EBP, IS, AND QI

NURS_8114_Week6_Assignment_Rubric

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 1: Key Project Elements (Written Paper) Site Selection Describe each of the three healthcare settings you identified as the proposed site for your evidence-based practice (EBP) quality improvement (QI) initiative. Compare the strengths and weaknesses of the three sites in terms of their viability as the location for an evidence-based practice (EBP) quality improvement (QI) initiative. Identify the one site of the three you selected. Describe the factors on which you based your decision. Explain your decision-making process.

18 to >16.0 ptsExcellentThe response accurately and clearly describes each of the three healthcare settings; compares the strengths and weaknesses of the three sites; identifies the one site of the three you selected with an explanation of the decision-making process. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

16 to >14.0 ptsGoodThe response accurately describes each of the three healthcare settings; compares the strengths and weaknesses of the three sites; identifies the one site of the three you selected with an explanation of the decision-making process. The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

14 to >12.5 ptsFairThe response inaccurately or vaguely describes each of the three healthcare settings; compares the strengths and weaknesses of the three sites; identifies the one site of the three you selected with an explanation of the decision-making process. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

12.5 to >0 ptsPoorThe response inaccurately and vaguely describes each of the three healthcare settings; compares the strengths and weaknesses of the three sites; identifies the one site of the three you selected with an explanation of the decision-making process or it is missing. The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described or it is missing.

18 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 1: Key Project Elements (Written Paper) Stakeholders Identify the department that leads QI initiatives or, if one does not exist, an employee within the organization who would be in charge of approving such a QI initiative. Identify the titles/roles of relevant stakeholders (from the highest level of required approval to the healthcare associates who might help implement changes in daily patient care).

18 to >16.0 ptsExcellentThe response accurately and clearly identifies the department or employee that leads QI initiatives; identifies the titles/roles of relevant stakeholders. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

16 to >14.0 ptsGoodThe response accurately identifies the department or employee that leads QI initiatives; identifies the titles/roles of relevant stakeholders. The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

14 to >12.5 ptsFairThe response inaccurately or vaguely identifies the department or employee that leads QI initiatives; identifies the titles/roles of relevant stakeholders. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

12.5 to >0 ptsPoorThe response inaccurately and vaguely explains identifies the department or employee that leads QI initiatives; identifies the titles/roles of relevant stakeholders or it is missing. The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described or it is missing.

18 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 1: Key Project Elements (Written Paper) Practice or Organization Issue Describe the practice or organization issue you selected. Explain why it makes sense as the focus of an evidence-based practice (EBP) quality improvement (QI) initiative. Be specific, provide examples, and cite at least five recent, peer-reviewed articles (published within the last 5 years).

18 to >16.0 ptsExcellentThe response accurately and clearly describes the practice or organization issue selected; explains why it makes sense as the focus of an evidence-based practice (EBP) quality improvement (QI) initiative. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

16 to >14.0 ptsGoodThe response accurately describes the practice or organization issue selected; explains why it makes sense as the focus of an evidence-based practice (EBP) quality improvement (QI) initiative. The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

14 to >12.5 ptsFairThe response inaccurately or vaguely describes the practice or organization issue selected; explains why it makes sense as the focus of an evidence-based practice (EBP) quality improvement (QI) initiative. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

12.5 to >0 ptsPoorThe response inaccurately and vaguely describes the practice or organization issue selected; explains why it makes sense as the focus of an evidence-based practice (EBP) quality improvement (QI) initiative or it is missing. The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described or it is missing.

18 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 1: Key Project Elements (Written Paper) Translation Framework/Model Identify and briefly describe the one translation framework/model that you decided is the best fit for your evidence-based practice (EBP) quality improvement (QI) initiative. Explain why you selected your evidence-based practice (EBP) quality improvement (QI) initiative amongst all the alternatives. Describe the steps or processes required for an evidence-based practice (EBP) quality improvement (QI) initiative that follows the framework/model you selected to translate research and evidence to improve practice.

18 to >16.0 ptsExcellentThe response accurately and clearly identifies and describe the one translation framework/model utilized; explains why it was selected amongst all the alternatives; describes the steps or processes required for an evidence-based practice (EBP) quality improvement (QI) initiative that follows the framework/model to translate research and evidence to improve practice. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

16 to >14.0 ptsGoodThe response accurately identifies and describe the one translation framework/model utilized; explains why it was selected amongst all the alternatives; describes the steps or processes required for an evidence-based practice (EBP) quality improvement (QI) initiative that follows the framework/model to translate research and evidence to improve practice. The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

14 to >12.5 ptsFairThe response inaccurately or vaguely explains identifies and describe the one translation framework/model utilized; explains why it was selected amongst all the alternatives; describes the steps or processes required for an evidence-based practice (EBP) quality improvement (QI) initiative that follows the framework/model to translate research and evidence to improve practice. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

12.5 to >0 ptsPoorThe response inaccurately and vaguely identifies and describe the one translation framework/model utilized; explains why it was selected amongst all the alternatives; describes the steps or processes required for an evidence-based practice (EBP) quality improvement (QI) initiative that follows the framework/model to translate research and evidence to improve practice or it is missing. The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described or it is missing.

