NR505 Week 6 Paper: State of the Science Quality Improvement Part 2

Uncategorized

NR505 Week 6 Paper: State of the Science Quality Improvement Part 2

NR505 Week 6 Paper: State of the Science Quality Improvement Part 2

I recieved claricafication on SOS Part 2. Part 2 should not be longer than 10 pages (not including part 1).

Submit Assignment

  • Due Jun 14 by 11:59pm
  • Points 200
  • Submitting a file upload

Purpose

This assignment provides the opportunity for the graduate nurse practitioner student to become familiar with research processes which are specific to quality improvement.  The graduate nursing student will develop a State of the Science Evidence-Based Practice Project that is focused on quality improvement.

Note: The process began in Week 2 with the formation of a PICO question. Week 4 was Part 1 of the paper which laid the ground work for the project. Part 2 of the Project in Week 6 adds the following elements:  Abstract, Review of the Literature (State of the Science), strengths and limitations of current evidence, and development of a quality enhancement (improvement) plan that addresses limitations of current practice evidence.

ORDER CUSTOMIZED SOLUTIONS NOW

Activity Learning Outcomes

  1. Integrate evidence-based practice and research to support advancement of holistic nursing care in diverse healthcare settings (CO1)
  2. Integrate knowledge related to evidence-based practice and person-centered care to improve healthcare outcomes (CO2)
  3. Develop knowledge related to research and evidence-based practice as a basis for designing and critiquing research studies (CO4)

Due Date

  • Sunday by 11:59pm MT at the end of WEEK 6
  • Part 1 and 2 should be submitted as the final paper

Students are expected to submit assignments by the time they are due. Assignments submitted after the due date and time will receive a deduction of 10% of the total points possible for that assignment for each day the assignment is late. Assignments will be accepted, with penalty as described, up to a maximum of three days late, after which point a zero will be recorded for the assignment. Quizzes and discussions are not considered assignments and are not part of the late assignment policy.

Total Points Possible:  200pts

NR505 Week 6 Paper: State of the Science Quality Improvement Part 2 Requirements:

Preparing the Assignment:  Part 2 Criteria for Content

Abstract:

The abstract should be succinct, comprehensive, and follow and include these APA components (accurate, non-evaluative, coherent, readable and concise).

A description of the problem under investigation (one sentence), participants, and essential features of the quality improvement project which include setting, supporting theory, stakeholders and outcome measurements that would be used to determine efficacy of quality improvement project are included.

(See APA 6th ed., for abstract examples and explanation; p. 25-26)

State-of-the-Science Review of the Literature (ROL):

See Polit & Beck, 2018, 9th ed., Ch. 7 for description of ROL.

This section will describe the state of the science related to the PICO question and problem statement, purpose of the quality project.

  1. A minimum of 6 (six) appropriate research-based scholarly references (articles) must be used.  Required textbook for this course, dictionary and Chamberlain College of Nursing lesson information may be used but will NOT count as scholarly references for this assignment.  For additional assistance regarding scholarly nursing references, please see “What is a scholarly source” from the Chamberlain Library resources.  Be aware that information from .com websites may be incorrect and should be avoided.  References are current if within a 5-year time frame (3 years is best) unless a valid rationale is provided and the instructor has approved them prior to submission of the assignment.
  2. The evidence should be critically reviewed and synthesized.
  3. The strengths and limitations of the current evidence and current practice are described which provide evidence for practice change clearly supported
  4. The identified area of issue or gap in practice is made clear using evidence and is compelling and significant.
  5. No more than three (3) direct quotes are used.

Quality Change Plan:

In this section the writer will create an inter-disciplinary quality improvement plan for their future practice area.  The JH Action Planning Tool may be used as a guide but is not required to be submitted along with the project.  This section should be supported by scholarly in-text citations and include the following sections:

  1. Feasible plan for implementation: Select a model for use, such as the Plan/Do/Study/Act Model.
  2. Identification of key stakeholders with rationale for identification.
  3. Identification of appropriate interdisciplinary team members to assemble with rationale.
  4. A plan for outcome analysis (this should include independent and dependent variables as well as an overview of a method of statistical analysis (which statistics or outcome measures).
  5. Ethical considerations: Protection of Human Subjects.

