Es | NR511 | Saint Thomas University

ESAppendix_G_Individual_Evidence_Summary_Tool_2022.docx

Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model for Nursing and Healthcare Professionals

Individual Evidence Summary Tool

Appendix G

Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice

Individual Evidence Summary Tool (Appendix G)

EBP Question:
Reviewer name(s)	Article number	Author, date, and title	Type of evidence	Population, size, and setting	Intervention	Findings that help answer the EBP question	Measures used	Limitations	Evidence level and quality	Notes to team

Directions for use of the Individual Evidence Summary Tool

Purpose: Use this form to document and collate the results of the review and appraisal of each piece of evidence in preparation for evidence synthesis. The table headers indicate important elements of each article that will contribute to the synthesis process. The data in each cell should be complete enough that the other team members are able to gather all relevant information related to the evidence without having to go to each source article.

See Chapter 11, Lessons from Practice, for examples of completed tools.

Reviewer name(s):

Record the member(s) of the team who are providing the information for each article. This will provide tracking if there are follow-up items or additional questions on an individual piece of evidence.

Article number:

Assign a number to each piece of evidence included in the table. This organizes the individual evidence summary and provides an easy way to reference articles.

Author, date, and title:

Record the last name of the first author of the article, the publication/communication date, and the title. This will help track articles throughout the literature search, screening, and review process. It is also helpful when someone has authored more than one publication included in the review.

Type of evidence:

Indicate the type of evidence for each source. This should be descriptive of the study or project design (e.g., randomized control trial, meta-analysis, mixed methods, qualitative, systematic review, case study, literature review) and not simply the level on the evidence hierarchy.

Population, size, and setting:

For research evidence, provide a quick view of the population, number of participants, and study location. For non-research evidence population refers to target audience, patient population, or profession. Non-research evidence may or may not have a sample size and/or location as found with research evidence.

Intervention:

Record the intervention(s) implemented or discussed in the article. This should relate to the intervention or comparison elements of your PICO question.

Findings that help answer the EBP question:

List findings from the article that directly answer the EBP question. These should be succinct statements that provide enough information that the reader does not need to return to the original article. Avoid directly copying and pasting from the article.

Measures used:

These are the measures and/or instruments (e.g., counts, rates, satisfaction surveys, validated tools, subscales) the authors used to determine the answer to the research question or the effectiveness of their intervention. Consider these measures as identified in the evidence for collection during implementation of the EBP team’s project.

Limitations:

Provide the limitations of the evidence—both as listed by the authors as well as your assessment of any flaws or drawbacks. Consider the methodology, quality of reporting, and generalizability to the population of interest. Limitations should be apparent from the team’s appraisals using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tools (Appendices E and F). It can be helpful to consider the reasons an article did not receive a “high” quality rating because these reasons are limitations identified by the team.

Evidence level and quality:

Using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal tools (Appendices E and F), record the level (I-V) and quality (A, B or C) of the evidence. When possible, at least two reviewers should determine the level and quality.

Notes to team:

The team uses this section to keep track of items important to the EBP process not captured elsewhere on this tool. Consider items that will be helpful to have easy reference to when conducting the evidence synthesis.

image1.jpeg

4es.docx

INSTRUCTIONS BELOW-

1. Review the directions for completing each column of the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool Download Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool Open this document with ReadSpeaker docReader(located in the Week 2 lesson).

2. Use the two quantitative research studies previous weeks that are already on your expanding Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool. Add the quantitative research study appraised in a few weeks ago of this course to your Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool. All articles must be recent research articles less than 5 years old, and be related to your selected National Practice Problem. Two of the quantitative research studies support your introduction and analysis of the selected practice problem. The quantitative study appraised used has tested the evidence-based intervention.

a. If any of your quantitative research studies do not meet these requirements, you need to find replacement quantitative research studies and update the Johns Hopkins Evidence Summary Tool after you appraise, level the evidence, and grade the quality of the replacement study or studies.

