Recent Question/Assignment

NURS2006 Assignment 3: Evidence Summary (1500 words)
Purpose: The purpose of the evidence-based practice project is to have the student demonstrate skills in applying research to practice. The PICOT and all tools are available on NURS2006 FLO page.
Learning outcomes
LO1- Apply evidence-based practice (EBP) in the provision of patient care LO2. Formulate a clinical question to yield the most relevant and best evidence the healthcare organisation.
LO 3- List the steps of evidence-based practice and the skills associated with it
LO 4- Analyse the impact of clinical governance on efficiency and practice standards LO 5- Critically appraise different study designs and exhibit an understanding of the evidence they produce
LO 6- Develop strategies to disseminate the outcomes of evidence
LO 7- Reflect on the role of the Registered Nurse in maximising EBP across the healthcare organisation.
Procedures:
Students will work independently, Each student will:
a) Identify a topic of interest from the list of the topics given.
b) Conduct a literature search on the chosen topic and select appropriate articles for critique. Include at least five articles of evidence. Critique each article using the JHNEBP tools. Include of the abstracts of the articles as a separate file.
c) Complete an individual summary tool that includes limitations, level, and quality of evidence.
d) Complete a synthesis and recommendations tool that includes practice recommendations.
The evidence summary should be organised in a narrative report in the following way:
Title of the Summary o Include a title that is relevant to the EBP project
1. Overview of Clinical problem area and Why change is needed (5 marks) o Include several brief statements that show why change is needed. Include references to show the size of the problem and why it is important.
o Use surveillance and causation data to justify why change is needed in this particular area.
2. Review question (5 marks) o State the review question using PICOT format.
Example question formats:
1. Is (intervention) effective in the promotion and /or prevention of (risk factor and/ or disease) in (population)?
2. Is (intervention) cost-effective in the promotion and or prevention of (risk factor and/ or disease) in (population)?
3. Methodology (20 marks)
• Selection criteria: (Inclusion criteria and Exclusion criteria for studies)
o Inclusion criteria is everything that a study must have in order to be included in your review.
o Exclusion criteria are the factors that would make a study ineligible to be included in your review. These criteria are usually applied to the results of a search and are not used to limit the search results.
o Specify the inclusion criteria and exclusion for studies in a table with the headings: population, interventions, comparisons ( for example, no intervention, other treatment), outcomes, time (if relevant) and study types ( for example, systematic review, economic evaluation).
o You should also specify any exclusion criteria used, if any (for example, studies published before 2010, other language, certain type of study types)
• Search strategy
o Specify the search strategy, including resources searched and search terms.
o Specify the date last searched (For example: these searches were current as at [month and year].
o Include the search string and search history (see module 4 for details)
4. Brief Results (25 marks)
• Using the synthesis table, summarise how many studies of each type were used for the evidence summary (for example, how many systematic reviews and how many economic evaluations, if any).
• Include the reference and a description of the study with reference to the inclusion criteria, noting details of the participants, intervention(s), comparisons, outcomes and study types.
Example of synthesis table:
Study author year & title Study Design & Level of evidence Setting and Sample (N= number of participants) Intervention Comparison Outcome
Smith et al (2020) Falls prevention in Mars. RCT (level II) Royal Great hospital in
Mars
N=1820 patients with mild dementia I= Speed walking C= yoga Falls ?
Memory ?
John et al (2021) Effectiveness of physical exercise in falls preventions Systematic
Review (Level I) N=225539 participants (20 studies; 10 RCTs, 5 quasi experimental studies,5 mixed methods ). I=Speed walking C=Swimming; running; Low density exercise Falls -
Anxiety ? Self-esteem? social withdrawal ?
Note: ?= decrease; ? increase; - no difference
5. The evidence (20 marks) o This is the answer to the question. Start with a statement that shows the level and quantity of evidence you found to answer the question. Cite all of the references that meet your inclusion criteria.
o Use a separate heading for this if relevant. Consider splitting the evidence into sections according to population groups, settings, determinants, risk factors and/or intervention types and outcomes – whatever works best for the evidence you have and the messages you wish to convey.
o If possible, summarise what is involved in the intervention in terms of frequency, duration, delivery method, participants (including age) and so on. This will help for implementation, though it may be difficult to do if more than one intervention type is being considered.
