Evidence-Based Practice

EBP.WK1.docx

Home >Nursing homework help >Evidence-Based Practice

Due May 27, 2024

INTRODUCTION

No organization or practice is perfect. There is always room for change and improvement. This change and improvement is often facilitated by nurse leaders looking to improve practice and/or quality of care for their patients. During this course, and your corresponding practicum, you will develop a plan to change a problem identified in your organization. You will explore strategies to address the problem and lead a team to enact change.

In this module, you will begin your exploration of a potential problem to address during your practicum. After assessing your organization, you will identify a problem, identify strategies to address the problem, and begin to develop a plan for change. This module will serve as the first step in identifying, planning, and changing a problem.

WHAT’S HAPPENING IN THIS MODULE?

Module 1: Problem is a 2-week module—Weeks 1 and 2 of the course—in which you will identify a problem in need of change at your practicum site and explore how you might enact the change. This exploration will take the form of developing practicum objectives and a practice focused question. You will also explore problems outlined by your colleagues in order to offer potential recommendations for focus and change.

INTRODUCTION

These first 2 weeks begin your practicum experience and development of a plan to change an identified or potential practice problem within your practice or organization. Through an analysis of your organization, meeting with your preceptor, and collaborating with your colleagues, you will lead a team to create a problem change. In Weeks 1 and 2 of this course, you will set the foundation for the work you will complete in the remaining weeks.

In Weeks 1 and 2, you will identify your practicum site, identify a potential or identified practice problem, meet with your preceptor, and begin developing objectives and a practice focused question to lead your work. You will discuss your practice problem and progress with your colleagues, and you will begin analyzing how leadership skills and strategies might help you to lead a team.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Students will:

· Identify clinical site and preceptors

· Prepare for the practicum, based upon the clinical site

· Develop practicum objectives

· Identify a gap in practice to address during practicum

· Develop a practice focused question

DISSCUSSION

DISCUSS GAPS IN PRACTICE

Now that you have identified your practicum site, you will identify your practice problem and consider how the problem has been addressed in your organization and beyond. After identifying this practice problem, you will begin exploring the problem in the literature.

For this Discussion, consider the problem, and explore whether this is an issue only in your organization or an issue more broadly in healthcare. Consider how the issue is addressed in the literature, and examine how the issue is currently being addressed (or perhaps not addressed) by the management in your organization.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity. Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

· Dang, D., Dearholt, S. L., Bissett, K., Ascenzi, J., & Whalen, M. (2021). Johns Hopkins evidence-based practice for nurses and healthcare professionals: Model and guidelines (4th ed.). Sigma Theta Tau International.

· Chapter 4, “The Practice Question Phase” (pp. 73–98)

· Hickey, J. V., & Giardino, E. R. (Eds.). (2021). Evaluation of quality in health care for DNPs (3rd ed.). Springer Publishing.

· Chapter 1, “Evaluation and Advanced Nursing Practice: The Mandate for Evaluation” (pp. 3–36)

· Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2017). Action plan for translating research into practice: Gap analysis and tests of change: Facilitator guide Links to an external site. . https://www.ahrq.gov/hai/tools/mvp/modules/cusp/action-plan-trip-fac-guide.html

· Chia, R., Pandey, A., & Vongpatanasin, W. (2020). Resistant hypertension—defining the scope of the problemLinks to an external site. . Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, 63(1), 46–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2019.12.006

· Gallagher Ford, L., & Melnyk, B. M. (2019). The underappreciated and misunderstood PICOT question: A critical step in the EBP processLinks to an external site. . Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 16(6), 422–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12408

· Shirey, M. R. (2011). Addressing strategy execution challenges to lead sustainable changeLinks to an external site. . JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 41(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0b013e318200288a

· Stannard, D. (2021). Problem identification: The first step in evidence‐based practiceLinks to an external site. . AORN Journal, 113(4), 377–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/aorn.13359

· Walden University Oasis: Writing Center. (n.d.). Citations: OverviewLinks to an external site. . https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/apa/citations

· Walden University Oasis: Writing Center. (n.d.). Common assignments: Discussion post Links to an external site. . https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/assignments/discussionpost

Required Media

· Alexander Street. (2019). Insights and strategies, 4 skill sets for successful leadership Links to an external site. . https://search.alexanderstreet.com/preview/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cvideo_work%7C4605130

TO PREPARE

· Review the Learning Resources provided in the module.

· Connect with your preceptor, and consider a gap in practice you can explore for the duration of the course.

Post a response detailing your practice focused question. Describe the practice focused question that is an issue for your facility or organization. Gather evidence to support the issue, and consider the following:

· Is the issue a common issue in healthcare or nursing practice, or is this issue specific to your organization or facility?

· Is this issue addressed in the literature?

· Has this issue been addressed by management to date? If so, how?

In your response, be sure to detail your issue, identify the practice gap, and provide evidence for support. You will use this response, and colleague responses, to help you prepare your practice focused question for final submission to Faculty.

Assignment Rubric Details Close

Rubric

NURS_8502_Week1-2_Discussion_Rubric

NURS_8502_Week1-2_Discussion_Rubric

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points) Discussion post minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 10:59 pm CT. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 10:59 pm CT. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week's learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Exceeds the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Meets the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date at least in part.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date and did not discuss late post timing with faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points)

30 to >29.0 pts

Excellent

Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.

29 to >23.0 pts

Good

Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.

23 to >18.0 pts

Fair

Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.

18 to >0 pts

Poor

Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided.

30 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)

10 to >9.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

9 to >8.0 pts

Good

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

8 to >6.0 pts

Fair

Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

10 pts

Total Points: 100