3. Locate three non-research evidence sources to support the introduction and analysis of the practice problem.

4. Use a synthesis style of writing in every section (1, 2, 3, & 4) of the paper when incorporating research evidence and non-research evidence.

5. Use the most current version of Microsoft Word, You can tell the document is saved as the current version because it will end in "docx."

The assignment includes the following components:

1. Introduction (1-2 paragraphs, cited)

a. Use the title of your paper for the header above the introduction section.

b. Use a synthesis of research evidence and non-research evidence when writing this section of the paper.

c. Write a one-sentence purpose statement.

d. Introduce the practice problem.

e. Introduce an evidence-based intervention using research evidence to support the intervention.

2. Analysis of the Practice Problem (1-2 paragraphs, cited)

a. Use a synthesis of research evidence and non-research evidence when writing this section of the paper.

b. Present the following at the national and local levels:

i. Significance

ii. Prevalence

iii. Mortality

iv. Economic ramifications of the practice problem

3. Evidence Synthesis (minimum of 3 quantitative research articles; 2-3 paragraphs)

a. Use a synthesis of research evidence when writing this section of the paper.

b. Identify the main themes and salient points that emerge from a synthesis of research evidence (cited).

c. Compare and contrast the main points from a synthesis of research evidence (cited).

d. Present an objective overarching synthesis of the research intervention (cited).

e. This synthesis must be a summary of the merged themes and findings of the two articles and cannot be a review of each article separately.

4. Conclusion (1 paragraph, cited)

a. Use a synthesis of research evidence when writing this section of the paper.

b. Write one concise paragraph providing a clear and logical summation of the paper.

5. References

a. Include a list of all references in APA format.

6. Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool Requirements:

a. Includes the completed Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool with the assignment. Do not embed the document in the paper.

b. Includes a minimum of two quantitative research studies and one quantitative randomized control trial/quasi-experimental study.

c. Complete all columns entirely and identify the quality and the levels of evidence accurately. 

Writing Requirements (APA format)

· Length: 4-6 pages (not including title page, reference page, or appendix)

· 1-inch margins 

· Double-spaced pages

· 12-point Times New Roman or 11-point Arial font

· Level 1 Headings

· In-text citations

· Title page 

· Reference page 

· Standard English usage and mechanics

ESAppendix_G_Individual_Evidence_Summary_Tool_2022.docx

Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model for Nursing and Healthcare Professionals

Individual Evidence Summary Tool

Appendix G

Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice

Individual Evidence Summary Tool (Appendix G)

EBP Question:
Reviewer name(s)	Article number	Author, date, and title	Type of evidence	Population, size, and setting	Intervention	Findings that help answer the EBP question	Measures used	Limitations	Evidence level and quality	Notes to team

Directions for use of the Individual Evidence Summary Tool

Purpose: Use this form to document and collate the results of the review and appraisal of each piece of evidence in preparation for evidence synthesis. The table headers indicate important elements of each article that will contribute to the synthesis process. The data in each cell should be complete enough that the other team members are able to gather all relevant information related to the evidence without having to go to each source article.

See Chapter 11, Lessons from Practice, for examples of completed tools.

Reviewer name(s):

Record the member(s) of the team who are providing the information for each article. This will provide tracking if there are follow-up items or additional questions on an individual piece of evidence.

Article number:

Assign a number to each piece of evidence included in the table. This organizes the individual evidence summary and provides an easy way to reference articles.

Author, date, and title:

Record the last name of the first author of the article, the publication/communication date, and the title. This will help track articles throughout the literature search, screening, and review process. It is also helpful when someone has authored more than one publication included in the review.

Type of evidence:

Indicate the type of evidence for each source. This should be descriptive of the study or project design (e.g., randomized control trial, meta-analysis, mixed methods, qualitative, systematic review, case study, literature review) and not simply the level on the evidence hierarchy.

Population, size, and setting:

For research evidence, provide a quick view of the population, number of participants, and study location. For non-research evidence population refers to target audience, patient population, or profession. Non-research evidence may or may not have a sample size and/or location as found with research evidence.