6. Research gaps (5 marks)
Summarise research gaps using dot points.
• Consider what the included studies identify as a research need.
• Identify any study types, population groups and so on that were missing from the studies found in your search.
7. Implication for Practice (10 marks)
Implications are basically the conclusions that you draw from your results and explain how the findings may be important for policy and practice.
8. References (5 marks)
o Only include references that meet the inclusion criteria and/or that are cited in the text. o Use APA referencing format.
NURS 2006/: Clinical Governance.
Assessment 3: Marking Rubric: (40%, 1500 words)
Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail
Structure and Writing style 5%
• Each section of the summary is structured in a logical sequence so that the content flows
• The essay is written with clear sentence structure, clarity of argument and precision of expression and the spelling and grammar are correct
• Consistent and clear application of Flinders University academic integrity principles
Structure and Writing
style
(5%)
Fulfils the technical aspects of the task.
Very well-structured with all components present as outlined in assessment details.
Systematically and logically organised.
Flawless grammar, spelling and sentence
structure
The overall paper, from
introduction to conclusion, flows
extremely well
Consistent and clear application of Flinders University academic integrity principles Clear structure which enhances the discussion and argument
Systematically and logically organised.
Excellent grammar, spelling and sentence
structure
Adheres to word count +/- 10%
Consistent application of Flinders University academic integrity
principle
Generally well-structured with all components present as outlined in assessment details.
Evidence of systematic organisation of content.
Minimal errors in spelling, grammar, or syntax so the paper is easy to read.
Adheres to word count +/- 10%
Mostly consistent application of Flinders University academic integrity principles Adequately structured as outlined in assessment details but one or two components need further development.
Structures may make it difficult to read, but it
adequately communicates information.
Problems evident with grammar, spelling, and sentence structure but the
paper is mostly easy to read
Adheres to word count +/- 10%
Inconsistent application of Flinders University academic
integrity principle
Inadequate structure as outlined in assessment details with poor organisation of components.
No clear flow, rambling, repetitive, difficult to read and to understand the meaning.
Includes significant errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax, so the intent of the
paper is difficult to determine.
Over/under the word limit
(-/+10%)
The Flinders University Academic Integrity requirements have not been met.
Content & Critical Analysis 90%
• The introduction and background set the scene for the evidence summary and outlines the context and area of interest
• A clear and concise justification of the research problem and its significance is provided.
• A preliminary review and critique of the literature has been undertaken and used to demonstrate a need for improvement
• Demonstrates depth of understanding of the topic and significant issues
A step by step plan of the evidence summary is outlined and a high-level understanding of research process is demonstrated by:
• Electronic database used was clearly named and rationale for the choice is clearly and succinctly stated.
• Identifies search terms used which were appropriate and logical
• Demonstrates an excellent understanding of using Boolean operators, Wildcard and Truncation
• Detail explanation of implementation of search strategy given
• A comprehensive search string attached
• Clear succinct and logical framework used to present the chosen articles.
• A comprehensive summary table- all articles relevant to the review question selected stating the type and level of evidence for each.
• Summarises the research gaps using dot points.
Overview of Clinical problem area and Why change is
needed (5 marks)
Presents a comprehensive description of a clinical problem, why change is needed, and its significance is provided.
Rich in content. Full of critical and evidencebased thought, insight and analysis.
Discussion/ ideas are supported with relevant extensive literature showing evidence that the student has read widely beyond set readings with evidence well integrated. Presents a clear and concise description of
why change is needed,
Shows thorough knowledge and understanding of the chosen topic is evident.
Discussion/ ideas are supported with strong depth of evidence-based information, thought and insight and analysis evident
Adequate description of the clinical problem and why change is needed, is provided.
Shows evidence of relevant and sound knowledge and understanding of the topic.
Discussion/ ideas are supported with relevant literature and evidence is integrated adequately. The potential clinical problem was mostly clear, with minimal detail and large amounts of extraneous detail.
The potential clinical problem needed more depth
and robust discussion
Shows basic knowledge of the topic but not a thorough understanding of some key concepts.
Discussion/ ideas are supported with relevant literature, but evidence is integrated at a basic level.
