04 Apr New practice approaches Interprofessional collaboration Health care delivery and clinical systems Ethical considerations

Topic 4: Development Of Evidence-Based Practice Change Proposal II

Max Points:85

In this topic, students will continue to examine the research literature and utilize library resources to locate quality, peer-reviewed sources that support their chosen topic and solution. Students will begin to synthesize the research data from multiple sources to identify strategies for implementation of a nursing intervention. Students must identify a change or nursing theory to support their proposed capstone project intervention.

Objectives:

1. Synthesize evidence-based research data to support the development of the capstone project change proposal.

2. Identify a change or nursing theory to support the nursing intervention for the capstone project change proposal.

3. Write measurable outcomes for the evidence-based nursing practice intervention used in the capstone project change proposal.

4. Integrate reflective practice into the practicum reflective journal.

5. Demonstrate interprofessional collaboration during the creation of the capstone project change proposal.

DQ1

Why is understanding the health care system at the local level important to consider when planning an EBP implementation? Conduct research and solicit anecdotal evidence from your course preceptor that you will take into consideration for your own change project.

DQ2

Compare and contrast two change theories, and determine which theory makes the most sense for implementing your specific EBP intervention. Why? Has your preceptor used either theory, and to what result?

,

Capstone Change Project Outcomes

Points

Status

Upcoming

Assessment Description

Assess your organizational policies, create a list of measurable outcomes for your capstone project intervention. Write a list of three to five outcomes for your proposed intervention. Below each outcome, provide a one or two sentence rationale.

,

Literature Evaluation Table

Points

50

In nursing practice, accurate identification and application of research is essential to achieving successful outcomes. The ability to articulate research data and summarize relevant content supports the student's ability to further develop and synthesize the assignments that constitute the components of the capstone project.

The assignment will be used to develop a written implementation plan.

For this assignment, provide a synopsis of the review of the research literature. Using the "Literature Evaluation Table," determine the level and strength of the evidence for each of the eight research articles you have selected. The articles should be current (within the last 5 years) and closely relate to the PICOT question developed earlier in this course. The articles may include quantitative research, descriptive analyses, longitudinal studies, or meta-analysis articles. A systematic review may be used to provide background information for the purpose or problem identified in the proposed capstone project.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and in-text citations and references should be presented using APA documentation guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

,

Literature Evaluation Table

Student Name:

Change Topic (2-3 sentences):

Criteria	Article 1	Article 2	Article 3	Article 4
Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article
Article Title and Year Published
Research Questions (Qualitative)/Hypothesis (Quantitative)
Purposes/Aim of Study
Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)
Setting/Sample
Methods: Intervention/Instruments
Analysis
Key Findings
Recommendations
Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP/Capstone Project

Criteria	Article 5	Article 6	Article 7	Article 8
Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article
Article Title and Year Published
Research Questions (Qualitative)/Hypothesis (Quantitative)
Purposes/Aim of Study
Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)
Setting/Sample
Methods: Intervention/Instruments
Analysis
Key Findings
Recommendations
Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP/Capstone

© 2015. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

© 2017. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

,

Literature Evaluation Table – Rubric

Collapse All Literature Evaluation Table – RubricCollapse All

Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is not included.

Article Title and Year Published

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Article Title and Year Published

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Article title and year published section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Article title and year published section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Article title and year published section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Article title and year published section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Article title and year published section is not included.

Research Questions (Qualitative) or Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes or Aim of Study

5 points

Criteria Description

Research Questions (Qualitative) or Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes or Aim of Study

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is not included.

Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is not included.

Setting or Sample

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Setting or Sample

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Setting or sample section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Setting or sample section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Setting or sample section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Setting or sample section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Setting or sample section is not included.

Methods: Intervention or Instruments

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Methods: Intervention or Instruments

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is not included.

Analysis

5 points

Criteria Description

Analysis

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

Analysis section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Analysis section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Analysis section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Analysis section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Analysis section is not included.

Key Findings

5 points

Criteria Description

Key Findings

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

Key findings section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Key findings section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Key findings section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Key findings section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Key findings section is not included.

Recommendations

5 points

Criteria Description

Recommendations

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

Recommendations section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Recommendations section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Recommendations section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Recommendations section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Recommendations section is not included.

Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP or Capstone

5 points

Criteria Description

Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP or Capstone

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is provided.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is not included.

Presentation

5 points

Criteria Description

Presentation

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

The work is well presented and includes all required elements. The overall appearance is neat and professional.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor flaws or missing elements.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

The overall appearance is general, and major elements are missing.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

The work is not neat and includes minor flaws or omissions of required elements.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

The piece is not neat or organized, and it does not include all required elements.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)

5 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.

Documentation of Sources

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Sources are not documented.