved the semester immediately following the unsatisfactory course grade unless otherwise noted due to course availability.

Failure to achieve the grade of B or better in any two nursing courses within the graduate curriculum will result in dismissal from the program.
Grading Scale

The grading scale for the Department of Nursing is used to determine the course letter grades.
Grading Scale Grade Range Grading Scale
A 92–100

Minimum Passing Standard:
Students must earn a “B” or better in all nursing courses
B 85–91
C 77–84
D 72–76
F 71 and below

Rounding of final grades: The final grade for the course may be rounded up using standard rounding rules. The lead instructor will round the grades.
Assignment and Point Distribution Activity Point Value
Discussions (5 total) 78
Assignments (18 total) 430
Smaller Assignments (15 total) 245
Larger Assignments (3 total)
Training to Synthesize Evidence—50 pts
Synthesis of Evidence—85 pts
Presentation of Evidence Synthesis—50 pts
185
Quizzes (3 total)
Week 6 Quiz–12 points
Week 7 Quiz–12 points
Week 11 Quiz–2 points
26
Total 534
Late Work Policy

All assigned course work is due on dates assigned. Late assignments will have 10% of the total possible points deducted for each day late unless prior arrangements have been made. Prior arrangements must be made before the due date, not on the due date. Extensions are granted at the discretion of the instructor.

Late postings for forum discussions will have 1 point deducted for each day late unless prior arrangements have been made. Prior arrangements must be made before the due date, not on the due date. Extensions are granted at the discretion of the instructor.
Academic Integrity

Bradley University requires that all graduate students read and support the Policy on Academic Issues including cheating and plagiarism. Academic Integrity is a core value of our community of learners. Every member of the academic community (students, faculty, and staff) is expected to maintain high standards of integrity in all facets of work and study. The Policy on Academic Issues describes appropriate academic conduct in research, writing, assessment, and ethics.

Academic dishonesty is not tolerated at Bradley University. The penalties can be severe and include:
Failing the assignment
Failing the course
Referral to University Judicial System and the disciplinary sanctions for violation of University regulations.

Students are urged to discuss questions regarding academic integrity with instructors, advisors, or with the Director of Nursing.

Review the Student Conduct Code and PolicyLinks to an external site..
APA/Scholarly Writing

You must demonstrate proficiency in using American Psychological Association (APA) format in all submitted works, unless instructed otherwise.
Written Assignments

Written assignments must be submitted in a readable and editable Microsoft Word file format (.doc/.docx) unless otherwise specified by the instructor. Google docs will not be accepted due to the limited commenting and track changes features. When TurnItIn is indicated, the assignment must have a completed report.

It is the student’s responsibility to check the file type and format when submitting written assignments. A ‘zero’ may be awarded for files that cannot be opened or are submitted in an unreadable/unaccepted format.
Online Proctoring

In order to ensure the highest quality and secure environment, major assessments within your course may be proctored using a third-party vendor. These assignments will be identified within your course site and instructions/preparation for the use of this technology should be followed.
Classroom Expectations/Netiquette and Electronic Communication Policy

Class attendance in the form of weekly reading and assignments is required. If you cannot complete the weekly assignment you must notify the instructor prior to the due date. Your Bradley email should be used for all communication with your instructors.

Participation requires preparing extensively on all topics weekly, participating in discussion forum posts, submitting assignments, completing quizzes and exams, as scheduled.

Log on to the course website at least twice per week and check your Bradley e-mail daily. You must respond to your instructor email questions or concerns as soon as possible, but within 48 hours.

You must have reliable access to a computer with internet capability and course required software. You must also be able to use the internet to access course documents and to send and receive e-mail and e-mail attachments. Refer to MyOnline technical requirements.

As adult learners, you are responsible for your own learning. Please feel free to contact your course instructors any time if you have concerns about the content of this course and they will work with you to alleviate your concerns. Should your concern or issue not be resolved, contact the lead instructor. If your concern or issue remains unresolved, you may contact the Director of Nursing directly for facilitation. It is an expectation that all graduate students be critical thinkers and work to resolve their issues as swiftly and professionally first with their course instructors, prior to escalating issues or concerns to those members of higher administration.
Guidelines for Web Etiquette

This policy governs how to interact in this online course. To promote effective and positive interactions this policy encourages everyone participating in this course (students, faculty and maybe staff) to use common courtesy and respect in all forms of electronic communication.
Guidelines for electronic communications among students and with the faculty:
Any offensive, sexual, discriminatory or prejudicial language is prohibited.
If you disagree with an idea do not make personal. Do not use personal attack or threatening language. Do not post while angry or emotional. Maintain comments in a respectful manner.
Online communication can be difficult to understand the “tone” of the writer/author. Sometimes the true meaning is misunderstood. Choose your words carefully. Some symbols – emoticons like 🙂 may help communicate that you are less serious.
Remember English may not be the first language for everyone enrolled in this course. Consequently, be tolerant to mistakes; do not use acronyms or abbreviations unless the entire class is familiar with them.
Be polite and professional if you have to correct someone for inaccurate information or mistakes.
Do not post personal information of other students without their permission. Do not forward an e-mail, or file attachment without the permission of the author.
Avoid using text message shorthand, not everyone is familiarized with it.
Please check your spelling and proofread your message.
AVOID USING ALL CAPS, it’s considered shouting.

If you feel you are being harassed or someone is abusive or demeaning to you in this online course, please do not hesitate to contact the instructor.

Please refer to Department of Nursing Honor Code (found in the Graduate Student Handbook) and the Graduate Student Handbook for student conduct expectations.
Student Academic Services (SAS), Accommodations, etc.

Bradley University seeks to provide effective services and accommodation for qualified individuals with documented disabilities. SAS is committed to the fulfillment of equal educational opportunity, academic freedom and human dignity for students with disabilities. The SAS exists to provide reasonable and appropriate accommodations for qualified students with documented disabilities, to assist students in self-advocacy, to educate the Bradley community about disabilities, and ensure compliance with federal and state law. If you would benefit from an accommodation because of a documented disability, you are required to register with Student Support Services at the beginning of the semester. Please contact the Office of Student Access ServicesLinks to an external site..
Emergency Services/Natural or Catastrophic Events

In the event that a catastrophic event occurs on a local, regional, or national level and disables communication to/from Bradley University, you should provide for your own and your family’s safety and contact your instructors by phone, private e-mail, or through alternately provided numbers. Every effort on the faculty’s part will be made to reasonably attempt to continue with the course and to meet the course objectives.
Fair Practice Work Policy

A fair practice work policy protects students from assuming the role of their credentialed supervisor, preceptor, professor, or clinical instructor. Students should be supervised in their field and clinical experiences and should not be serving as in the workforce. APN students should be supervised at all times and final decision making/patient care is the responsibility of the preceptor. All documentation regarding patient care must be reviewed by the clinical preceptor; students are encouraged to complete patient care documentation (both for the clinical site and the student’s Typhon patient documentation) during practicum hours.
Professional Dress Code

You are expected to reflect professionalism and maintain high standards of appearance and grooming in the clinical setting. You must adhere to the dress code of the clinical facility and have your Bradley nursing badge prominently displayed above the waistline.

Smarthinking

As a Bradley student, you will also have access to Smarthinking writing center to support you in completing your coursework. Smarthinking is free and available for students 24 hours Sunday through Thursday. Friday and Saturday times must be pre-scheduled. Remember to seek assistance several days before an assignment is due to make sure you have time to review any suggestions and make final edits before your assignment deadline.

