Evidence-Based Practice

profileTinacherry100$
wk.5.discussion.EXPLORATIONOFSOURCESOFEVIDENCE.docx
Home>Nursing homework help>Evidence-Based Practice

EXPLORATION OF SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

A person sitting at a desk with a pen and a book Description automatically generated

Imagine it is the final week of the course, and you are ready to present your solution to address your indentified practice problem at your practicum site. You present your evidence and plan and recommend the implementation of your proposed solution. Upon hearing your presentation, a stakeholder raises questions about the implementation based on a similar practice problem affecting a business outside of nursing. Unfortunately, you had not explored sources outside of your field, and you neglected to incorporate this evidence into your plan and recommendations.

Evidence is critical in understanding a problem and determining potential solutions to address a change. However, evidence is only as good as the exploration of sources used to gather this evidence. Flawed evidence generation can occur when sources are not carefully, thoughtfully, and thoroughly explored. Furthermore, flawed evidence generation occurs if evidence is outdated, ignored, or not considered within the context of the proposed solution or practice problem it is meant to address.  

For this Discussion, you will explore the sources of evidence necessary for your identified practice problem. These sources of evidence may be derived from library databases related to nursing, or you may find sources necessary for your practice problem in the form of interviews or library databases related to other fields. Consider where you might explore sources of evidence for your practice problem. Where might you find these sources outside of your typical evidence locations? Consider why this exploration is important and meaningful for your proposed change. 

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 5, “Searching for Evidence” (pp. 99–120) 

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

· Chapter 2, “The Nature of Evidence as a Basis for Evaluation” (pp. 37–64)

· Chapter 3, “Models for Evaluation in Advanced Nursing Practice” (pp. 65–92)

· Benson, L. A. (2021).  Chapter 14: The DNP degree: A fundamental requirement for the chief nursing offer.   The DNP professional: Translating value from classroom to practice. Slack.

· Benson, L. A. (2021).  Chapter 15: Leaders, change agents: The unique contributions of a DNP-prepared nurse executive.   The DNP professional: Translating value from classroom to practice. Slack. 

· Benson, L. A. (2021).  Chapter 16: Aligning DNP practice with the mission and strategic priority of the organization.   The DNP professional: Translating value from classroom to practice. Slack. 

· Foster, M., Shurtz, S., & Smith, M. L. (2014).  Translating research into practice: Criteria for applying literature search results to your workLinks to an external site. .  Health Promotion Practice,  15(2), 157–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839913511628

· Haas, M., & Mortensen, M. (2016).  The secrets of great teamwork.Links to an external site.   Harvard Business Review,  94(6), 70–76. https://hbr.org/2016/06/the-secrets-of-great-teamwork

· Hussain, S. T., Lei, S., Akram, T., Haider, M. J., Hussain, S. H., & Ali, M. (2018).  Kurt Lewin’s change model: A critical review of the role of leadership and employee involvement in organizational changeLinks to an external site. .  Journal of Innovation & Knowledge,  3(3), 123–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.07.002

· Jones, E. P., Brennan, E. A., & Davis, A. (2020).  Evaluation of literature searching and article selection skills of an evidence-based practice teamLinks to an external site. .  Journal of the Medical Library Association,  108(3), 487–493. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.865

· Merner, B., Lowe, D., Walsh, L., Synnot, A., Stratil, J., Lewin, S., Glenton, C., von Philipsborn, P., Schonfeld, L., Ryan, R., O’Connor, D., Hoving, J. L., & Hill, S. (2021).  American Journal of Public Health Links to an external site. ,  111(7), 1210–1215. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306252

· Smith, L. W. (2000).  Stakeholder analysis: A pivotal practice of successful projectsLinks to an external site. . https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/stakeholder-analysis-pivotal-practice-projects-8905

TO PREPARE

· Review the Learning Resources covering the exploration of evidence.

· Consider the evidence necessary for your identified practice problem and consider what types of sources might need to be explored.

· Explore sources beyond the Walden Library database, and consider where evidence might be found outside of “typical” avenues. 

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 5

Post a response detailing your exploration of sources of evidence for your practice problem. Consider multiple sources of evidence, rather than simply resources from the library: formal and informal interviews, national organizations, internal/external to your organization and/or practice. Consider library sources of information outside of nursing literature (e.g., business journals). Consider the impact of not including resources from specific sources. How might this create a flaw in your ability to support a proposed practice change? Be specific and provide examples.

ssignment Rubric Details Close

Rubric

NURS_8502_Week3-5_Discussion_Rubric

NURS_8502_Week3-5_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

image1.jpeg