Recent Question/Assignment

SCHOOL OF NURSING & MIDWIFERY
Instructions for Assessment 3
Project part B
(2,250 words – 25% of the total subject mark) Due Date: 1500 hr Monday 8th October
Clinical Project
This assessment has been developed to enable students to acquire knowledge and skills to complete a clinical project. The acquisition of these skills will contribute significantly in your transition from student to qualified registered nurse. The clinical project that you will produce for this assessment is one example of the type of project you may be required to complete in practice.
Background
In some graduate nurse programs new graduates are required to complete a clinical project related to change or innovation in clinical practice. That may mean reviewing and researching an area of clinical practice in the ward that requires improvement, or an area where practice in the ward has been delivered at an excellent level. The new graduate will present their completed project at a ward in-service education session for ward colleagues. They may also be invited to present their project during the hospital Research Week.
For this assessment, you are required to use the case study from Assessment 3, Project Part A (Ysabel Green) to develop your clinical project. In Assessment 3, Part A you identified and discussed two National Health and Safety Standards that were compromised in Ysabel Green’s care during her hospitalisation. In this assessment, you are required to *choose one of those two standards to guide and focus your clinical project.
Your clinical project is to be developed as a project that may be presented either as an in-service to other ward nurses and/or health care staff, or may be presented during Research Week to the wider hospital community as a brochure or an e-poster presentation.
IMPORTANT: Please Note:
Your project is to be structured using the following format and submitted using the template provided on the assessment link on LMS for this assignment:
• Section 1: Literature Review
• Section 2: Planning your project
• Section 3: Presenting your research
• Section 4: Seeking Feedback - Evaluation
A full description of each section is outlined below. When preparing your work, please follow the guidelines under each of the sections below.
Section 1 - Literature Review (1,000 words)
You are required to conduct a literature review of the current professional literature on implementing change in clinical practice (in other words, translating research evidence to practice)
In your review analyse and discuss what the literature states about
- the barriers to change in clinical practice overall
- the facilitators to change in clinical practice overall
- consider how might those barriers and/or facilitators impact on the implementation of the changes to practice that you have recommended regarding Ysabel Green’s care. Note to students: focus on the *one National Safety Standard
- PLEASE NOTE:
- For your literature review, you will need to search the current nursing literature using library databases (for example CINAHL – the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health;
MEDLINE; Scopus) to identify current research and expert discussion related to this topic.
- You should provide 10 or more current and authoritative references. – The majority of your references should be peer reviewed journal articles from the last 5 – 6 years.
- Your literature review must contain an introduction and conclusion.
- Your work must be referenced using APA 6 style including a reference list (see links on the LMS site for this subject located in the assignment resources section).
Section 2 Planning Your Project (450 words)
To assist you in your preparation of how to present your project you will need to formulate a project plan.
For this section, use the following five (5) steps to develop your project plan
(These steps have been adapted from WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data: Implementation research toolkit - Module 5 - Disseminating the research findings, Available at: http://www.who.int/tdr/publications/year/2014/participant-workbook5_030414.pdf )
1. Give a brief outline of the topic that is the focus of your project. (Your topic will be one of the safety standards you researched in Project Part A relating to Ysabel Green’s case – briefly outline how the standard was compromised In Ysabel’s care)
Students Please note: when you present this case to your audience you are required to de-identify the patient due to privacy issues
2. Who is your audience (who is your project being presented to i.e. ward staff – nurses/health professionals?)
3. Produce a brief outline of what it is you wish to convey to your audience. For this section you may wish to consider: what are your suggested/recommended changes to practice?
4. Identify which format you intend to use for your presentation and briefly discuss why you have chosen this format. You may choose from one of the following formats:
a. powerpoint
b. brochure
c. e-poster
d. Support your choice with evidence from literature – include references for this step (e.g. what is the best format to use for ward staff – nurses as an in-service; or what is the best format to use for the wider health community, if you were presenting at research week?)
5. Identify and discuss the method you will use to evaluate that your message has been received and understood by your audience.
a. In your discussion explain why you have chosen this method to evaluate the impact of your presentation on your audience. Therefore, if you choose to use an evaluation tool that has already been published, you will need to discuss why you have chosen that tool and why it is appropriate for your project. Or, alternately if you develop your own evaluation tool with questions for your audience, then discuss why those questions are the most appropriate and relevant to assess your project.
b. Some examples of evaluation approaches include:
i. on-line or paper surveys such as questionnaires,
ii. in-depth interviews with an individual member, or iii. interviews with a focus group.