Explore more information about Smarthinking through the Graduate Nursing Student Orientation Course in Canvas. When classes begin, access Smarthinking by logging into your Canvas classroom, click on Online Tutoring on the navigation bar, and follow the directions in the pop-up window.
Rubrics
Discussion Initial Post and Replies Rubric
Discussion Initial Post and Replies Rubric Initial Post
Criteria Does Not Meet Expectations
(0 to 1 point) Nearly Meets Expectations
(>1 to 2 points ) Meets Expectations
(>2 to 3 points )
Relevance of Post Answer does not relate to the discussion question or contains misinformation, inaccurate thinking, and/or irrelevant remarks. Answer relates to the discussion question but demonstrates minimal critical thinking or lack of depth. Answer relates to the discussion question, is accurate and relevant, presents correct information, and demonstrates critical thinking.
Expression Within the Post No clear expression of opinions or ideas or unclear connection to topic or idea(s) delivered in a less then professional manner. Minimal expression of opinions or ideas or unclear expression of ideas related to topic. Clear and concise expression of opinions and ideas with obvious connection to topic.
Mechanics Some spelling and grammar errors in post. Does not follow APA guidelines. Does not cite resources in text. Missing reference(s), one or no reference present. Few spelling or grammar errors in post. Uses a reference that is not high quality, or reference(s) are not cited in correct APA format. Post is grammatically correct with rare misspellings. Adheres to APA guidelines as able with this format. Cites at least two resources in APA format to support opinion.
Initial Post Total 9 Points
Replies
Criteria Does Not Meet Expectations
(0 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(1 point) Meets Expectations
(2 points)

Relevance of Post

(Reflect, inquire, suggest, elevate)
Response posts are not substantive, or viewpoints irrelevant to current topic, or does not respond to two classmates. Does not clearly follow the RISE model guidelines, presents relevant viewpoints for consideration. Using the RISE model for meaningful feedback, develops thought-provoking questions to facilitate discussion.
Participation Does not respond to at least two classmates or marginal effort to become involved in group discussion. Did not answer your peer’s question to create conversation. Responds to at least two classmates with some detailed remarks regarding their contributions. Answers most of your peer’s question to create conversation. Responds to at least two classmates. Consistently encourages and facilitates interaction among peers. Answers peer’s question to create conversation.
Mechanics Responses do not demonstrate use of professional vocabulary or APA writing style. Responses occasionally demonstrate use of professional vocabulary and APA writing style. Responses consistently demonstrate use of professional vocabulary and APA writing style.
Replies Total 6 Points
Discussion Total 15 Points
Week 3 Discussion 2.1 Criteria Does Not Meet Expectations
(0 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(>0 to 2 points) Meets Expectations
(>2 to 3 points)
Feedback on Replies Written interactions incomplete and/or consistently show disinterest in the viewpoints of others. Some written interactions show disinterest in the viewpoints of others. All written interactions complete and show respect for and interest in the viewpoints of others.
Discussion Total 18 Points
Discussion 1.1: Bongo Introduction Rubric
Discussion 1.1: Bongo Introduction Rubric Initial Post
Criteria Does Not Meet Expectations Meets Expectations Complete

Post Format:

Post introduction follows directions regarding format

(0 points)

Does not include PPT slide.

(3 points)

Post introduction contains a Bongo video with PPT.

Timeliness:

Post is on time

(−15 to −2 points)

Special late penalty for any post that posted after due date

One day late penalty −2
Two days late −6
Three days late −10
Four days late −15

(1 point)

Posts Bongo video by due date.

Post Content:

Content complete and correct.

(0 to 2 points)

Content is incomplete or inaccurate.

(>2 to 4 points)

Describes experiences with EBP. Differentiates EBP from research. Describes nursing interests. Includes a reference.
Initial Post Total 8 Points
Replies
Criteria Does Not Meet Expectations Meets Expectations

Feedback:

Provide welcoming feedback to six classmates.

(0 points)

Does not respond to six classmates.

(4 points)

Responds to at least six classmates with a welcoming attitude.

Etiquette:

Etiquette in Dialogue with Peers.

(0 points)

Interactions show disrespect for and/or disinterest in the viewpoints of others.

(3 points)

All interactions show respect for and interest in the viewpoints of others.
Replies Total 7 Points
Discussion Total 15 Points
Assignment 1.1: Spirit of Inquiry Rubric
Assignment 1.1: Spirit of Inquiry Rubric Criteria Barely Meets Expectations Nearly Meets Expectations Meets Expectations

Practice Issues:

Three clinical practice or management issues with background explained and a citation to a reference.

(0 to 2 points)

Identifies two or fewer current or past nursing practice issues. Issues are not accompanied with an explanation or reference.

(>2 to 4 points)

Identifies three current or past nursing practice issues. Issues are accompanied with a vague explanation and citation to a reference.

(>4 to 6 points)

Identifies three current or futuristic nursing practice issues. Each issue accompanied with an explanation and citation to a reference.

Format:

Paper formatted with separate title page, body, and reference page.

Appropriate grammar, free of typographical errors. Between 600 and 900 words

(0 to 2 points)

Formatting does not follow guidelines. Or work contains basic typographical or grammar errors. Or too short or too lengthy.

(>2 to 3 points)

Writes issues using correct layout, grammar, full sentences, may have a few typos with formatting issues.

(>3 to 4 points)

Writes issues using correct layout, grammar and full sentences, without typos. Formatted as requested.
Total 10 Points
Assignment 2.1: Crediting Sources: Avoiding Plagiarism Rubric
Assignment 2.1: Crediting Sources: Avoiding Plagiarism Rubric Criteria Barely Meets Expectations
(0 to 3 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(>3 to 4 points) Meets Expectations
(>4 to 5 points)

Paraphrase:

Paraphrase a section of each of the references using proper APA formatting for in-text citation.

Article paraphrasing lacks completeness or has APA errors (formatting or grammatical).

Each article paraphrased with APA errors.

Each article paraphrased with proper APA in-text citations.

Quote:

Cite a direct quote taken from each reference using proper APA in-text citation.

Direct quote from some of the references with major APA in-text citation errors (formatting or grammatical).

Direct quote from each reference with minor APA in-text citation errors.

Direct quote from each reference using proper APA in-text citations.

Reference List:

Complete reference list using APA formatting. Work without grammatical or typographical errors.

Reference list completed using APA formatting, but with major grammatical, typographical, and/or formatting errors.

Reference list completed using APA formatting, but with minor grammatical, typographical, and/or formatting errors.

Reference list completed using APA formatting and without grammatical or typographical errors.
Total Points Possible 15 Points
Assignment 3.2: Developing a PICO(T) Question Rubric
Assignment 3.2: Developing a PICO(T) Question Rubric Criteria Does Not Meet Expectations
(0 to 5 points) Barely Meets Expectations
(>5 to 7 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(>7 to 9 points) Meets Expectations
(>9 to 10 points)

Clinical Practice Issue/Problem:

Describe your clinical practice issue/problem (DNP FNP track) or management issue/problem (DNP Leadership track) in one paragraph.

States the issue/problem but does not describe it.

States the issue/problem but does not clearly or thoroughly describe it.

States and describes the issue/problem but does not clearly address why it is an issue.

Clearly and concisely describes the issue/problem.

Foreground Question:

Background described and supported with in-text citations and references.

PICO(T) Question:

Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome Timeframe (if applicable)

Background described incompletely or lacking support, or the foreground question is not present.

Background described incompletely. Supported with in-text citations and references, or the foreground question is not in the appropriate PICO(T) format.

Background described vaguely. Supported with in-text citations and references, or the foreground question is in the appropriate. PICO(T) format but one of the components is stated incorrectly.

Background described concisely. Supported with in-text citations and references. The foreground question is appropriate and in the correct PICO(T) format.
Total Points Possible 20 Points
Assignment 4.1: Using Available Databases Rubric
Assignment 4.1: Using Available Databases Rubric Criteria Barely Meets Expectations
(0 to 3 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(>3 to 4 points) Meets Expectations
(>4 to 5 points)

Search Topic:

Woman with breast cancer reduce fatigue with use of yoga in three databases using advanced function with limits.

Searches a topic with simple search in less than three of the databases or finds <50% or >150% of citations.

Or does not remove not applicable citations.

Searches similar topic with advanced search in three databases and finds <80% or >120% of citations.

Removes not applicable citations.

Searches correct topic with advanced search. Presents approximately same number of citations as directed.

Removes not applicable citations.

Reference List:

Use a citation manager to create reference correct formatting errors.
Numerous, varied errors in APA formatting. Several different errors in APA formatting. Complies with APA formatting; a few typographical errors noted.
Total Points Possible 10 Points
Assignment 4.2: Preliminary Search for Evidence Rubric
Assignment 4.2: Preliminary Search for Evidence Rubric Criteria Barely Meets Expectations
(0 to 7 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(>7 to 9 points) Meets Expectations
(>9 to 10 points)

Search Process:

Write a brief paper in which you describe the search. Include databases, keywords, limits (language, years, research, peer reviewed, et al.), total # of studies found, and total # of studies reviewed, and how you determined which studies to review of those found.

