w6 evidence based practice32 possible pointsexcellent4 pointsgood3 pointssatisfactory2 pointsdeficient1 pointnot present0 pointsintroduction H e a l t h M e d i c a l

w6 evidence based practice32 possible pointsexcellent4 pointsgood3 pointssatisfactory2 pointsdeficient1 pointnot present0 pointsintroduction H e a l t h M e d i c a l

The objectives of the paper are to:

Explain the role of evidence in determining best clinical practices

Compare and contrast evidence-based practice (EBP) with actual practice

Value the concept of EBP as integral to determining best clinical practice (see QSEN pre-licensure KSAs)

Develop/demonstrate scholarly writing skills

Seek necessary resources related to clinical practice topics and guidelines.

You will select a nursing intervention (ideally one you have performed or seen performed) in the clinical setting. Locate and make a copy of the policy, procedure, or standard available from the clinical setting related to the intervention observed in that department. Seek out at least 3 current (within 5 years) published evidence related to the intervention observed. Write a scholarly paper (APA format) that describes the policy and procedure, synthesizes the best found evidence, compares and contrasts the written policy/standards with the current evidence found, any difficulties in locating evidence, and anticipated challenges implementing the best evidence found, or how barriers were overcome to improve the policy if recently changed/updated.

This paper is to be no longer than 5 pages, no less than 3 pages. Part of scholarly writing involves the ability to synthesize information into succinct and clear writing “making a case” in your written discussion. APA format is required.

Rubric

Your assignment will be graded based on this rubric.

Rubric
U/W6 Evidence Based Practice

32 possible points

Excellent

4 points

Good

3 points

Satisfactory

2 points

Deficient

1 point

Not Present

0 points

Introduction and background

–/4 points

Intervention selected is clear. Strong introduction. Background explains the interest in the intervention and what has been done or has changed in the history of the practice/intervention

Intervention selected is clear. Introduction limitedly compelling. Background explains the interesting the intervention and the history.

Intervention selected is initially unclear or difficult to identify quickly. Introduction is not well organized or not compelling. Background is limited.

Intervention selected is unclear. Introduction is poorly organized and not enough information is given to explain the background.

No intervention nor background is selected nor present in the work

EBP Research and Policy

–/4 points

Used reliable resources for EBP support of current or recommended practices. Actual policy (image or copy) was included.

Used reliable resources for EBP support of current or recommended practices, but limitedly related to actual policy or policy was not included.

Resources were mostly from reliable resources for EBP support, or were vaguely related to the policy.

Articles selected are greater than 5 years old and/or do not clearly related to the selected intervention. Resources are limited or not valid sites.

No articles selected

Compare and contrast practice to evidence

–/4 points

Elements are discussed with in depth evaluation comparing and contrasting the practice observed, policy, and evidence.

The discussion comparing and contrasting the practice and evidence is presented but not in depth.

The discussion is missing key elements of the compare and contrast discussion, not linking evidence well to practice.

The compare and contrast discussion is limited, poorly related to the other elements of the paper and/or missing

No comparison and discussion presented

Synthesis of evidence

–/4 points

Current research articles are discussed in cohesive manner, and well organized to present the findings supporting the discussion.

Research articles are presented but lack organization to synthesize the information well.

Research articles are limitedly presented and not well synthesized. Articles do not completely relate to discussion.

Research articles were not synthesized and/or did not specifically relate to policy or discussion

No synthesis presented

Plan of Care

–/4 points

Identifies 3-4 or more specific interventions for each outcome. Interventions are clearly linked to outcomes and focus specifically on the etiology of the nursing diagnosis. Oucomes clearly reflect what the nurse will do to help the client meet the outcomes and are supported by citations.

Identifies 1-2 specific nursing interventions for each outcome. Interventions are individualized to the client. Interventions focus appropriately on the etiology of the nursing diagnosis and reflect how the nurse will assist the client in meeting the outcomes.

Interventions are incomplete or not appropriate for topic. Few intext citations provided.

Interventions are not related to the chosen topic. No intext citations provided.
Medical interventions provided not nursing interventions.

No interventions nor outcomes presented

Compare and contrast practice to evidence

–/4 points

Elements are discussed with in depth evaluation comparing and contrasting the practice observed, policy, and evidence.

The discussion comparing and contrasting the practice and evidence is presented but not in depth.

The discussion is missing key elements of the compare and contrast discussion, not linking evidence well to practice.

The compare and contrast discussion is limited, poorly related to the other elements of the paper and/or missing.

No comparison presented lacks contrst

Challenges and Conclusions

–/4 points

Challenges are presented related to the evidence and the practice with suggestions for improving practices and/or the purpose of continuing to use current evidence based practice.Strong conclusion.

Challenges are presented, but there are limited or no suggestions about the intervention. Conclusion summarizes findings.

Challenges are presented, but there are limited or no suggestions about the intervention. The conclusion is limited or lacking a link to the discussion.

Challenges are not discussed. Conclusions are not supported by the rest of the writing in the paper.

No challenges nor conclusions presented

APA Format, Grammar, Punctuation & References

–/4 points

The student cites in his contribution’s authors of recent references (5 years or less of published) related to the topic of the discussion forum, written according to the latest edition of APA.

– Paper follows all designated guidelines.
– Format enhances readability of paper.
— Rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are followed; spelling is correct.
– Language is clear and precise; sentences display consistently strong, varied structure.

In most of its contributions, the student cites authors of recent references (5 years or less of published) related to the topic of the discussion forum, written according to the latest edition of APA.

– Paper follows designated guidelines.
-Format is good.
– Rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are followed with minor errors.
Spelling is correct.

On rare occasions the student cites authors of recent references (5 years or less of published) related to the topic of the discussion forum, written according to the latest edition of APA.

– Paper follows most guidelines.
-Paper contains few grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors.
– Language lacks clarity or includes the use of some jargon or conversational tone.

The student never cites authors of recent references (5 years or less of published) related to the topic of the discussion forum, written according to the latest edition of APA.

– Paper lacks many elements of correct formatting.
– Paper is not double spaced
-No in text citation provided
– Paper contains numerous grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors.
– Language uses jargon or conversational tone.

No citations