Please Note: You will need to use and reference current professional literature to assist you to develop and support your approach
Section 3 – Presenting your research (600 word equivalent)
Your presentation can be in any one of the following formats. Only choose one format:
- A power point presentation which could be presented as an oral presentation to the intended audience. Power point Guidelines: Must not exceed 12 slides. Attach your power point as slide handouts to an audience. Submit as either a Word or pdf document – with no more than 2 slides per page and follow submission guidelines in the assignment template. Useful information regarding power point presentations can be accessed via Library Link: http://latrobe.libguides.com/presentations/presentationaids
- A brochure that could be handed out to the intended audience Some useful links to assist with brochure development: available at:
http://webdesignerdrops.com/inspiration/20-well-designed-examples-of-medicalbrochure-designs/. Brochure guidelines: Save your brochure as an A4 pdf document and follow submission guidelines in the assignment template.
- An ‘E poster’ which could be presented at Research Week Free brochure templates can be accessed via the following links:
http://www.posterpresentations.com/html/free_poster_templates.html; http://posters4research.com/templates.php Poster guidelines: Save your poster as an A4 pdf document and follow submission guidelines in the assignment template.
Section 4 – Seeking Feedback - Evaluation (200 word equivalent)
To evaluate your session, submit a suitable evaluation tool that you would use to evaluate your session.
Choose from one of the following formats:
• A paper based evaluation tool which would be handed out to your audience or
• An interview schedule (specific questions) if you were to conduct individual or focus group interviews to evaluate the effectiveness of your strategy.
*Please note: Referencing for your evaluation tool
If you choose to use and submit an evaluation tool that has already been published - you must include the reference link at the bottom of the page.
Or
If you develop your own questions and evaluation tool using information from other published tools, please cite those references at the bottom of the page
To submit your evaluation tool, please follow the submission guidelines found in the template provided for this assignment on LMS.
School of Nursing & Midwifery NSG3NCR – Assessment Rubric – Part B
Criteria Excellent ( 80%) Very Good (70 – 79%) Good (60 – 69%) Fair (50 – 59%) Poor ( 50%) Mark
Section 1 – Literature
Review
Analysis of Literature
(1 x 1000 words)
40 marks
*identified barriers and facilitators to change – and discussed the impact
of these on future practice
** primary source, professionally-oriented, peer-reviewed
32 + marks
• Introduction succinctly identifies the relevance, scope and focus of the analysis of literature to be reviewed.
• Body well structured, with coherent & logical development of ideas*.
• Conclusion identifies what has been written on the topic and what needs to be done.
• Sources are relevant and credible to the topic**.
• Majority of sources within past 5-7 years.
• Demonstrated an excellent understanding of links between the necessary concepts.
• Demonstrated clear and consistent evidence of critical appraisal of reference material.
• Reflects focus of the topic- appropriately weighted.
Notes ambiguities in the literature; synthesises and presents a new perspective of the literature 28 – 31.5 marks
• Introduction identifies the relevance, scope and focus of the critical analysis of literature but may not be succinct.
• Body well structured, with predominantly coherent & logical development of ideas*.
• Conclusion predominantly identifies what has been written on the topic and what needs to be done.
• Sources are predominantly relevant and credible to the topic**.
• Majority of sources within past 5-7 years.
• Demonstrated a very good understanding of links between the necessary concepts.
• Demonstrated some evidence of critical appraisal of reference material.
• Reflects focus of the topic- mostly appropriately weighted.
Notes ambiguities in the literature; mostly synthesises and presents a new perspective of the literature 24 – 27.5 marks
• Introduction largely appropriate to the task but doesn’t clearly identify the relevance, scope and focus of the critical analysis of literature
• Body mostly well structured, with predominantly coherent & logical development of ideas*.
• Conclusion largely identifies what has been written on the topic and what needs to be done.
• Majority of sources are predominantly relevant and credible to the topic**.
• Majority of sources within past 5-7 years.
• Demonstrated a good understanding of links between the necessary concepts.
• Demonstrated inconsistent evidence of critical appraisal of reference material.
• Reflects focus of the topic- may be inappropriately weighted.
Some ambiguities in the literature noted; limited synthesis of a new perspective of the literature.
20 – 23.5 marks
• Introduction may not be appropriate to the task and doesn’t clearly identify the relevance, scope and focus of the critical analysis of literature.
• Body may not be well structured, with limited coherent & logical development of ideas*.
• Conclusion mostly identifies what has been written on the topic and what needs to be done.
• Few of the sources are relevant and credible to the topic**.
• Many sources not within past 5-7 years.
• Demonstrated a limited understanding of links between the necessary concepts.
• Demonstrated limited evidence of critical appraisal of reference material.
• Limited focus on the topic- may be inappropriately weighted.
Few ambiguities in the literature noted; poor synthesis of a new perspective of the literature
0 – 19.5 marks
• Introduction inappropriate to the task and doesn’t clearly identify the relevance, scope and focus of the critical analysis of literature.