Search description is incomplete or does not include two relevant databases.

Search is described vaguely and includes two relevant databases.

Search is described including at least two relevant databases using words from PICO(T).

Search Results in Reference List:

Combine the results using a citation manager, remove duplicates, and create a citation reference list as a Word document. The list must contain 16 or more citations. Format the list as an APA reference list.

Duplicate results not removed or not limited appropriately.

Excess results not removed but limited appropriately.

Searches correct topic with advanced search using appropriate terms. Presents applicable citations, removing excess results and limited appropriately.
Total Points Possible 20 Points
Assignment 5.1: Critical Appraisals Rubric
Week 5: Critical Appraisals Rubric Criteria Does Not Meet Expectations
(0 to 13 points) Barely Meets Expectations
(>13 to 14 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(>14 to 19 points) Meets Expectations
(>19 to 20 points)

Part 1: Checklists
(5 points per checklist)

Critical Appraisal Checklists completed for the related four articles from EET. Select a variety of types of research to appraise from your preliminary list.

Fewer than four checklists completed with incomplete answers. OR, checklist(s) do not match research type in 3 or 4 articles. The same type of appraisal checklist was used.

Four checklists completed with incomplete answers. OR, checklist(s) do not match research type in two articles. Only three types of appraisal checklists were used.

Four checklists completed with thoughtful answers, minor errors present. OR, checklist(s) do not match research type in an article. Different types of appraisal checklists were used.

Four checklists completed with thoughtful correct answers. Each checklist matches an article. Four different types of appraisal checklists were used.
Criteria (0 to 9 points) (>9 to 11 points) (>11 to 14 points) (>14 to 15 points)

Part 2: Evidence Evaluation Table:

For at least four research studies; complete information.

Columns one through seven

citation reference,
purpose,
methodology,
sample,
tools,
data analysis,
findings

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Includes fewer than four references; poorly summarized; incomplete information provided.

May contain blank sections.

Includes four articles; briefly summarized; incomplete or inaccurate information provided for the first seven columns as directed.

Includes at least four research studies, briefly summarized; complete but inaccurate information provided for the first seven columns as directed.

Includes at least four research studies; summarized; complete and accurate information provided for the first seven columns as directed.

Total Points

35 Points
Assignment 6.1: Identifying the Variables in Your PICO(T) and in Your EET Rubric
Assignment 6.1: Identifying the Variables in Your PICO(T) and in Your EET Rubric Criteria Does Not Meet Expectations Barely Meets Expectations Nearly Meets Expectations Meets Expectations

Problem and Question:

Foreground question written in PICO(T) format.

Identify the outcome/dependent variable.

(0 to 2 points)

Question not identified or DV not identified.

(>2 to 3 points)

Question identified but not in PICO(T) format.

(>3 to 4 points)

Question written in PICO(T) but dependent variable not identified correctly.

(>4 to 5 points)

Question written succinctly in PICO(T) format; dependent variable identified correctly.

EET:

Four research studies; column eight (major variables) completed.

(0 to 6 points)

Includes fewer than four articles; variable(s) not provided, or only 1 or 2 variables correct.

(>6 to 7 points)

Includes four research studies; IV/DVs provided for two articles are correct.

(>7 to 9 points)

Includes four research studies, but; IV/DVs provided for only three articles are correct.

(>9 to 10 points)

Includes four research studies; complete correct information provided.
Total Points Possible 15 Points
Assignment 7.1: Levels of Evidence Evaluation Table (EET) Rubric
Assignment 7.1: Levels of Evidence Evaluation Table (EET) Rubric Criteria Does Not Meet Expectations Barely Meets Expectations Nearly Meets Expectations Meets Expectations

ID Level of Evidence:

Complete column nine of EET. State the type of research. Identify which level of evidence (LOE) (I, II, III, IV, or V) each study generated using the Bradley University Levels of Evidence Pyramid.

(0 to 3 points)

Does not correctly ID the level of evidence for two of the four articles; or, does not complete LOE column in table with type and level of research; or, does not include four articles.

(>3 to 4 points)

Correctly identifies the level of evidence for two of the four articles as supported by type of research.

(>4 to 5 points)

Correctly identifies the level of evidence for three articles of the four articles as supported by type of research.

(>5 to 6 points)

Correctly identifies the level of evidence for all four articles as supported by type of research.

Completeness and Feedback:

For at least four research studies; complete information for columns 9–11.

9. LOE
10. Appraisal
11. Usefulness

Incorporates feedback from previous submissions of EET for columns 1–8.

(0 to 5 points)

Blank sections (columns or rows) remain. Table incomplete, or incorrect format of the PICO(T).

(>5 to 7 points)

Did not incorporate feedback. Table complete but with errors. PICO(T) in correct format.

(>7 to 8 points)

Attempted to incorporate feedback, minor errors remain. Table complete with PICO(T) in correct format.

(>8 to 9 points)

Incorporated feedback and corrected errors. Table complete with PICO(T) in correct format.
Total Points Possible 15 Points
Assignment 8.1: Clinical Practice Guidelines Rubric
Assignment 8.1: Clinical Practice Guidelines Rubric Criteria Does Not Meet Expectations Barely Meets Expectations Meets Expectations

Clinical Practice Guideline:

Describe a recent clinical experience.

(0 to 2 points)

Identifies but does not describe the clinical experience.

(>2 to 4 points)

Describes the clinical experience but discussion is incomplete or unclear.

(>4 to 5 points)

Clearly and concisely describes the clinical experience.

Questions:

Identify the clinical practice guideline.

Use the Assessment of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for Trustworthiness to critique the quality of the guideline.

A summary of your critique of the guideline Would this guideline be useful in your practice?

Would the staff that you work with be receptive to using the clinical guideline on your unit?

Based on personal preference, culture, or extenuating circumstances, present one patient that would not benefit from the use of this guideline.

(0 to 7 points)

Does not identify the clinical practice guideline and/or does not complete the Assessment of CPG does not answer each question.

(>7 to 9 points)

Identifies the clinical practice guideline.

Completely completes the Assessment of CPG and answers the questions in sentence format but incompletely.

(>9 to 10 points)

Identifies the clinical practice guideline.

Completely and concisely completes the Assessment of CPG and answers the questions clearly and concisely.

RCA-EBG:

Submit completed Assessment of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for Trustworthiness with answers. Adds answers to questions to end of form.

Completes reference page and Appendix according to APA standards.

(0 to 3 points)

Does not submit completed Assessment of CPG with answers. Reference page or appendix not completed according to APA standards.

(>3 to 4 points)

Submits completed Assessment of CPG with answers. Completes reference page and appendix according to APA standards with few errors.

(>4 to 5 points)

Submits completed Assessment of CPG with answers. Completes reference page and appendix according to APA standards.
Total Points Possible 20 Points
Assignment 9.1: Training to Synthesize Evidence Rubric
Assignment 9.1: Training to Synthesize Evidence Rubric Criteria Does Not Meet Expectations Barely Meets Expectations Nearly Meets Expectations Meets Expectations

Introduction:

General introduction guiding reader to paper topic.

What is the situation?

(0 to 2 points)

Introduction confusing, lacks flow, misleads reader.

(>2 to 3 points)

Introduction is vague or disorganized.

(>3 to 4 points

Introduction is brief, unfocused.

(>4 to 5 points)

Gives a clear and concise introduction to the paper. Introduces the situation to the reader.

Background:

What is the problem?

Why did you identify this as an issue/problem?

What is the significance of this problem to nursing practice? Gives support.

(0 to 2 points)

Background not clearly described, or support lacking for significance of problem.

(>2 to 3 points)

Background described fully but not succinctly. Weak support given for significance of problem.

(>3 to 4 points)

Background described fully but not succinctly. Support given for significance of problem.

(>4 to 5 points)

Gives a clear and concise explanation of the clinical issue/problem; background described fully and succinctly. Strong support given for significance of problem.

Foreground Question:

Foreground question written in PICO(T) format. Identify the outcome/dependent and independent variables.

(0 to 2 points)

Question not clearly identified or, IV or DV not identified.

(>2 to 3 points)

Question identified but not in PICO(T) format or both variables not identified correctly.

(>3 to 4 points)

Question written in PICO(T) but dependent or independent variable not identified correctly

(>4 to 5 points)

Question written succinctly in PICO(T) format; variables identified correctly.

