Evidence-based literature comes from many sources. The discipline of nursing has an abundance of research data and resources to guide clinical decisions. Therefore, it is of pivotal importance to understand the basic tenets of critical appraisal of such evidence for its use in interprofessional healthcare practices.
In this task, you will identify a healthcare problem, develop an evidence-based practice (EBP) question, and review selected research and non-research evidence to find answers to that question.
Note that while you will be analyzing only one research-based and one non-research-based article in this task, an actual evidence-based practice change would require the support of many high-quality research studies.
REQUIREMENTS
Your submission must be your original work. No more than a combined total of 30% of the submission and no more than a 10% match to any one individual source can be directly quoted or closely paraphrased from sources, even if cited correctly. The originality report that is provided when you submit your task can be used as a guide.
You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.
Tasks may not be submitted as cloud links, such as links to Google Docs, Google Slides, OneDrive, etc., unless specified in the task requirements. All other submissions must be file types that are uploaded and submitted as attachments (e.g., .docx, .pdf, .ppt).
A. Discuss the impact of a clinical practice problem on the patient(s) and the organization it affects.
1. Identify the following PICO components of the clinical practice problem:
• patient/population/problem (P)
• intervention (I)
• comparison (C)
• outcome (O)
2. Develop an evidence-based practice (EBP) question based on the clinical practice problem discussed in part A and the PICO components identified in part A1.
Note: Refer to “Appendix B: Question Development Tool” for information on the creation of an EBP question.
B. Select a research-based article that answers your EBP question from part A2 to conduct an evidence appraisal.
1. Discuss the background or introduction (i.e., the purpose) of the research article.
2. Describe the research methodology.
3. Identify the level of evidence using the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice (JHNEBP) model.
Note: The article you select should not be more than five years old.
Note: Refer to “Appendix E: Research Evidence Appraisal Tool” for information on how to level a research-based article.
4. Summarize how the researcher analyzed the data in the article.
5. Summarize the ethical consideration(s) of the research-based article. If none are present, explain why.
6. Identify the quality rating of the research-based article according to the JHNEBP model.
Note: Refer to “Appendix E: Research Evidence Appraisal Tool” for information on how to establish the quality rating.
7. Analyze the results or conclusions of the research-based article and explain how the article helps answer your EBP question.
C. Select a non-research article from a peer-reviewed journal that helps to answer your EBP question from part A2 to conduct an evidence appraisal.
1. Discuss the background or introduction (i.e., the purpose) of the non-research article.
2. Describe the type of evidence (e.g., case study, quality improvement project, clinical practice guideline).
3. Identify the level of evidence using the JHNEBP model.
Note: The article you select should not be more than five years old.
Note: Refer to “Appendix F: Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tool” for information on how to level the non-research-based article.
4. Identify the quality rating of the non-research-based article according to the JHNEBP model.
5. Discuss how the author’s recommendation(s) in the article helps to answer your EBP question.
D. Recommend a practice change that addresses your EBP question using both the research and non-research articles you selected for Part B and Part C.
1. Explain how you would involve three key stakeholders in supporting the practice change recommendation.
2. Discuss one specific barrier you may encounter when implementing the practice change recommendation.
3. Identify one strategy that could be used to overcome the barrier discussed in part D2.
4. Identify one outcome (the O component in PICO) from your EBP question to measure the recommended practice change.
E. Acknowledge sources, using APA-formatted in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
F. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.
File Restrictions
File name may contain only letters, numbers, spaces, and these symbols: ! – _ . * ‘ ( )
File size limit: 200 MB
File types allowed: doc, docx, rtf, xls, xlsx, ppt, pptx, odt, pdf, txt, qt, mov, mpg, avi, mp3, wav, mp4, wma, flv, asf, mpeg, wmv, m4v, svg, tif, tiff, jpeg, jpg, gif, png, zip, rar, tar, 7z
RUBRIC
A:CLINICAL PRACTICE PROBLEM
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not identify a clinical practice problem or does not include a discussion of the impact of a clinical practice problem on the patient(s) and the organization it affects.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes a discussion of the clinical practice problem but does not logically address its impact on the patient(s) and the organization it affects.
COMPETENT
The submission includes a discussion of the clinical practice problem that logically addresses its impact on the patient(s) and the organization it affects.
A1:PICO COMPONENTS
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include each of the given PICO components of the clinical practice problem.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes each of the PICO components of the clinical practice problem, but 1 or more of the given components are inaccurate or incomplete.
COMPETENT
The submission includes each of the given PICO components of the clinical practice problem. Each of the given components is accurate and complete.
A2:EVIDENCE-BASED QUESTION
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include an EBP question.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes an EBP question, but the EBP question does not appropriately address the clinical practice problem or does not include all the PICO components.
COMPETENT
The submission includes an EBP question that appropriately addresses the clinical practice problem and includes all the PICO components.
B:SELECTION OF A RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
An article selection is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The selected article is not research based or does not answer the EBP question from part A2.
COMPETENT
The selected article is research based and answers the EBP question from part A2.
B1:BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION OF THE RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include a discussion of the background or introduction.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission does not accurately address a discussion of the background or introduction of the research-based article.
COMPETENT
The submission accurately addresses a discussion of the background or introduction of the research-based article.
B2:RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include a description of the research methodology.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes a description but inaccurately describes the research methodology.
COMPETENT
The submission includes a description that accurately describes the research methodology.
B3:LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IN THE RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not identify a level of evidence for the research-based article.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission identifies a level of evidence that is not accurate according to the JHNEBP model.