Intervention:

Record the intervention(s) implemented or discussed in the article. This should relate to the intervention or comparison elements of your PICO question.

Findings that help answer the EBP question:

List findings from the article that directly answer the EBP question. These should be succinct statements that provide enough information that the reader does not need to return to the original article. Avoid directly copying and pasting from the article.

Measures used:

These are the measures and/or instruments (e.g., counts, rates, satisfaction surveys, validated tools, subscales) the authors used to determine the answer to the research question or the effectiveness of their intervention. Consider these measures as identified in the evidence for collection during implementation of the EBP team’s project.

Limitations:

Provide the limitations of the evidence—both as listed by the authors as well as your assessment of any flaws or drawbacks. Consider the methodology, quality of reporting, and generalizability to the population of interest. Limitations should be apparent from the team’s appraisals using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tools (Appendices E and F). It can be helpful to consider the reasons an article did not receive a “high” quality rating because these reasons are limitations identified by the team.

Evidence level and quality:

Using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal tools (Appendices E and F), record the level (I-V) and quality (A, B or C) of the evidence. When possible, at least two reviewers should determine the level and quality.

Notes to team:

The team uses this section to keep track of items important to the EBP process not captured elsewhere on this tool. Consider items that will be helpful to have easy reference to when conducting the evidence synthesis.

image1.jpeg

4es.docx

INSTRUCTIONS BELOW-

1. Review the directions for completing each column of the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool Download Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool Open this document with ReadSpeaker docReader(located in the Week 2 lesson).

2. Use the two quantitative research studies previous weeks that are already on your expanding Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool. Add the quantitative research study appraised in a few weeks ago of this course to your Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool. All articles must be recent research articles less than 5 years old, and be related to your selected National Practice Problem. Two of the quantitative research studies support your introduction and analysis of the selected practice problem. The quantitative study appraised used has tested the evidence-based intervention.

a. If any of your quantitative research studies do not meet these requirements, you need to find replacement quantitative research studies and update the Johns Hopkins Evidence Summary Tool after you appraise, level the evidence, and grade the quality of the replacement study or studies.

3. Locate three non-research evidence sources to support the introduction and analysis of the practice problem.

4. Use a synthesis style of writing in every section (1, 2, 3, & 4) of the paper when incorporating research evidence and non-research evidence.

5. Use the most current version of Microsoft Word, You can tell the document is saved as the current version because it will end in "docx."

The assignment includes the following components:

1. Introduction (1-2 paragraphs, cited)

a. Use the title of your paper for the header above the introduction section.

b. Use a synthesis of research evidence and non-research evidence when writing this section of the paper.

c. Write a one-sentence purpose statement.

d. Introduce the practice problem.

e. Introduce an evidence-based intervention using research evidence to support the intervention.

2. Analysis of the Practice Problem (1-2 paragraphs, cited)

a. Use a synthesis of research evidence and non-research evidence when writing this section of the paper.

b. Present the following at the national and local levels:

i. Significance

ii. Prevalence

iii. Mortality

iv. Economic ramifications of the practice problem

3. Evidence Synthesis (minimum of 3 quantitative research articles; 2-3 paragraphs)

a. Use a synthesis of research evidence when writing this section of the paper.

b. Identify the main themes and salient points that emerge from a synthesis of research evidence (cited).

c. Compare and contrast the main points from a synthesis of research evidence (cited).

d. Present an objective overarching synthesis of the research intervention (cited).

e. This synthesis must be a summary of the merged themes and findings of the two articles and cannot be a review of each article separately.

4. Conclusion (1 paragraph, cited)

a. Use a synthesis of research evidence when writing this section of the paper.

b. Write one concise paragraph providing a clear and logical summation of the paper.

5. References

a. Include a list of all references in APA format.

6. Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool Requirements:

a. Includes the completed Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool with the assignment. Do not embed the document in the paper.

b. Includes a minimum of two quantitative research studies and one quantitative randomized control trial/quasi-experimental study.

c. Complete all columns entirely and identify the quality and the levels of evidence accurately. 