    ORDER NR505 Week 6 Paper: State of the Science Quality Improvement Part 2

Criteria for Format and Special Instructions:

  1. Page length:  Part 2 of the paper (excluding the title page and reference page) should be 10 pages maximum.
  2. Title page, running head, body of paper, and reference page must follow APA guidelines as found in the 6th edition of the manual. This includes the use of headings for each section of the paper except for the introduction where no heading is used.
  3. Ideas and information from scholarly, peer reviewed, nursing sources must be cited and referenced correctly.
  4. Rules of grammar, spelling, word usage, and punctuation are followed and consistent with formal, scientific, scholarly writing.  First person writing should not be utilized.

Remember:  All sections should have scholarly resources integrated as in-text citations that support the content.  APA current edition is required for all elements of the paper.

Rubric Glossary of Achievement Terms

Comprehensive:  

  1. Of Large Scope, Covering or Involving Much; Inclusive
  2. Comprehending or thoroughly understanding with one’s mind; having an extensive mental range or grasp of aparticular subject.

Thorough:  

  • Detailed, accurate, careful
  • Attentive to detail, accurate, but less than comprehensive in scope, depth or inclusivity

Superficial:

  • Not thorough, on the surface
  • Of little substance, lacking thoroughness

Ill-Prepared / Un-structured:

  • Inadequately prepared, lack of care for detail
  • Lacking organization, disorganized

Succinct

  • Expressed in few words, verbal brevity
  • Compressed expression

Webster’s Online Dictionary:  Retrieved from https://www.dictionary.com/

ASSIGNMENT CONTENT

Category Points % Description
Abstract 40 20% Abstract is succinct and comprehensive, follows and includes the APA (accurate, non-evaluative, coherent, readable and concise).

A description of the problem under investigation (one sentence), participants, and essential features of the quality improvement project which include setting, supporting theory, stakeholders and outcome measurements that would be used to determine efficacy of quality improvement project are included.

(See APA 6th ed., for abstract examples and explanation; p. 25-26)

State of the Science ROL 50 25% Review of the Literature 

  1. A minimum of 6 (six) appropriate research-based scholarly references (articles) must be used.
  2. The evidence should be critically reviewed, compared and contrasted, and synthesized.
  3. The strengths and limitations of the current evidence and current practice are described which provide evidence for practice change clearly supported
  4. The identified area of issue or gap in practice is made clear using evidence and is compelling and significant.
  5. No more than 3 direct quotes are used  NR505 Week 6 Paper: State of the Science Quality Improvement Part 2
Quality Change Plan  70 35% Quality Change Plan 

Inter-disciplinary Quality Plan Supported by Scholarly In-text Citations and include the following sections:

  1. Feasible plan for implementation: Select a model for use, such as the Plan/Do/Study/Act    Model.
  2. Identification of key stakeholders with rationale for identification.
  3. Identification of appropriate interdisciplinary team members to assemble with rationale.
  4. A plan for outcome analysis (this should include independent and dependent variables as well as an overview of a method of statistical analysis (which statistics or outcome measures).
  5. Ethical considerations: Protection of Human Subjects.
Summary/ Appendix  25 13% The conclusion restates the main sections of the paper.  It should contain a few sentences from each section, sequentially representing the flow of the paper.  The last few sentences of the summary section should pull the paper together by addressing an overview for future projects or by stating the projects importance and implications for practice.

The appendix includes the Johns Hopkins PICO question formation and ROL tools.

185 93% Total CONTENT Points= 185 pts

ASSIGNMENT FORMAT

Category Points % Description
APA, Syntax, Grammar, Spelling 15 15
  1. Page length:  Part 2 of the paper (excluding the title page and reference page) should be 10 pages maximum.
  2. Title page, running head, body of paper, and reference page must follow APA guidelines as found in the current edition of the manual. This includes the use of headings for each section of the paper except for the introduction where no heading is used.
  3. Ideas and information from scholarly, peer reviewed, nursing sources must be cited and referenced correctly.
  4. Rules of grammar, spelling, word usage, and punctuation are followed and consistent with formal, scientific, scholarly writing.  First person writing should not be utilized.