Evidence:

Search Process Databases; keywords; limits; total number found; total number reviewed; a minimum of eight publications.

Appraisal:

Discusses number of each level and types of published works. Includes a minimum of eight published works (research studies and or practice guidelines)

(0 to 7 points)

Summary of levels of published works only, or some levels incorrect

Fewer than eight publications included.

(>7 to 8 points)

At least eight publications included but search strategy incompletely described, with omission of one of the items and incomplete description of search results.

General statement(s) about types and levels of published works.

(>8 to 9 points)

At least eight research studies and/or practice guidelines included and search strategy adequately described but incomplete description of search results.

Presents types and levels of published works.

(>9 to 10 points)

Search strategy thoroughly described; search results thoroughly explained; at least eight research studies and/or practice guidelines included.

Presents types and levels of published works

Synthesis of Evidence:

Combine authors ideas into Themes; Evaluate the proposed interventions for effectiveness;

Each theme is a sub header of a paragraph (or more) of evidence. Include contrasting ideas.

(0 to 10 points)

Describes each publication individually. not synthesize.

Fewer than eight publications included.

(>10 to 12 points)

Gives a non-cohesive narrative summary of the evidence; does not present themes.

(>12 to 14 points)

Gives a brief synthesis of the evidence but does not clearly present themes.

(>14 to 15 points)

Gives a thorough and conclusive synthesis of the evidence by presenting themes.

Strengths and Weakness:

Strengths and limitations of the evidence.

(0 to 2 points)

Incomplete.

(>2 to 3 points)

Strengths or limitations unclear.

(>3 to 4 points)

Presents only limitations copied from each publication.

(>4 to 5 points)

Clearly and concisely identifies strengths and limitations.

Conclusion:

Answer to the foreground question; impact on practice (proposed change, recommendations) including leadership strategies.

(0 to 2 points)

Incomplete, illogical conclusion.

(>2 to 3 points)

Discusses only a part of the content areas, or the proposed change does not flow from the evidence presented.

(>3 to 4 points)

Discusses all content areas but not all are clear, concise, and thorough.

(>4 to 5 points)

Answers the foreground question; gives a clear and complete description of impact on practice which flows logically from the summary of evidence presented.
Mechanics (5 point deduction) (3–4 point deduction) (1–2 point deduction) (No deduction)

APA; grammar; spelling; punctuation; references; citations.

Numerous and distracting errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and/or APA format.

Several errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and/or APA format.

Few errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and/or APA format.

No errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or APA format.
Evidence Evaluation Table (EET) (8 point deduction) (5 point deduction) (2 point deduction) (No deduction)

Eight research studies and/or practice guidelines; complete information.

Includes fewer than eight references, or incorrectly evaluated and summarized; or incomplete information provided.

Includes eight publications; briefly evaluated and summarized; incomplete or inaccurate information provided.

Includes eight publications, but briefly evaluated and summarized; complete but some inaccurate information provided.

Includes eight research studies & or practice guidelines; thoroughly evaluated and summarized; complete and accurate information provided.
Total Points Possible 50 Points
Assignment 11.1: Prep for implementation Rubric
Assignment 11.1: Prep for Implementation Rubric Criteria Does Not Meet Expectations Barely Meets Expectations Nearly Meets Expectations Meets Expectations

Introduction:

What is the issue/problem? Describe the clinical practice issue/problem. Guide the reader to what they are going to see presented in this paper.

(0 to 2 points)

Unclear introduction. Does not engage this reader. Hard to follow.

(>2 to 3 points)

Unfocused or unclear introduction. Does not contain a clear issue/problem.

(>3 to 4 points)

Introduction is very brief or rambling. Main issue/problem is present but needs development.

(>4 to 5 points)

Gives a clear and concise explanation of the issue/problem; well developed, accurate, and complete.

SWOT Assessment:

Discuss the institution’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT). We expect multiple of each.

How might these barriers be overcome?

(0 to 6 points)

Assessment incomplete or incomplete expression of organizational readiness.

(>6 to 8 points)

Assessment mostly complete. Readiness expressed, but method of overcoming barriers does not follow from presented evidence.

(>8 to 9 points)

Assessment complete. All four areas (SWOT) discussed, but lacks depth, clarity or conciseness.

(>9 to 10 points)

Institution’s internal and external analyses, and method(s) to overcome barriers.

Implementation Model:

Describe the implementation/conceptual model that will best assist.

(0 to 6 points)

Lacks an implementation model or lacks how it may be used.

(>6 to 8 points)

EBP or QI model presented, or how it may be used is unclear.

(>8 to 9 points)

EBP or QI model presented briefly. How model would be used fits with described situation.

(>9 to 10 points)

EBP or QI model clearly presented. How model would be used fits with described situation.
Total Points Possible 25 Points
Assignment 13.1: Synthesis of Evidence Paper Rubric
Assignment 13.1: Synthesis of Evidence Paper Rubric Criteria Does Not Meet Expectations Barely Meets Expectations Nearly Meets Expectations Meets Expectations

Introduction:

General introduction: What is the issue/problem?

Background:

Why did you identify this as an issue/problem?

What is the significance of this problem to nursing practice?

With supporting citation.

(0 to 2 points)

Unclear or missing intro.

Background not clearly described. or support lacking for significance of problem.

(>2 to 3 points)

Intro unclear.

Background described fully but not succinctly. Weak support given for significance of problem.

(>3 to 4 points)

Intro present but lacks conciseness.

Background described fully but not succinctly. Support given for significance of problem.

(>4 to 5 points)

Gives a clear and concise intro.

Background described fully and succinctly. Support given for significance of problem.

Organizational Assessment:

Discuss your GAP analysis; and the institution’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT). How might these barriers be overcome? Which implementation model will best assist?

(0 to 2 points)

Assessment incomplete or incomplete expression of organizational assessment.

(>2 to 3 points)

Assessment mostly complete. Readiness expressed, but method of overcoming barriers does not follow from presented evidence, or lacks an implementation model.

(>3 to 4 points)

Assessment complete. All areas of Gap and SWOT discussed, but lacks clarity or conciseness.

(>4 to 5 points)

GAP and SWOT along with method(s) to overcome barriers. Includes description of implementation model.

Foreground Question:

Foreground question written in PICO(T) format. Identify the outcome/dependent and independent variables.

(0 points)

Foreground question not identified or DV not identified.

(>0 to 4 points)

Foreground question identified but not in PICO(T) format or dependent variable not identified correctly

(>4 to 5 points)

Foreground question written in PICO(T) format; Variables identified correctly.; dependent variable identified correctly.

Search Process:

Describe the search. Include databases, keywords, limits (language, years, research, peer reviewed, et al.), total # of studies found, and total # of studies reviewed, and how you determined which studies to review of those found (a minimum of 16 published works (research studies or practice guidelines))

Appraisal:
Types and levels of evidence.

(0 to 7 points)

Fewer than 16 published works included or with omission of one of the items.

Summary of levels of works or some levels incorrect.

(>7 to 8 points)

Search strategy incompletely described, and incomplete description of search results.

General statement(s) about types and levels of works or a few levels incorrect.

(>8 to 9 points)

At least 16 published works included and search strategy adequately described but incomplete description of search results.

Presents types and levels of works.

(>9 to 10 points)

Search strategy thoroughly described; search results thoroughly explained; at least 16 research studies or practice guidelines included.

Presents types and levels of works.

Synthesis of the Evidence:

Combine authors ideas into Themes; Evaluate the proposed interventions for effectiveness;

Present the material grouped in Themes.

Each theme is a sub header of a paragraph (or more) of evidence. Include contrasting ideas.

(0 to 24 points)

Describes each research study individually, does not synthesize. Fourteen or less works included in synthesis strengths and weaknesses incomplete.

(>24 to 26 points)

Gives a non-cohesive narrative summary of the evidence; does not synthesize or strengths or limitations unclear. Fifteen works included in synthesis.

(>26 to 29 points)

Gives a brief synthesis of the evidence but does not clearly present themes.

Only limitations copied from each article are presented Sixteen works included in synthesis.

(>29 to 30 points)

Gives a thorough and conclusive synthesis of the evidence by presenting themes, utilizing all 16 published works; Clearly and concisely identifies strengths and limitations.

Conclusion:

Strengths and limitations; answer to the foreground question; impact on practice (proposed change, recommendations); and further investigation needed.