Inadequate level of knowledge of the chosen topic for discussion with few concepts thoroughly understood
Inadequate to no description of a problem.
No link between the clinical problem and the change needed.
Discussion/ ideas are not articulated.
Review question
(5 marks) State the review question using PICOT format.
Presents a comprehensive review question using the PICOT format.
Review question is well formulated.
Review question stated is relevant, researchable, and significant.
PICOT clear and accurate and relevant to the clinical problem identified
Review question stated but needs further work.
Some elements of PICOT
unclear/ inaccurate
Review question is inadequately stated or missing.
There is no link between the review question and the clinical
problem
Methodology
Selection criteria: (5
marks)
Specify the inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies in a table with the headings: population,
interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study types.
Search strategy
(15 marks)
Specify the search strategy, including resources searched and search terms.
Specify the date last
searched
Exceptional level explanation of process used to identify the Inclusion and Exclusion
criteria and identification of
keywords, Identifies & justifies a wider range of inclusion and exclusion criteria which demonstrates a high level of critical analysis and is supported by a wider range of relevant literature.
Identifies a
comprehensive range of key words related to the stated research question and the PICOT or PIO.
Provides a more detailed explanation & justification of inclusion & exclusion criteria supported by a variety of relevant literature.
Identifies a wider range of relevant key words related to the stated review question and the PICOT or PIO.
Limited but adequate description & justification of the inclusion & exclusion criteria for the stated review question.
Identifies a limited number of key words related to the stated research question and the PICOT or PIO.
Did not describe / inadequate description & justification of inclusion
criteria
OR
Inclusion criteria unclear or not relevant to the
selected question
Insufficient or irrelevant key words identified.
Developed and implemented a
sophisticated search string relevant to the stated review question & demonstrates sophisticated use of truncation, abbreviations, wildcards & Boolean operators.
Developed and implemented a more advanced search strategy/string relevant to the stated review question & demonstrates sophisticated use of truncation, abbreviations, wildcards & Boolean operators. Developed a more
advanced search strategy/string relevant to the stated review question using truncation, abbreviations, wildcards & Boolean operators.
Search history included demonstrates a sound understanding of database searching
Developed a limited but adequate search string relevant to the review question.
Search history included demonstrates limited understanding of database searching
Used either/OR truncation, abbreviations, wildcards & Boolean operators. Search string, inadequate, illogical or absent.
search strategy/ not relevant to the selected question
Search strategy did not include all required
components (PICOT)
truncation, wildcards OR Boolean operators not included
Search history NOT
included/ not relevant
Did not implement the
search strategy
Synthesis table: (25 marks)
Evidence is categorised correctly.
Results displayed are accurate
Level and strength of
evidence are accurate
Demonstrates exemplary
critical analysis, synthesis of information and original thought in the identification of 5 highly relevant research articles.
Demonstrates an exceptional knowledge, understanding, and ability in identifying study designs and level of evidence.
A clear and succinct identification of 5 highly relevant studies, including the correct levels of evidence and study designs.
Demonstrates comprehensive knowledge,
understanding, and ability
in identifying study designs and level of evidence.
Identifies and records the details of 5 relevant studies that will enable the stated research question to be answered.
Demonstrates sound knowledge and understanding of study designs and level of evidence.
Evidence Type/ level: All
correctly documented
Sample and Setting: All results displayed are accurate
Intervention and
Comparison: All correctly
documented
Outcomes: All accurately summarised
Implements the search strategy and identifies and records the details of 3-4 relevant studies that will enable to answer the selected review question.
Demonstrates basic knowledge and understanding of study designs and level of evidence.
Evidence Type/ level: three or more papers correctly
documented
Sample and Setting: three or more papers correctly
documented
Intervention and
Comparison: three or more
papers correctly documented
Outcomes: from three or more papers accurately
summarised
Five research articles are identified & recorded but the majority will not enable the stated review question to be answered OR less than 5 articles are identified & recorded.
Demonstrates limited knowledge and understanding of study designs and level of evidence.