Remember:  All sections should have scholarly resources integrated as in-text citations that support the content.  APA current edition is required for all elements of the paper.

15 7% Total FORMAT Points= 15 pts
100% ASSIGNMENT TOTAL=200 points

Rubric

NR505NP SOS Part 2_SEPT19

NR505NP SOS Part 2_SEPT19

NR505NP SOS Part 2_SEPT19

Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAbstract

Abstract is succinct and comprehensive, follows and includes APA components:
Accurate, non-evaluative, coherent and readable, concise.
Describes the problem under investigation (one sentence), participants, essential features of the quality improvement project to include setting, supporting theory, stakeholders and outcome measurements that would be used to determine efficacy of quality improvement project.

40.0 pts

Excellent

Abstract is succinct and comprehensive, follows and includes APA components: Accurate, non-evaluative, coherent and readable, concise. Describes the problem under investigation (one sentence), participants, essential features of the quality improvement project to include setting, supporting theory, stakeholders and outcome measurements that would be used to determine efficacy of quality improvement project.

36.0 pts

V. Good

Abstract is thorough but not comprehensive in in general or in one or two areas: Accurate, non-evaluative, coherent and readable, concise. Describes the problem under investigation (one sentence), participants, essential features of the quality improvement project to include setting, supporting theory, stakeholders and outcome measurements that would be used to determine efficacy of quality improvement project. NR505 Week 6 Paper: State of the Science Quality Improvement Part 2

33.0 pts

Satisfactory

Abstract superficially addresses all APA components or may be missing two components (for example, setting, theory or stakeholders).

20.0 pts

Needs Improvement

Abstract is ill-prepared, unstructured, and is missing most of the major components per APA

0.0 pts

Unsatisfactory

Abstract is missing completely or is ill-prepared, does not address the APA abstract components.

40.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeState of the Science: Review of the Literature (ROL)

1. A minimum of 6 (six) appropriate research-based scholarly references (articles) must be used.
2. The evidence should be critically reviewed, compared and contrasted, and synthesized.
3. The strengths and limitations of the current evidence and current practice are described which provide evidence for practice change clearly supported
4. The identified area of issue or gap in practice is made clear using evidence and is compelling and significant.  NR505 Week 6 Paper: State of the Science Quality Improvement Part 2
5. No more than 3 direct quotes are used

50.0 pts

Excellent

Complete, comprehensive, and scholarly analysis that meets all elements of the requirements for the ROL Zero to three (0-3) direct quotes are utilized.

45.0 pts

V. Good

Thorough, but not comprehensive, analysis, scholarly, meets all elements of the requirements for the ROL Zero to three (0-3) direct quotes are utilized.

41.0 pts

Satisfactory

Superficially presented, scant analysis, meets all or most elements of the requirements for the ROL or may be thorough in 2-3 requirements but be missing depth or content in other areas Zero to three (0-3) direct quotes are utilized.

25.0 pts

Needs Improvement

Limited analysis. Presents literature without connecting to quality project. Does not utilize a critical review to support project’s purpose. May also contain greater than three (3) direct quotes.

0.0 pts

Unsatisfactory

ROL is missing completely or is ill-prepared, does not address any of the ROL components or is limited to a superficial discussion of 1-2 components of the Criteria for Content for the ROL. May also contain greater than three (3) direct quotes.

50.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuality Change Plan

Inter-disciplinary Quality Plan Supported by Scholarly In-text Citations and include the following sections:
1. Feasible plan for implementation: Select a model for use, such as the Plan/Do/Study/Act Model.
2. Identification of key stakeholders with rationale for identification.
3. Identification of appropriate interdisciplinary team members to assemble with rationale.
4. A plan for outcome analysis (this should include independent and dependent variables as well as an overview of a method of statistical analysis (which statistics or outcome measures).
5. Ethical considerations: Protection of Human Subjects. NR505 Week 6 Paper: State of the Science Quality Improvement Part 2

ORDER CUSTOMIZED SOLUTIONS NOW

70.0 pts

Excellent

The quality change plan has comprehensive depth that is evidence by integration of scholarly resources throughout all required sections which are comprehensively included. Content provides rationales for all sections with definitions, explanations, for decisions, planning.