(0 to 10 points)

Incomplete, illogical conclusion.

(>10 to 13 points)

Discusses most of the content areas. or the proposed change does not flow from the evidence presented.

(>13 to 14 points)

Discusses all four content areas but not all are clear, concise, and thorough.

(>14 to 15 points)

Answers PICO(T) question; gives a clear and complete description of impact on practice that flows logically from the summary of evidence presented; gives thorough explanation of further investigation needed.

Evidence Evaluation Table:

Includes at least 16 research studies or practice guidelines; complete information.

(0 to 10 points)

Includes fewer than 16 references; poorly evaluated and summarized; incomplete information provided.

(>10 to 13 points)

Includes 16 publications; briefly evaluated and summarized; incomplete or inaccurate information provided.

(>13 to 14 points)

Includes 16 research studies or practice guidelines, but briefly evaluated and summarized; complete but inaccurate information provided.

(>14 to 15 points)

Includes 16 research studies or practice guidelines; thoroughly evaluated and summarized; complete information provided.
Feedback (10 point deduction) (3 point deduction) (1.5 point deduction) (No deduction)

Incorporates feedback from previous submissions of EET.

Blank sections remain.

Did not incorporate feedback.

Attempted to incorporate feedback, errors remain.

Incorporated feedback and corrected errors.
Mechanics (9 point deduction) (7 point deduction) (4 point deduction) (No deduction)

Utilizes 7th edition APA format and style, grammar, spelling, punctuation, citations, and references list.

Numerous and distracting errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and/or APA format.

Several errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and/or APA format.

Few errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and/or APA format.

No errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or APA format.
Total Points Possible 85 Points
Assignment 14.1: Dissemination through Publication Rubric
Assignment 14.1: Dissemination through Publication Rubric Criteria Does Not Meet Expectations Barely Meets Expectations Meets Expectations

Journal Selection:

Choose one journal to submit your work for publication, based on relevance.

On a separate page from the cover letter; Discuss the guidelines for submission from your journal of choice, addressing the following: Length of the manuscript; Referencing style (APA, MLA, etc.); Formatting (includes space, font, margin, headings etc); Choice of medium

(0 to 10 points)

The manuscript does not align with the aim or scope of the selected journal. Submission guidelines incomplete.

(>10 to 13 points)

The manuscript minimally aligns with the aim and scope of the selected journal, but the supporting rationale is unclear, incorrect, or misleading. Discusses submission guidelines.

(>13 to 15 points)

The manuscript aligns clearly with the aim and scope of the selected journal, with a strong supporting rationale. Fully discusses submission guidelines.
Journal Submission (Cover letter) (0 to 13 points) (>13 to 19 points) (>19 to 20 points)

Create a cover letter for your NUR720 EBP project for this journal

Address the editor by name
Include the name of your manuscript, describe your interest in topic
The major findings
Address the aim and scope of the journal.
Describe contribution to the aim of the journal
Describe value for their readers
Conclude with work is original and not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

 

Cover letter may not include name of editor and/or manuscript, interest in topic, major findings, aim, scope, contribution to journal, or value to readers.

Conclusion may not address originality of work and/or submission elsewhere.

Professional cover letter may not include name of editor and/or manuscript, interest in topic, major findings, aim, scope, contribution to journal, or value to readers.

Conclusion clear and concise and addresses originality of work. Notes that is not been submitted elsewhere.

Clear and concise, professional cover letter includes name of editor and manuscript, interest in topic, major findings, aim, scope, contribution to journal, and value to readers.

Conclusion clear and concise and addresses originality of work. Notes that is not been submitted elsewhere.
Total Points Possible 35 points
Assignment 15.1: Presentation Rubric
Assignment 15.1: Presentation Rubric Criteria Does Not Meet Expectations Barely Meets Expectations Nearly Meets Expectations Meets Expectations
Discussion of Required Content (0 to 9 points) (>9 to 19 points) (>19 to 29 points) (>29 to 30 points)

Includes:

Clinical or management problem or issue.
Background / significance of problem.
PICO(T) question
Search parameters, methods, sources, yield.
Summary of appraisal (include level) of evidence
Synthesis of evidence
Practice implications
Define as QI, EBP, or research.
Conclusions—Limitations—Recommendations

 

Discusses only some of the content areas.

Discusses all content areas but discussion is inaccurate, illogical or vague, with little evidence of critical appraisal, or synthesis.

Discusses all content areas but discussion contains inaccuracies. Is vague, with weak synthesis of evidence.

Discusses all content areas accurately, logically and completely.
Oral Presentation (0 to 3 points) (>3 to 6 points) (>6 to 7 points) (>7 to 8 points)

Eye contact with audience.

Speech—clear and audible with appropriate language skills and pronunciation.

Overall delivery is organized, controlled, and smooth.

Approximately eight minutes in length.

No eye contact with audience; speech unclear and/or barely audible; language skills and pronunciation make speech difficult to understand; overall delivery choppy and unorganized.

Maintains eye contact with audience, but speech unclear and barely audible, language skills and pronunciation make speech difficult to understand and/or overall delivery choppy and unorganized.

Maintains eye contact with audience and speech clear and audible, but language skills and pronunciation make speech difficult to understand and/or overall delivery choppy and unorganized.

Maintains eye contact with audience; speech clear and audible; language skills and pronunciation appropriate; overall delivery organized, controlled and smooth. Eight minutes +/− 2 minutes.
Visual Presentation (0 to 3 points) (>3 to 6 points) (>6 to 7 points) (>7 to 8 points)

No errors in spelling/grammar; appropriate font type and size; good use of colors, contrasts, transitions and/or sounds on all slides; exemplary creativity; very well organized. References present and readable in APA format.

Many errors in spelling/grammar and/or inappropriate font type or size and/or distracting colors, contrasts, transitions and/or sounds and/or no creativity and/or very unorganized.

Many errors in spelling/grammar and/or inappropriate font type or size and/or distracting colors, contrasts, transitions and/or sounds and/or no creativity and/or very unorganized.

One error in spelling/ grammar and/or inappropriate font type or size on some slides and/or distracting colors, contrasts, transitions and/or sounds on most slides and/or moderate creativity and organization.

No errors in spelling/grammar; appropriate font type and size; good use of colors, contrasts, transitions and/or sounds on all slides; exemplary creativity; very well organized.
Professionalism (0 to 1 points) (>1 to 2 points) (>2 to 3 points) (>3 to 4 points)

Backdrop and background noise and distractions controlled. Student professional in presentation.

Backdrop / background distracting. Student in sleep attire and poorly groomed.

Background noise present, backdrop distracting. Student in street clothes and or poorly groomed.

Occasional noise, backdrop neutral. Student in street clothes and or poorly groomed.

No Background noise, backdrop neutral, Student dressed professionally and groomed.
Total Points Possible 50 Points
Assignment 15.2: Presentation Feedback Rubric
Week 15: Presentation Feedback Rubric Criteria Required Content Does Not Meet Expectations
(0 to 5 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(>5 to 9 points) Meets Expectations
(>9 to 10 points)

Review six colleagues’ presentations.
Using the RISE model (reflect, inquire, suggest, elevate) for meaningful feedback, provide thorough feedback to at least three (3) of your classmates.

Reviews less than 4 presentations.
Does not respond to three classmates.

Reviews 4–5 presentations.
Responds to three classmates but responses do not clearly follow the RISE model guidelines.

