We will write a custom Assessment on Nursing Assessment and Scoring Instrument specifically for you
301 certified writers online
Purpose of the Project
The student is expected to provide a Change Proposal based on the chosen PICOT (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Time) question and the information on it (Riva, Malik, Burnie, Endicott, & Busse, 2012). The students are expected to formulate the question on their own and provide a proposal to address it. The hypothetical situation is that the student is a nurse in a hospital setting and has uncovered a nursing problem that requires intervention on a hospital level. Through this proposal, the student must convince the hospital management team to change the current nursing practices towards the nursing problem of their choice.
The purpose of this project is to enable the student to apply the theories and principles of nursing in professional practice and implement medical disciplines related to community healthcare. The student is expected to propose leadership and collaboration strategies, promote health and illness prevention, as well as maintenance, restoration, and rehabilitation in the scope of a particular community (Sudheesh, Duggappa, & Nethra, 2016). This test aims to provide a PICOT-based intervention following the standards of the American Nursing Association.
The proposal is to follow the guidelines laid out by the Nursing EBP Model and Guidelines (Dearholt & Dang, 2012). The paper should follow the established outline:
- Change Plan
- Practice Question
- Related Evidence
- Translation into Practice
The proposal must be formatted according to the latest edition of the Publication Manual of APA (Angeli et al., 2010). The Reference Page is supposed to be on a separate page at the end of the proposal. Citations and references to scholarly articles are required. The estimated size of the proposal is between three and six pages.
|Introduction (max. 25 points).||The introduction section of the proposal is focused on identifying, presenting, and offering potential solutions to the problem. |
|The introduction section does a good job of identifying and supporting the problem and potential solutions but misses some convincing information. |
|The problem and the potential solution are presented, but there is little evidence to support the claims. |
11 – 20 points
|The introduction is present, but it is brief and does not provide enough detail or evidence. |
|Practice question (max. 50 points).||The practice question is presented using the Nursing EBP model and guidelines. The practice question is perfectly-identified, the scope of the problem is discussed and supported with evidence, teams and stakeholders are also clearly identified. |
|The practice question, the scope of the problem, the teams and stakeholders are identified, but the descriptions and supporting statistics are basic. |
|The scope of the problem, the practice question, the stakeholders, and the professional teams are identified, but each section lacks important parts. Statistics may be missing, certain stakeholders and team members may be absent or incorrectly identified. |
|Evidence for the four steps is not provided; some of the steps may be missing. |
|Related evidence (max. 50 points).||Four or more reliable and recent scholarly sources are used. A summary of evidence is provided, the discussion of evidence is present and elaborate, and recommendations based on said evidence are thorough. |
|Four sources are used, at least three of which are peer-reviewed. The fourth source is not peer-reviewed but reliable enough to be included in the research (government information, public statistics). A basic summary of evidence is provided, a discussion of the evidence is present, and recommendations are basic. |
|Four sources are present. Less than three sources are peer-reviewed. A summary of evidence is vague. The evidence is taken at face value with little or no discussion, recommendations are present, but the connection between them and the evidence is not obvious. |
|Less than four sources are present, none of them are peer-reviewed. The summary of evidence is either lacking or too short, the discussion is absent, and recommendations are questionable. |
|Translation into practice (max. 50 points).||The plan of action is well-developed and provides a timeline where all elements of the plan are included. Outcomes are measurable, and an instrument for their measurement is provided. The plan of implementation and the ways to communicate findings are thoroughly discussed. |
|The plan of actions, outcomes, and instruments of measurement, and plans of implementation, are present, but some minor elements may be missing. |
|The action plan is present, but the timeline is missing. Outcomes are not presented with enough detail; measurement instruments are missing. |
Ways of implementation lack detail.
Ways to report the findings are either vague or not present.
|One or more steps of the four steps of translation into practice are absent. The descriptions are not developed and too vague. The implementation plan is unrealistic. |
|Conclusion (max. 25 points).||The summary is clear, solid, and includes the plan of change. |
|The summary is good, and all parts of the proposal are mentioned, but some may lack in detail or be mentioned only briefly. |
|The summary is present, but it is very basic, with key points mentioned too vaguely. Important details and findings are mentioned briefly or not at all. |
11 – 20 points
|A summary is vague and difficult to understand. It does not capture the breadth and depth of the project. Key points of the change plan are not recapped. |
|Formatting and scholarly writing (max. 25 points).||No errors in formatting, grammar, or punctuation (“Grading rubrics,” n.d.). |
|2-3 errors. |
21-24 points (“Grading rubrics,” n.d.).
|3-5 errors. |
11 – 20 points (“Grading rubrics,” n.d.).
|Numerous errors. |
1-10 points (“Grading rubrics,” n.d.).
Angeli, E., Wagner, J., Lawrick, E., Moore, K., Anderson, M., Soderlund, L., & Brizee, A. (2010). General format. Web.
Dearholt, S. L., & Dang, D. (2012). Johns Hopkins nursing evidence-based practice: Model and guidelines. (2nd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau International.
Grading rubrics: Examples of rubric creation. (n.d.). Web.
Riva, J. J., Malik, K. M. P., Burnie, S. J., Endicott, A. R., & Busse, J. W. (2012). What is your research question? An introduction to the PICOT format for clinicians. The Journal of Canadian Chiropractic Association, 56(3), 167-171.
Sudheesh, K., Duggappa, D. R., & Nethra, S. S. (2016). How to write a research proposal? Indian Journal of Anaesthesia, 60(9), 631-634.