• Body poorly structured, with limited coherent & logical development of ideas*.
• Conclusion does not identify what has been written on the topic and what needs to be done.
• Few of the sources are relevant and credible to the topic**.
• Majority of sources not within past 5-7 years.
• Demonstrated a lack of understanding of links between the necessary concepts.
• No evidence of critical appraisal of reference material.
• Lack of focus on the topic - inappropriately weighted.
• No ambiguities in the literature noted; lacks synthesis of a new perspective of the literature.
/40
Section 2 – Planning
Development of Project
Plan
(1 x 450 words)
16 + marks
• Excellent identification of topic and objectives
• Clearly identified audience
• Excellent outline of content to be delivered to audience 14 – 15.5 marks
• Very good identification of topic and objectives
• Identified audience
• Very good outline of content to be delivered to audience 12 – 13.5 marks
• Good identification of topic and objectives
• Identified audience
• Good outline of content to be delivered to audience 10 – 11.5 marks
• Some identification of topic and objectives
• Limited identification of audience
• Some outline of content to be delivered 0 – 9.5 marks
• Poor identification of topic and objectives
• Limited identification of audience.
• No outline of content to be delivered
20 marks
• Format for presentation identified and well supported by relevant and credible references.
• Evaluation strategy identified and well supported by literature
• Writing was coherent with logical development of key ideas. • Format for presentation identified and supported by relevant and credible references
• Evaluation strategy identified and supported by literature
• Writing was coherent with logical development of key ideas.
• Format for presentation identified and supported by relevant and credible references
• Evaluation strategy identified and supported by literature
• Writing was mostly coherent with logical development of key ideas. • Format for presentation identified but not supported by literature
• Evaluation strategy poorly identified and supported by literature
• Writing had limited coherence and logical development of key ideas. • Format for presentation not identified
• No evaluation strategy presented
• Poorly supported by relevant and credible references.
• Writing lacked coherence and logical development of key ideas.
/20
Section 3 – Presenting
Your Research
(1 x 600 words)
30 marks
26 + marks
• Excellent presentation of content
• Detailed, concise description of area requiring change presented in the content
• Clearly identified and presented session outcomes.
• Clear and consistent evidence of improvement and changes to be implemented
• Clear articulation of learning outcomes and application to future practice
• Writing was coherent with logical development of key ideas.
24 – 25.5 marks
• Very good presentation of content
• Description of area requiring change presented in the content
• Identified and presented session outcomes.
• Clear and consistent evidence of improvement and changes to be implemented
• Predominantly clear articulation of learning outcomes and application to future practice.
• Writing was coherent with logical development of key ideas.
22 – 23.5 marks
• Good presentation of content
• Inconsistent detail in the area requiring change presented in the content
• Identified and presented session outcomes.
• Inconsistent evidence of improvement and changes to be implemented
• Mostly clear articulation of learning outcomes and application to future practice.
• Writing was mostly coherent with logical development of key ideas.
20 – 21.5 marks
• Content not well presented
• Description of area requiring change lacked depth and detail.
• Session outcomes mostly identified.
• Limited evidence of improvement and changes to be implemented • Poor articulation of learning outcomes and application to future practice.
• Writing had limited coherence and logical development of key ideas.
0 – 19.5 marks
• Poor presentation of content • Description of area requiring change was very superficial.
• Session outcomes not identified
• Very poor articulation of learning outcomes and application to future practice.
• Writing lacked coherence and logical development of key ideas.
/30
Section 4 - Seeking
Feedback
Development of
Evaluation tool
(200 words)
10 marks
8 + marks
• Clear, concise & well developed evaluation tool
• Consistently well supported by relevant and credible references.
7 – 7.5 marks
• Predominantly clear, concise & well developed evaluation tool
• Predominantly well supported by relevant and credible references.
6 – 6.5 marks
• Mostly clear but may not be concise evaluation tool
• Inconsistently supported by relevant and credible references.
. 5 – 5.5 marks
• Superficially developed evaluation tool
• Poorly supported by relevant and credible references.
0 – 4.5 marks
• Poorly developed evaluation tool.
• Poorly supported by relevant and credible references.
/10
Referencing/citations (up to 4 marks deducted) • APA 6 style not consistently used for citations (where required)
• APA 6 style not consistently used for reference list (where required) -
Presentation (up to 2 marks deducted) • Professional language not consistently used
• Spelling, typing and/ or grammatical errors -
Word limit (up to 2 marks deducted) • Word limit - (more than or less than 10% of the prescribed limit) -
EXAMINER: Additional comments:
TOTAL MARK FOR
PART B
= /100