Reviews six presentations.
Responds to three classmates and responses clearly follow the RISE model guidelines.
Total Points Possible: 10 points
Weekly Sessions

This course is divided into weekly sessions. Unless otherwise indicated, assignments are due no later than 11:55 p.m. CST on the day identified and initial discussion posts are typically due on Thursday with replies posted on Sunday.
Course Learning Activities

The following is a list of learning activities you will need to complete for each week. You will find more detailed instructions within the online course space.
Introduction: Learning Activities Overview
Introduction: Learning Activities Overview August 22 – 28
Learning Activity Due Date Points
Assignment 0.1: Preparatory Steps Sunday Not Applicable
Week 1: Spirit of Inquiry Learning Activities Overview
Week 1: Spirit of Inquiry Learning Activities Overview August 22 – 28
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following in your Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt text:

Chapter 1: Making the Case for Evidence-Based Practice and Cultivating a Spirit of Inquiry

Read the following article:

Nilsen, P., Nether, N., Ellstrom, P.E., Gardner, B. (2017). Implementation of evidence-based practice from a learning perspective. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 14 (3), 192–199. https://doi-org.ezproxy.bradley.edu/10.1111/wvn.12212

Consider reading in your optional Moran, Burson, & Conrad textbook:

Chapter 1: Setting the stage for the Doctor of Nursing Practice Project
Chapter 2: Defining the Doctor of Nursing Practice: Current Trends

Download and save:

American Association of Colleges of Nursing (2006). The Essentials of Doctoral Education for Advanced Nursing Practice.
American Association of Colleges of Nursing (2015). The Doctor of Nursing Practice: Current Issues and Clarifying Recommendations

Sunday Not Applicable

Complete the following instructional activities:

Best Practices for PPT Presentations
EBP Bridges the Gap Between Research and Practice
EBP Steps

Discussion 1.1: Introduction

Initial Post:
Thursday

Replies:
Sunday
15 Points
Assignment 1.1: Spirit of Inquiry Sunday 10 Points
Week 2: Writing in APA Style Learning Activities Overview
Week 2: Writing in APA Style Learning Activities Overview August 29 – September 4
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following articles:

Goodwin, J., & McCarthy, J. (2020). Explaining plagiarism for nursing students: An educational tool. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 15(3), 198–203.
Plagiarism Handout

Review and put tabs on the following pages in your texts:

In-Text Citations. (2020). In American Psychological Association, Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed., pp. 261–274).
Principles of Reference List Entries. (2020). In American Psychological Association, Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed., pp. 283–300).

Consider reading in your optional Moran, Burson, & Conrad textbook:

Chapter 12: “The proposal” (pp. 275–297)
Thursday Not Applicable

Complete the following instructional activities:

APA Style Formatting Part I
APA Style Formatting Part II

Thursday Not Applicable
Assignment 2.1: Crediting Sources: Avoiding Plagiarism Sunday 15 Points
Discussion 2.1: Share Your Clinical Practice or Management Issue

Initial Post:
Sunday
Not Applicable (See Week 3)
Week 3: Asking the Right Question Learning Activities Overview
Week 3: Asking the Right Question Learning Activities Overview September 5 – 11
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following in your Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt text:

Chapter 2: Asking Compelling Clinical Questions

Consider reading in your optional Moran, Burson, & Conrad text:

Chapter 3: Scholarship in Practice

Use the PICO(T) Questions Template (PDF)
Thursday Not Applicable

Complete the instructional activities:

Examine the PICO(T) Infographic for Quantitative Research
PICO(T) Questions Template
PICO(T) Assessment

Thursday Not Applicable
Discussion 2.1 (cont.): Share Your Clinical Practice or Management Issue

Initial Post:
Week 2 Sunday

Replies:
Week 3 Thursday

Revisit Initial Post:
Week 3 Day 7
18 Points
Assignment 3.1: Synthesis of Evidence Topic Approval Sunday 5 Points
Assignment 3.2: Developing a PICO(T) Question Sunday 20 Points
Week 4: Finding the Evidence Learning Activities Overview
Week 4: Finding the Evidence Learning Activities Overview September 12 – 18
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following in your Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt text:

Chapter 3: Finding Relevant Evidence to Answer Clinical Questions

Complete the instructional activities:

Search Strategies Using Your PICO(T)
Introduction to the Nursing Librarian and the Research in Nursing Course Guide
Searching Using EBSCO Host: CINAHL
Searching PubMed through Cullom-Davis
Searching Cochrane Library
Zotero

Thursday Not Applicable
Assignment 4.1: Using Available Search Engines Thursday 10 Points
Assignment 4.2: Preliminary Search for Evidence Sunday 20 Points
Week 5: Critical Appraisal of Evidence Learning Activities Overview
Week 5: Critical Appraisal of Evidence Learning Activities Overview September 19 – 25
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Utilize Chapter 21 in your Melnyk textbook to review research methods.

Review the Statistics Table for a list a commonly used statistical terms and tests.

Read the following article:

Connelly, L. (2014). Statistical and clinical significance. MEDSURG Nursing 23(2), 118–119. MEDSURG Website (Links to an external site.).

Consider reading in your optional Moran, Burson, & Conrad text:

Data Analysis (pp. 177–179)

Read the following in your Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt textbook:

Chapter 5: Critically Appraising Quantitative Evidence for Clinical Decision Making
Chapter 6: Critically Appraising Qualitative Evidence for Clinical Decision Making

Consider referring to your optional Kellar & Kelvin statistics text:

Section Two

Thursday

Sunday
Not Applicable

Complete the following Instructional Activities:

Data Analysis
Making Sense of Research and Evidence
Evidence Appraisal

Thursday Not Applicable
Discussion 5.1: Can You Spot the Problem?

Initial Post:
Thursday

Replies:
Sunday
15 Points
Assignment 5.1: Critical Appraisals Sunday 35 Points
Week 6: Variables in Statistics Learning Activities Overview
Week 6: Variables in Statistics Learning Activities Overview September 26 – October 2
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following in your Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt text:

Chapter 21: p. 610 Box 21.2 & p. 620 Generating Hypotheses When Appropriate
Chapter 5: p. 128 & pp. 135–136

Consider reading in your optional Kellar & Kelvin text:

Pages 22–25.

Read the information from

A List of Common and Uncommon Types of Variables

Obtain and be prepared to read the following for Quiz 6.1: Identify the Variables:

Berthelsen, C. B., & Kristensson, J. (2015). Spouses’ involvement in older patients’ fast-track programmes during total hip replacement using case management intervention. A study protocol of the SICAM-trial. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71(5), 1169–1180. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12602
Griffioen, M. A., et al. (2017). Acute pain characteristics in patients with and without chronic pain following lower extremity injury. Pain Management Nursing, 18(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmn.2016.10.002
Griesdale, D. et al. (2011). Risk factors for urinary retention after hip or knee replacement: a cohort study. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 58:1097–1104. https://doi.org/10.1007 /s12630-011-9595-2
Johnson, S. L. (2015). Workplace bullying prevention: a critical discourse analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 71(10), 2384–2392. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12694
Kumbhare, S., Pleasants, R., Ohar, J., & Strange, C. (2016). Characteristics and prevalence of asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap in the United States. American Thoracic Society, 13(6), 803–810. https://doi.org /10.1513/AnnalsATS.201508-554OC
Vogel, N. P., Appel, S. J., and Winker, G. (2018). Improving HPV vaccination rates among young males in rural area of the United States. The Nurse Practitioner, 43(1). https://doi.org /10.1097/01.NPR.0000527572.74477.a5

Thursday Not Applicable

Complete the following Instructional Activities:

Identifying Variables
Thursday Not Applicable
Quiz 6.1: Identify the Variables Thursday 12 Points
Assignment 6.1: Identifying the Variables in Your PICO(T) and in your EET Sunday 15 Points
Week 7: Levels of Evidence Learning Activities Overview
Week 7: Levels of Evidence Learning Activities Overview October 3 – 9
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following in your Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt text:

Chapter 3: Table 3.2, p. 59
Chapter 4: Critically Appraising Knowledge for Clinical Decision Making

Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice: Models and Guidelines

Obtain and be prepared to read the following for Practice Quiz 7.1 Identifying Levels of Evidence:

Hudspeth, R. (2011). Avoiding regulatory complaints when treating chronic pain patients with opioids. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 23(10), 515–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-7599.2011.00666.x.
Stenner, Karen & Carey, Nicola & Courtenay, Molly. (2012). Prescribing for pain – how do nurses contribute? A national questionnaire survey. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21(23–24), 3335–3345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04136.x

Obtain and be prepared to read the following for Quiz 7.2 Identifying Levels of Evidence:

Berthelsen, C. B., & Kristensson, J. (2015). Spouses’ involvement in older patients’ fast-track programmes during total hip replacement using case management intervention. A study protocol of the SICAM-trial. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71(5), 1169–1180. https://doi.org/10.1111 /jan.12602.
Griffioen, M. A., et al. (2017). Acute pain characteristics in patients with and without chronic pain following lower extremity injury. Pain Management Nursing, 18(1), 33–41. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27964911.
Kumbhare, S., Pleasants, R., Ohar, J., & Strange, C. (2016). Characteristics and prevalence of asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap in the United States. American Thoracic Society, 13(6), 803–810. Retrieved from ats.org
Manworren, R. C. B. (2015). Multimodal pain management and the future of a personalized medicine approach to pain. Journal of the Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses (AORN J), 101, 308–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2014.12.009.
Thomas, M. L., Elliott, J. E., Rao, S. M., Fahey, K. F., Paul, S. M., & Miaskowski, C. (2012). A randomized, clinical trial of education or motivational-interviewing—based coaching compared to usual care to improve cancer pain management. Oncology Nursing Forum, 39(1), 39–49. Retrieved from onf.ons.org
Vogel, N. P., Appel, S. J., and Winker, G. (2018). Improving HPV vaccination rates among young males in rural area of the United States. The Nurse Practitioner, 43(1). https://doi.org/10.1097 /01.NPR.0000527572.74477.a5

Thursday Not Applicable

Complete the following Instructional Activities:

Evidence-Based Pyramid—Levels of Evidence
Practice Quiz 7.1: Identifying Levels of Evidence

Thursday Not Applicable
Quiz 7.2: Identifying Levels of Evidence Thursday 12 Points
Assignment 7.1: Levels of Evidence Evaluation Table (EET) Sunday 15 Points
Week 8: Clinical Practice Guidelines Learning Activities Overview
Week 8: Clinical Practice Guidelines Learning Activities Overview October 10 – 16
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following in your Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt text:

Chapter 8: Advancing Optimal Care with Rigorously Developed Clinical Practice Guidelines and Evidence-Based Recommendations

Save the location to these resources:

TRIP Medical Database
ECRI Institute
Clinical Practice Guidelines

Sunday Not Applicable

Complete the following Instructional Activities:

Viva La Evidence
Sunday Not Applicable
Assignment 8.1: Clinical Practice Guidelines Sunday 20 Points
Continue adding to your EET Week 9
Sunday Not Applicable
(see Week 9)
Week 9: Synthesis of Evidence Learning Activities Overview
Week 9: Synthesis of Evidence Learning Activities Overview October 17 – 23
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Review the following in your Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt text:

Chapter 5: Critically Appraising Quantitative Evidence for Clinical Decision Making, pp. 182–183.

Consider reading the following in your optional Moran et al. textbook:

Writing Tips pp. 295–297.

Complete the following Instructional Activities:

Synthesis of Evidence
Thursday Not Applicable
Assignment 9.1: Training to Synthesize Evidence Sunday 50 Points
Week 10: Protecting Research Subjects Learning Activities Overview
Week 10: Protecting Research Subjects Learning Activities Overview October 24 – 30
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following in your Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt text:

Chapter 23: Ethical Implications for Evidence Implementation and Evidence Generation
Chapter 1: Making the Case for Evidence-Based Practice and Cultivating a Spirit of Inquiry

Read the following article:

Ward-Smith, P. (2106) Evidence-Based nursing: When the evidence is fraudulent. Urologic Nursing 36(2) https://doi:10.7257/1053-816X.2016.36.2.98

Read the following paper:

DNP Project Needs IRB Approval
Thursday Not Applicable

Complete the following Instructional Activities:

Ethics in Clinical Research presentation
Your DNP Project: Conducting Ethical Research Driven by Strong Sufficient Evidence
You Don’t Want to Do It Like That: Infamous Cases of Ethical Misconduct.
Additional Resources

Thursday Not Applicable
Discussion 10.1: Protecting the Subjects of Your Own EBP Initiative

Initial Post:
Thursday

Replies:
Sunday
15 Points
Assignment 10.1: Citi Program Modules Sunday 10 Points
Continue adding to your EET Week 13
Sunday Not Applicable
(see Week 13)
Week 11: Implementing EBP in Clinical Settings Learning Activities Overview
Week 11: Implementing EBP in Clinical Settings Learning Activities Overview October 31 – November 6
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following in your Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt text:

Chapter 9: Implementing Evidence in Clinical Settings
Chapter 14: Models to Guide Implementation and Sustainability of Evidence-Based Practice

Read the following article:

SWOT Analysis (PDF)

Consider reading in your optional Moran, Burson, & Conrad text:

SWOT, pp. 128–130

Complete the following Instructional Activities:

Examine the SWOT Analysis: SWOT chart
EBP Implementation Models

Thursday Not Applicable
Assignment 11.1: Prep for Implementation Sunday 25 Points
Quiz 11.1: Decision Making Sunday 2 Points
Continue adding to your EET Week 13 Sunday Not Applicable
(see Week 13)
Week 12: Evaluation of EBP Outcomes Learning Activities Overview
Week 12: Evaluation of EBP Outcomes Learning Activities Overview November 7 – 13
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Consider reading in your optional Moran et al text:

Rouen, P. (2019) Aligning Designing, Method, and Evaluation with the Clinical Question. (Chapter 7, pp.167–173)

Read this excerpt from Harris (2019):

Is it QI, research, or both?

Consider reading the following in your optional Moran, Burson, & Conrad text:

Moran, K. (2019) Quality Improvement. In K. Moran, R. Burson, & D. Conrad (Eds.), The Doctor of nursing practice scholarly project: A Framework for success (3rd ed., pp. 138–143).
Thursday Not Applicable

Complete the following Instructional Activities:

Evaluation of Evidence Uptake
Questions to Ask Before Sharing New Evidence with Patients

Thursday Not Applicable
Discussion 12.1: Evaluation of Outcomes

Initial Post:
Thursday

Replies:
Sunday
15 Points
Continue adding to your EET Week 13
Sunday Not Applicable
(see Week 13)
Week 13: Generating Evidence Learning Activities Overview
Week 13: Generating Evidence Learning Activities Overview November 14 – 20
Learning Activity Due Date Points
Assignment 13.1: Synthesis of Evidence Sunday 85 Points
Week 14: Dissemination through Publication Learning Activities Overview
Week 14: Dissemination through Publication Learning Activities Overview November 21 – 27
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following articles:

Velasquez, D. & Bonham, E. (2014). The clinical practice project: Planning to publish.
Campbell, G., Hutchinson, L., Mulcahy, K, & Watkins, G. (Eds.) (2014). Writing for publication: An easy to follow guide for nurses interested in publishing their work. pp. 6–8, & 14–17. Retrieved from: http://www.wiley-docs.com/HSJ-14-63694_Writing_for_Publication_lowres.pdf
Bowler (n.d.). Common reasons why academic papers are rejected by journal editors.

Read the following in your Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt textbook:

Chapter 20: “Disseminating Evidence Through Publications, Presentations, Health Policy Briefs, and the Media” (pp. 568–573)
Thursday Not Applicable

Complete the following Instructional Activities:

Journal Finder

Thursday Not Applicable
Assignment 14.1: Dissemination through Publication Sunday 35 Points
Week 15: Disseminating Evidence Through Presentations Learning Activities Overview
Week 15: Disseminating Evidence Through Presentations Learning Activities Overview November 28 – December 4
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following in your Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt textbook:

Chapter 20: Disseminating Evidence Through Publications, Presentations, Health Policy Briefs, and the Media pp. 548–552

Read the following article:

Zerwic, J., Grandfield, K., Kavanaugh, K., Berger, B., Graham, L., & Mershon, M. (2010). Tips for better visual elements in posters and podium presentations. Education for Health 23(2) 267. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc /articles/PMC3003437/

Read this excerpt from your optional Moran textbook:

Comparison of DNP and PhD in Nursing (PDF)

Complete the following Instructional Activities:

Refer to Week 1 presentation, “Best Practice for PowerPoint Presentations.”
Thursday Not Applicable
Assignment 15.1: Presentation of Evidence Synthesis Monday