18 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 2: Proposal to Stakeholders (PowerPoint Presentation) Title and Introduction Include the title of your presentation and your name. Identify the healthcare organization site. Introduce and describe the evidence-based practice (EBP) quality improvement (QI) initiative you are proposing.

15 to >13.5 ptsExcellentThe response accurately and clearly identifies the title of your presentation and your name; identifies the healthcare organization site; introduces and describes the evidence-based practice (EBP) quality improvement (QI) initiative being proposed. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

13.5 to >12.0 ptsGoodThe response accurately identifies the title of your presentation and your name; identifies the healthcare organization site; introduces and describes the evidence-based practice (EBP) quality improvement (QI) initiative being proposed. The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

12 to >10.5 ptsFairThe response inaccurately or vaguely identifies the title of your presentation and your name; identifies the healthcare organization site; introduces and describes the evidence-based practice (EBP) quality improvement (QI) initiative being proposed. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

10.5 to >0 ptsPoorThe response inaccurately and vaguely identifies the title of your presentation and your name; identifies the healthcare organization site; introduces and describes the evidence-based practice (EBP) quality improvement (QI) initiative being proposed or it is missing. The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described or it is missing.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 2: Proposal to Stakeholders (PowerPoint Presentation) The Issue Introduce and describe the practice or organization issue you aim to address. Explain the goal of the project. Why is it important?

15 to >13.5 ptsExcellentThe response accurately and clearly introduces and describes the practice or organization issue being addressed; explains the goal of the project and why it is important. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

13.5 to >12.0 ptsGoodThe response accurately introduces and describes the practice or organization issue being addressed; explains the goal of the project and why it is important. The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

12 to >10.5 ptsFairThe response inaccurately or vaguely introduces and describes the practice or organization issue being addressed; explains the goal of the project and why it is important. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

10.5 to >0 ptsPoorThe response inaccurately and vaguely introduces and describes the practice or organization issue being addressed; explains the goal of the project and why it is important or it is missing. The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described or it is missing.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 2: Proposal to Stakeholders (PowerPoint Presentation) Translation Framework/Model Introduce and describe the translation framework/model you will use to implement the project. Explain how it will work. Why will it be effective to achieve your goal?

15 to >13.5 ptsExcellentThe response accurately and clearly introduces and describes the translation framework/model used to implement the project; explains how it will work and why it will be effective to achieve the goal. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

13.5 to >12.0 ptsGoodThe response accurately introduces and describes the translation framework/model used to implement the project; explains how it will work and why it will be effective to achieve the goal. The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

12 to >10.5 ptsFairThe response inaccurately or vaguely introduces and describes the translation framework/model used to implement the project; explains how it will work and why it will be effective to achieve the goal. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

10.5 to >0 ptsPoorThe response inaccurately and vaguely introduces and describes the translation framework/model used to implement the project; explains how it will work and why it will be effective to achieve the goal or it is missing. The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described or it is missing.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 2: Proposal to Stakeholders (PowerPoint Presentation) Conclusion and References Summarize your presentation. Ask for stakeholder support. Cite the sources you used to support your presentation.

15 to >13.5 ptsExcellentThe response accurately and clearly summarizes the presentation and asks for stakeholder support; cites the sources used to support the presentation. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

13.5 to >12.0 ptsGoodThe response accurately summarizes the presentation and asks for stakeholder support; cites the sources used to support the presentation. The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

12 to >10.5 ptsFairThe response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the presentation and asks for stakeholder support; cites the sources used to support the presentation. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described.

10.5 to >0 ptsPoorThe response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the presentation and asks for stakeholder support; cites the sources used to support the presentation or it is missing. The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the explanations provided for each of the alignments described or it is missing.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting - Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.

6 to >5.0 ptsExcellentParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. 90% of the time. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.

5 to >4.2 ptsGoodParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive.

4.2 to >3.0 ptsFairParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 70% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.

3 to >0 ptsPoorParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 70% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.

6 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting - English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation

6 to >5.0 ptsExcellentUses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

5 to >4.0 ptsGoodContains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

4 to >3.0 ptsFairContains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

3 to >0 ptsPoorContains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.

6 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting - The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.

6 to >5.0 ptsExcellentUses correct APA format with no errors.

5 to >4.0 ptsGoodContains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.

4 to >3.0 ptsFairContains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.

3 to >0 ptsPoorContains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.

6 pts