Writing Requirements (APA format)

· Length: 4-6 pages (not including title page, reference page, or appendix)

· 1-inch margins 

· Double-spaced pages

· 12-point Times New Roman or 11-point Arial font

· Level 1 Headings

· In-text citations

· Title page 

· Reference page 

· Standard English usage and mechanics

ESAppendix_G_Individual_Evidence_Summary_Tool_2022.docx

Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model for Nursing and Healthcare Professionals

Individual Evidence Summary Tool

Appendix G

Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice

Individual Evidence Summary Tool (Appendix G)

EBP Question:
Reviewer name(s)	Article number	Author, date, and title	Type of evidence	Population, size, and setting	Intervention	Findings that help answer the EBP question	Measures used	Limitations	Evidence level and quality	Notes to team

Directions for use of the Individual Evidence Summary Tool

Purpose: Use this form to document and collate the results of the review and appraisal of each piece of evidence in preparation for evidence synthesis. The table headers indicate important elements of each article that will contribute to the synthesis process. The data in each cell should be complete enough that the other team members are able to gather all relevant information related to the evidence without having to go to each source article.

See Chapter 11, Lessons from Practice, for examples of completed tools.

Reviewer name(s):

Record the member(s) of the team who are providing the information for each article. This will provide tracking if there are follow-up items or additional questions on an individual piece of evidence.

Article number:

Assign a number to each piece of evidence included in the table. This organizes the individual evidence summary and provides an easy way to reference articles.

Author, date, and title:

Record the last name of the first author of the article, the publication/communication date, and the title. This will help track articles throughout the literature search, screening, and review process. It is also helpful when someone has authored more than one publication included in the review.

Type of evidence:

Indicate the type of evidence for each source. This should be descriptive of the study or project design (e.g., randomized control trial, meta-analysis, mixed methods, qualitative, systematic review, case study, literature review) and not simply the level on the evidence hierarchy.

Population, size, and setting:

For research evidence, provide a quick view of the population, number of participants, and study location. For non-research evidence population refers to target audience, patient population, or profession. Non-research evidence may or may not have a sample size and/or location as found with research evidence.

Intervention:

Record the intervention(s) implemented or discussed in the article. This should relate to the intervention or comparison elements of your PICO question.

Findings that help answer the EBP question:

List findings from the article that directly answer the EBP question. These should be succinct statements that provide enough information that the reader does not need to return to the original article. Avoid directly copying and pasting from the article.

Measures used:

These are the measures and/or instruments (e.g., counts, rates, satisfaction surveys, validated tools, subscales) the authors used to determine the answer to the research question or the effectiveness of their intervention. Consider these measures as identified in the evidence for collection during implementation of the EBP team’s project.

Limitations:

Provide the limitations of the evidence—both as listed by the authors as well as your assessment of any flaws or drawbacks. Consider the methodology, quality of reporting, and generalizability to the population of interest. Limitations should be apparent from the team’s appraisals using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tools (Appendices E and F). It can be helpful to consider the reasons an article did not receive a “high” quality rating because these reasons are limitations identified by the team.

Evidence level and quality:

Using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal tools (Appendices E and F), record the level (I-V) and quality (A, B or C) of the evidence. When possible, at least two reviewers should determine the level and quality.

Notes to team:

The team uses this section to keep track of items important to the EBP process not captured elsewhere on this tool. Consider items that will be helpful to have easy reference to when conducting the evidence synthesis.

ES

4es.docx

ESAppendix_G_Individual_Evidence_Summary_Tool_2022.docx

4es.docx

ESAppendix_G_Individual_Evidence_Summary_Tool_2022.docx

EBP Question:

Reviewer name(s)

Article number

Author, date, and title

Type of evidence

Population, size, and setting

Intervention

Findings that help answer the EBP question

Measures used

Limitations

Evidence level and quality

Notes to team

image1.jpeg

4es.docx

5d

pic