COMPETENT
The submission accurately identifies a level of evidence that is based on the JHNEBP model.
B4:ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include a summary of data analysis.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes a summary of data analysis, but the summary does not accurately describe how the researcher analyzed the data in the article.
COMPETENT
The submission includes a summary that accurately describes how the researcher analyzed the data in the article.
B5:ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include a summary of ethical considerations. Or, the submission does not include an explanation of why no ethical considerations are present if the research-based article contains none.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes a summary of ethical considerations, but the summary does not logically describe the ethical consideration(s) of the research-based article. Or, if no ethical considerations are present in the research-based article, the submission does not logically explain why none are present.
COMPETENT
The submission includes a summary that logically describes the ethical consideration(s) of the research-based article. Or, if no ethical considerations are present, the submission includes a logical explanation of why none are present.
B6:QUALITY RATING OF THE RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not identify a quality rating of the research-based article.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission identifies a quality rating that is not accurate according to the JHNEBP model.
COMPETENT
The submission accurately identifies a quality rating according to the JHNEBP model.
B7:RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS OF THE RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include an analysis of the results or conclusions of the research-based article.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes an analysis of the results or conclusions, but the analysis does not logically evaluate the results or conclusions of the research-based article. Or the analysis does not appropriately explain how the results or conclusions helps answer the EBP question.
COMPETENT
The submission includes an analysis that logically evaluates the results or conclusions of the research-based article and appropriately explains how the results or conclusions helps answer the EBP question.
C:SELECTION OF A NON-RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
An article selection is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The selected article is not a non-research article or does not answer the EBP question from part A2.
COMPETENT
The selected article is a non-research article and answers the EBP question from part A2.
C1:BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION OF THE NON-RESEARCH ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include a discussion of the background or introduction.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes a discussion that does not accurately address the background or introduction of the non-research-based article.
COMPETENT
The submission includes a discussion that accurately addresses the background or introduction of the non-research-based article.
C2:TYPE OF EVIDENCE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include a description of a type of evidence.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes a description of a type of evidence, but the description does not accurately describe the type of evidence used in the article.
COMPETENT
The submission includes a description that accurately describes the type of evidence used in the article.
C3:LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IN THE NON-RESEARCH ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not identify a level of evidence for the non-research-based article.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission identifies a level of evidence that is not accurate according to the JHNEBP model.
COMPETENT
The submission accurately identifies the level of evidence according to the JHNEBP model.
C4:QUALITY RATING OF THE NON-RESEARCH ARTICLE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not identify a quality rating for the non-research-based article.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission identifies a quality rating that is not accurate according to the JHNEBP model.
COMPETENT
The submission accurately identifies the quality rating according to the JHNEBP model.
C5:AUTHOR’S RECOMMENDATION
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include a discussion of the author’s recommendation(s) that helped answer the EBP question.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes a discussion, but the discussion does not logically explain how the author’s recommendation(s) helped answer the EBP question.
COMPETENT
The submission includes a discussion that logically explains how the author’s recommendation(s) helped answer the EBP question.
D:RECOMMENDED PRACTICE CHANGE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include a practice change recommendation.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes a practice change recommendation, but the recommendation does not appropriately address the EBP question. Or, the recommendation does not accurately utilize both the research and non-research articles to show how the change should be made.
COMPETENT
The submission includes a practice change recommendation that appropriately addresses the EBP question and accurately utilizes both the research and non-research articles to show how the change should be made.
D1:INVOLVEMENT OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include an explanation of 3 key stakeholders.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes an explanation of 3 key stake holders’ involvement, but the explanation does not describe how 1 or more of the stakeholders would appropriately support the practice change recommendation.
COMPETENT
The submission includes an explanation of how 3 key stakeholders would appropriately support the practice change recommendation.
D2:BARRIER OF IMPLEMENTING THE PRACTICE CHANGE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include a discussion of a specific barrier that might be encountered when implementing the practice change recommendation.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes a discussion of a specific barrier that might be encountered, but the barrier discussed is not appropriate for the practice change recommendation, or the barrier discussed would not feasibly be encountered during implementation.
COMPETENT
The submission includes a discussion of a specific barrier that might feasibly be encountered during implementation, and the barrier discussed is appropriate for the practice change recommendation.
D3:STRATEGY FOR OVERCOMING THE BARRIER
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not identify a strategy that could be used to overcome a barrier.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission identifies a strategy for overcoming a barrier, but that strategy would not logically be used to overcome the barrier discussed in part D2.
COMPETENT
The submission identifies a strategy that could logically be used to overcome the barrier discussed in part D2.
D4:OUTCOME TO MEASURE THE RECOMMEND PRACTICE CHANGE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not identify 1 outcome for measuring the recommended practice change.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission identifies 1 outcome from the EBP question, but the outcome does not appropriately measure the recommended practice change.
COMPETENT
The submission identifies 1 outcome from the EBP question that appropriately measures the recommended practice change.
E:APA SOURCES
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include in-text citations and references according to APA style for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes in-text citations and references for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized but does not demonstrate a consistent application of APA style.
COMPETENT
The submission includes in-text citations and references for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and demonstrates a consistent application of APA style.
F:PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION
NOT EVIDENT
Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective.
COMPETENT
Content reflects attention to detail, is organized, and focuses on the main ideas as prescribed in the task or chosen by the candidate. Terminology is pertinent, is used correctly, and effectively conveys the intended meaning. Mechanics, usage, and grammar promote accurate interpretation and understanding.