Evidence Type / level:
three or more inaccurate Sample and Setting: three or more papers documented inaccurately
Intervention and Comparison: three or more not relevant/ inaccurate
Outcomes: three or more
not relevant/ inaccurate or
not documented
The evidence (20 marks)
Evidence is accurately
summarised
Succinct & comprehensive discussion of
OVERALL findings that includes clearly drawn together answers to the review question.
Deep and reflective synthesis Presents findings highly relevant to the issue/question and includes a very high level of synthesis (comparing and contrasting) of study findings.
Findings are organised in a manner that increases readability, interest and flow.
In-depth discussion with a wide-ranging interpretation and application of knowledge and ideas presented. Thoughtful and considered synthesis. Presents findings relevant to the issue/question and includes a very good level of synthesis (comparing and contrasting) of study findings.
Findings are organised in a manner that increases readability.
Thorough discussion of OVERALL findings that includes answers to the review question.
Solid interpretation and application of knowledge and ideas.
Presents findings relevant to the issue/question and includes a good level of synthesis (comparing and contrasting) of study findings.
Some irrelevant findings may be present.
Readability is slightly affected by poor
organisation and limited flow but content accurate
Some inconsistencies in the interpretation and application of knowledge and ideas. Minimal synthesis There is very little / no evidence of synthesis (comparing and contrasting study results).
Instead there is a summary of what each study found, presented one after the other. Or sources other than the review studies are included in this section.
Inaccurate presentation of overall findings.
No clear answers to the original question or the answer given may be unrelated to the original question.
No/little interpretation and application of knowledge and ideas. No/insufficient synthesis of evidence.
Research gaps
(5 marks)
Insightful and skilful summary with reference to research gaps and future implications of the potential clinical problem. Shows a deep level of thinking to synthesis main points and identifying research gaps.
Clearly and concisely describes the main points
and research gap
A generic summary is made with limited focus and reference to the future implications of the potential clinical problem.
A vague and unsupportable summary
with little to no focus on the overall merit or implications of the potential clinical problem.
Implication for
Practice
(10 marks)
Practice
recommendations are thorough
Provides a thorough practice recommendations that are based on the evidence presented. Specific
recommendations for future practice and research are clearly outlined and are linked to the literature reviewed. Recommendations are highly relevant to the issue/question. General recommendations for future practice and research are outlined and are linked to the literature reviewed.
Most recommendations
are relevant to the issue / question. Recommendations for future practice and research are described and may be linked to the literature reviewed.
Some recommendations are not relevant to the issue / question, but many are unclear. There are no clear recommendations, or the recommendations are not relevant to the issue/question.
The recommendations are not supported by the literature reviewed.
Referencing 5%
• The referencing style used throughout the paper is congruent with the College of Nursing and Health Sciences
• The reference list is accurate (ie no missing page numbers, volumes, correct title etc), complete (ie no reference is the body of the paper are missing from the reference list) and consistent.
• The references cited are contemporary (ie less than 10 years old unless seminal paper)
• Primary references are used predominantly (ie the original reference has been sited rather than a secondary source)
• There is evidence in the paper that the student has searched widely for information related to the topic/ issues
• The student has acknowledged all the sources of information
• Direct quotations are only used to make crucial points or to support the discussion/ argument
Located, evaluated, and synthesised highly relevant information from quality peer reviewed, relevant, and current evidence sources.
Discerning selection of references from within and beyond the Topic materials. Accurately and consistently adhered to APA (6th) referencing conventions in both in text referencing and the reference list with no errors. Located, evaluated, and synthesised relevant information from peer reviewed, relevant, and current evidence sources.
Clear evidence of wide and relevant reading.
Accurately adhered to APA (6th) referencing conventions in both in text referencing and the reference list.
Located, evaluated, and incorporated a range of quality peer reviewed, relevant, and current evidence sources.
Almost always accurately and consistently adhered to APA (6th) referencing conventions in both in text referencing and the reference list.
Located and collated partly relevant information from the Topic and current evidence sources.
Attempt made to adhere to APA (6th) referencing conventions in both in text referencing and the reference list, but some referencing omissions or inaccuracies noted. Frequent errors in APA (6th) referencing style for reference list and in text referencing
Substantial lack and Inadequate use of quality peer reviewed, relevant, and current evidence sources.
Overall comment
Penalties A late penalty has been applied to your assignment YES / NO
Name of marker Date Grade