64.0 pts

V. Good

The quality change plan is thorough but not comprehensive in depth that is evidence by either missing integration of scholarly resources throughout all sections or, two (2) sections (for example) may be vague. Content provides rationales for most sections and includes definitions, as well as explanations, for decisions, planning.

58.0 pts

Satisfactory

The quality change plan has superficial in depth that is evidence by a consistent lack of integration of scholarly resources throughout all sections. Content provides rationales that are superficial and/or inconsistently with inconsistent definitions, as well as explanations, for decisions, planning. NR505 Week 6 Paper: State of the Science Quality Improvement Part 2

35.0 pts

Needs Improvement

The quality change plan has limited depth that is evidence by an overall lack of integration of scholarly resources throughout all sections. Content does not provide rationales for sections with definitions, explanations, for decisions, or planning. Or, rationales, definitions, explanations for planning are brief without focus or clear connection to project question/aim.

0.0 pts

Unsatisfactory

The quality change plan lacks depth and focus as evidence by an overall lack of representation in all sections.

70.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummary/ Appendix

The conclusion restates the main sections of the paper. It should contain a few sentences from each section, sequentially representing the flow of the paper. The last few sentences of the summary section should pull the paper together by addressing an overview for future projects or by stating the projects importance and implications for practice.
The appendix includes the Johns Hopkins PICO question formation and ROL tools.

25.0 pts

Excellent

The summary pulls the paper together comprehensively, including elements of each part of the State of the Science Quality Improvement Paper. The appendix contains both the PICO Question Formation Tool and the ROL Table which are complete

23.0 pts

V. Good

The summary is thorough, including elements of each part of the State of the Science Quality Improvement Paper. The appendix contains both the PICO Question Formation tool and the ROL Table which are complete or missing 1 or 2 components of the tool (for instance, one or two components of the ROL table) NR505 Week 6 Paper: State of the Science Quality Improvement Part 2

21.0 pts

Satisfactory

The summary is brief including elements of each part of the State of the Science Quality Improvement Paper OR the summary is thorough but does not address all elements of each part of the SOS paper. The appendix contains both the PICO Question Formation tool and the ROL Table which are complete or missing 1 or 2 components of the tool (for instance, one or two components of the ROL table)

13.0 pts

Needs Improvement

The summary is quite limited in all elements of each part of the State of the Science Quality Improvement Paper. The appendix contains both the PICO Question Formation tool and the ROL Table OR may be missing one tool OR both tools are present but are incomplete or unorganized.

0.0 pts

Unsatisfactory

The summary is missing or incoherent. The appendix is missing.

25.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA/Syntax/Grammar/ Spelling

1. Page length: Part 2 of the paper (excluding the title page and reference page) should be 10 pages maximum.
2. Title page, running head, body of paper, and reference page must follow APA guidelines as found in the 6th edition of the manual. This includes the use of headings for each section of the paper except for the introduction where no heading is used.
3. Ideas and information from scholarly, peer reviewed, nursing sources must be cited and referenced correctly.
4. Rules of grammar, spelling, word usage, and punctuation are followed and consistent with formal, scientific, scholarly writing. First person writing should not be utilized.
Remember: All sections should have scholarly resources integrated as in-text citations that support the content. APA 6th edition is required for all elements of the paper.

15.0 pts

Excellent

1 error total in any area.

13.0 pts

V. Good

2-4 errors total in any area.

12.0 pts

Satisfactory

5-7 errors total in any area.

8.0 pts

Needs Improvement

8-10 errors total in any area.

0.0 pts

Unsatisfactory

Greater than 10 errors total in any area.

15.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLate penalty deductions

Students are expected to submit assignments by the time they are due. Assignments submitted after the due date and time will receive a deduction of 10% of the total points possible for that assignment for each day the assignment is late. Assignments will be accepted, with penalty as described, up to a maximum of three days late, after which point a zero will be recorded for the assignment.
Quizzes and discussions are not considered assignments and are not part of the late assignment policy.

NR505 Week 6 Paper: State of the Science Quality Improvement Part 2
0.0 pts

Manual Deductions

0.0 pts

Manual Deductions

0.0 pts

Total Points: 200.0

×

You cannot copy content of this page