50 Points
Assignment 15.2: Feedback on Classmates’ Presentations Thursday 10 Points
Course Summary:
Date Details Due
Mon Aug 22, 2022 Calendar Event Open office hours: Dr. Walloch 1 2pm to 5pm
Wed Aug 24, 2022 Calendar Event Open office hours: Dr. Walloch 1 11am to 1pm
Thu Aug 25, 2022 Assignment Discussion 1.1: Introduction due by 11:59pm
Sun Aug 28, 2022 Assignment Assignment 0.1: Preparatory Steps for Writing Success due by 11:55pm
Assignment Assignment 1.1: Spirit of Inquiry due by 11:55pm
Assignment Discussion 1.1: Introduction Responses due by 11:55pm
Wed Aug 31, 2022 Calendar Event Open office hours: Dr. Walloch 2 11am to 1pm
Sun Sep 4, 2022 Discussion Topic Discussion 2.1: Share Your Clinical Practice or Management Issue due by 11:55pm
Assignment Assignment 2.1: Crediting Sources: Avoiding Plagiarism due by 11:59pm
Wed Sep 7, 2022 Calendar Event Open office hours: Dr. Walloch 3 11am to 12:30pm
Thu Sep 8, 2022 Assignment Discussion 2.1: Share Your Clinical Practice or Management Issue Responses due by 11:55pm
Sun Sep 11, 2022 Assignment Assignment 3.1: Synthesis of Evidence Topic Approval due by 11:55pm
Assignment Assignment 3.2: Developing a PICO(T) Question due by 11:55pm
Wed Sep 14, 2022 Calendar Event Open office hours: Dr. Walloch 4 11am to 1pm
Thu Sep 15, 2022 Assignment Assignment 4.1: Using Available Databases due by 11:55pm
Sun Sep 18, 2022 Assignment Assignment 4.2: Preliminary Search for Evidence due by 11:55pm
Wed Sep 21, 2022 Calendar Event Open office hours: Dr. Walloch 5 11am to 1pm
Thu Sep 22, 2022 Discussion Topic Discussion 5.1: Can You Spot the Problem? due by 11:55pm
Sun Sep 25, 2022 Assignment Assignment 5.1: Critical Appraisals due by 11:55pm
Assignment Discussion 5.1: Can You Spot the Problem? Responses due by 11:55pm
Wed Sep 28, 2022 Calendar Event Open office hours: Dr. Walloch 6 11am to 1pm
Thu Sep 29, 2022 Assignment Quiz 6.1: Identify the Variables due by 11:55pm
Sun Oct 2, 2022 Assignment Assignment 6.1: Identifying the Variables in Your PICO(T) and in Your EET due by 11:55pm
Wed Oct 5, 2022 Calendar Event Open office hours: Dr. Walloch 7 11am to 1pm
Thu Oct 6, 2022 Assignment Practice Quiz 7.1: Identifying Levels of Evidence: Check Your Understanding due by 11:55pm
Assignment Quiz 7.2: Identifying Levels of Evidence due by 11:55pm
Sun Oct 9, 2022 Assignment Assignment 7.1: Levels of Evidence Evaluation Table (EET) due by 11:55pm
Wed Oct 12, 2022 Calendar Event Open office hours: Dr. Walloch 8 11am to 1pm
Sun Oct 16, 2022 Assignment Assignment 8.1: Clinical Practice Guidelines due by 11:55pm
Wed Oct 19, 2022 Calendar Event Open office hours: Dr. Walloch 9 11am to 1pm
Sun Oct 23, 2022 Assignment Assignment 9.1: Training to Synthesize Evidence due by 11:55pm
Wed Oct 26, 2022 Calendar Event Open office hours: Dr. Walloch 10 11am to 1pm
Thu Oct 27, 2022 Discussion Topic Discussion 10.1: Protecting the Subjects of Your Own EBP Initiative due by 11:55pm
Sun Oct 30, 2022 Assignment Assignment 10.1: Citi Program Modules due by 11:55pm
Assignment Discussion 10.1: Protecting the Subjects of Your Own EBP Initiative Responses due by 11:55pm
Wed Nov 2, 2022 Calendar Event Open office hours: Dr. Walloch 11 11am to 1pm
Sun Nov 6, 2022 Assignment Assignment 11.1: Prep for Implementation due by 11:55pm
Assignment Quiz 11.1: Decision Making due by 11:55pm
Wed Nov 9, 2022 Calendar Event Open office hours: Dr. Walloch 12 11am to 1pm
Thu Nov 10, 2022 Discussion Topic Discussion 12.1: Evaluation of Outcomes due by 11:55pm
Sun Nov 13, 2022 Assignment Discussion 12.1: Evaluation of Outcomes Responses due by 11:55pm
Wed Nov 16, 2022 Calendar Event Open office hours: Dr. Walloch 13 11am to 1pm
Sun Nov 20, 2022 Assignment Assignment 13.1: Synthesis of Evidence (SoE) due by 11:55pm
Wed Nov 23, 2022 Calendar Event Open office hours: Dr. Walloch 14 11am to 1pm
Sun Nov 27, 2022 Assignment Assignment 14.1: Dissemination through Publication due by 11:55pm
Mon Nov 28, 2022 Assignment Assignment 15.1: Presentation of Evidence Synthesis due by 11:55pm
Wed Nov 30, 2022 Calendar Event Open office hours: Dr. Walloch 15 11am to 1pm
Thu Dec 1, 2022 Assignment Assignment 15.2: Feedback on Classmates’ Presentations due by 11:55pm
August 2022
Calendar
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
31 July 2022 31 Previous month

1 August 2022 1

2 August 2022 2

3 August 2022 3

4 August 2022 4

5 August 2022 5

6 August 2022 6
7 August 2022 7

8 August 2022 8

9 August 2022 9

10 August 2022 10

11 August 2022 11

12 August 2022 12

13 August 2022 13
14 August 2022 14

15 August 2022 15

16 August 2022 16

17 August 2022 17

18 August 2022 18

19 August 2022 19

20 August 2022 20
21 August 2022 21

22 August 2022 22 Click to view event details

23 August 2022 23

24 August 2022 24 Click to view event details

25 August 2022 25 Today Click to view event details

26 August 2022 26

27 August 2022 27
28 August 2022 28 Click to view event details

29 August 2022 29

30 August 2022 30

31 August 2022 31 Click to view event details

1 September 2022 1 Next month

2 September 2022 2 Next month

3 September 2022 3 Next month
4 September 2022 4 Next month Click to view event details

5 September 2022 5 Next month

6 September 2022 6 Next month

7 September 2022 7 Next month Click to view event details

8 September 2022 8 Next month Click to view event details

9 September 2022 9 Next month

10 September 2022 10 Next month
Course assignments are not

Calculate the price
Make an order in advance and get the best price
Pages (550 words)
$0.00
*Price with a welcome 15% discount applied.
Pro tip: If you want to save more money and pay the lowest price, you need to set a more extended deadline.
We know how difficult it is to be a student these days. That's why our prices are one of the most affordable on the market, and there are no hidden fees.

Instead, we offer bonuses, discounts, and free services to make your experience outstanding.
How it works
Receive a 100% original paper that will pass Turnitin from a top essay writing service
step 1
Upload your instructions
Fill out the order form and provide paper details. You can even attach screenshots or add additional instructions later. If something is not clear or missing, the writer will contact you for clarification.
Pro service tips
How to get the most out of your experience with Proscholarly
One writer throughout the entire course
If you like the writer, you can hire them again. Just copy & paste their ID on the order form ("Preferred Writer's ID" field). This way, your vocabulary will be uniform, and the writer will be aware of your needs.
The same paper from different writers
You can order essay or any other work from two different writers to choose the best one or give another version to a friend. This can be done through the add-on "Same paper from another writer."
Copy of sources used by the writer
Our college essay writers work with ScienceDirect and other databases. They can send you articles or materials used in PDF or through screenshots. Just tick the "Copy of sources" field on the order form.
Testimonials
See why 20k+ students have chosen us as their sole writing assistance provider
Check out the latest reviews and opinions submitted by real customers worldwide and make an informed decision.
DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NURSE ADVOCATE HEALTHCARE PROGRAM
The absolute best ! Thanks for great communication, quality papers, and amazing time delivery!
Customer 452467, November 14th, 2022
Medicine
Very fond of the paper written. The topic chosen is defiantly trending at this time
Customer 452495, July 27th, 2023
Medicine
This was done very well. Thank you!
Customer 452441, November 11th, 2022
Medicine
Great work, Thank you, will come back with more work
Customer 452441, November 11th, 2022
Medicine
Good work. Will be placing another order tomorrow
Customer 452441, November 11th, 2022
Medicine
Well researched paper. Excellent work
Customer 452441, November 11th, 2022
11,595
Customer reviews in total
96%
Current satisfaction rate
3 pages
Average paper length
37%
Customers referred by a friend
OUR GIFT TO YOU
15% OFF your first order
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Claim my 15% OFF Order in Chat