Evidence-Based Practice II

wk.6.discusson.EvidenceBasedPracticeII.docx

Home >Nursing homework help >Evidence-Based Practice II

Evidence Based Practice II

Discussion due December 30

Speed Bumps and Pitfalls

Even after all the planning, collaborating, and researching, no implementation is without speed bumps and pitfalls. Now that you have begun implementing your problem change, what speed bumps and pitfalls have you experienced? How are you managing and addressing these obstacles?

For this Discussion, consider the speed bumps and pitfalls you have encountered thus far, and explore how you have addressed and supported the continuation of your implementation through these obstacles. What have you done, as a nurse leader, to continue the implementation through these obstacles?

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 Resources

· 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 8, “Translation” (pp. 189–206)

· Sipes, C. (2024). Project management for the advanced practice nurse (3rd ed.). Springer Publishing.

· Chapter 4, “Planning: Project Management – Phase 2” (pp. 85–130)

· White, K. M., Dudley-Brown, S., & Terhaar, M. F. (Eds.). (2021). Translation of evidence into nursing and healthcare (3rd ed.). Springer Publishing.

· Chapter 8, “Methods for Translation” (pp. 173–196)

· Chapter 9, “Project Management for Translation” (pp. 199–228)

· Chapter 10, “Ethical Responsibilities of Translation of Evidence and Evaluation” (pp. 229–244)

· Chapter 17, “Best Practices in Translation: Challenges and Barriers in Translation” (pp. 337–346)

· Chapter 18, “Legal Issues in Translation” (pp. 347–354)

· American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2021). The essentials: Core competencies for professional nursing educationLinks to an external site. . https://www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/0/PDFs/Publications/Essentials-2021.pdf

· 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 postLinks to an external site. . https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/assignments/discussionpost

Examples of Clinical and Administrative Practice Changes - Implementation of Evidence

· Álvarez-Maldonado, P., Reding-Bernal, A., Hernández-Solís, A., & Cicero-Sabido, R. (2019). Impact of strategic planning, organizational culture imprint and care bundles to reduce adverse events in the ICULinks to an external site.. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 31(6), 480–484. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzy198

· Barnes-Daly, M. A., Pun, B. T., Harmon, L. A., Byrum, D. G., Kumar, V. K., Devlin, J. W., Stollings, J. L., Puntillo, K. A., Engel, H. J., Posa, P. J., Barr, J., Schweickert, W. D., Esbrook, C. L., Hargett, K. D., Carson, S. S., Aldrich, J. M., Ely, E. W., & Balas, M. C. (2018). Improving health care for critically ill patients using an evidence-based collaborative approach to ABCDEF bundle dissemination and implementationLinks to an external site.. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 15(3), 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12290

· Baughman, A., Cain, G., Ruopp, M., Concepcion, C., Oliveira, C., O'Toole, R., Saunders, S., Jindal, S., Ferreira, M., & Simon, S. (2018). Improving access to care by admission process redesign in a veterans affairs skilled nursing facilityLinks to an external site.. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 44(8), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2018.04.002

· Busca, E., Savatteri, A., Calafato, T. L., Mazzoleni, B., Barisone, M., & Dal Molin, A. (2021). Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of nurse’s role in primary care settings: An integrative reviewLinks to an external site. . BMC Nursing, 20(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00696-y

· Curtis, K., Fry, M., Shaban, R. Z., & Considine, J. (2017). Translating research findings to clinical nursing practiceLinks to an external site.. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26(5–6), 862–872. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13586

· Lockwood, C., & Hopp, L. (2016). Knowledge translation: What it is and the relevance to evidence-based healthcare and nursingLinks to an external site.. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 22(4), 319–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12466

· Naqib, D., Purvin, M., Prasad, R., Hanna, I. M., Dimitri, S., Llufrio, A., & Hanna, M. N. (2018). Quality improvement initiative to improve postoperative pain with a clinical pathway and nursing education programLinks to an external site.. Pain Management Nursing, 19(5), 447–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmn.2018.06.005

· Reed, J. E., Howe, C., Doyle, C., & Bell, D. (2018). Simple rules for evidence translation in complex systems: A qualitative studyLinks to an external site.. BMC Medicine, 92 (16), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1076-9

· Schuller, K. A., Kash, B. A., Edwardson, N., & Gamm, L. D. (2013). Enabling and disabling factors in implementation of Studer Group’s evidence-based leadership initiative: A qualitative case studyLinks to an external site.. Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 6(2), 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1179/1753807613Y.0000000033

· Yeager, L, Karp, S., & Leming-Lee, T. (2019). Barriers to the implementation of pediatric overweight and obesity guidelines in a school-based health centerLinks to an external site.. The Nursing Clinics of North America, 54(1), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnur.2018.10.003

To Prepare

· Explore the Learning Resources concerning implementation.

· Identify the speed bumps and pitfalls you have experienced thus far in your implementation.

· Consider how you have supported your implementation through these obstacles.

· Assignment Rubric Details Close

Post a description of the speed bumps and pitfalls you have experienced thus far in your implementation. Explore what has happened and what you have done in response. How did you support your implementation through these obstacles, and what might have assisted you?

· Rubric

· NURS_8503_Week6_Discussion3_Rubric

NURS_8503_Week6_Discussion3_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