Planning for Change Implementing and Evaluating EBP Essay Assignments

Planning for Change Implementing and Evaluating EBP Essay Assignments – NURS 8410

Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Essay Assignments – NURS 8410

Assignment 1: Application 4: Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Assignments

Evaluating EBP Assignments

Many factors influence how successfully an EBP Project is implemented and evaluated. As noted in this week’s Learning Resources, using a translation framework can facilitate effective implementation and the evaluation of outcomes.

As you complete Application 4, revisit the evidence-based practice model or framework you selected for your EBP Assignment (Application 2). How does the model or framework facilitate the evaluation of outcomes? Would another model or framework better meet the needs of your project?

To prepare for this week’s section of Application 4:

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Continue (from this week’s Discussion) to:
- Identify an appropriate method for evaluating your outcomes.
- Develop new practice guidelines based on the possible results of the evaluation.
- Create, if appropriate, new standards of care that would be based on the new practice guidelines.

The full Application 4 is due by Day 7 of this week. Instructions for how to prepare for previous sections of this Application have been provided in Weeks 8 and 9. Assignment 1: Application 4: Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Assignments

To complete:

Write a 4- to 8-page paper that addresses the following:

Planning for Change

Analyze the impact of implementing change in your practice environment, including the factors that need to be considered regarding stakeholders and end users.
Summarize the methods you would use to ensure that those are adequately addressed. Assignment 1: Application 4: Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Assignments

Implementing EBP Assignments

Identify the desired outcomes of your EBP Assignment.
Describe any macro or micro systems issues that may inhibit implementation and strategies for resolving those issues.
Explain how resolving your EBP Assignment issue will improve quality and patient safety.

Evaluating EBP Assignments

Describe evaluation strategies.
Formulate new practice guidelines based on the possible results of the evaluation of outcomes.
Describe, if appropriate, new standards of care relevant to the new practice guidelines.

By Day 7 of Assignment 1: Application 4: Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Assignments

Application 4 is due.

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK10Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
Click the Week 10 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
Click the Week 10 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK10Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.

Grading Criteria for Assignment 1: Application 4: Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Assignments

To access your rubric:

Week 10 Assignment Rubric

Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity

To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:

Submit your Week 10 Assignment draft and review the originality report.

Submit Your Assignment by Day 7

To submit your Assignment:

Week 10 Assignment

NURS 8410 Week 10 Assignment 2: Application 5: Disseminating the EBP Assignment

One of the chief purposes of translating evidence into practice is to advance the field of nursing. Dissemination is a critical step in this process. It is important to disseminate and share the information gained from a translation-of-evidence project to enhance the body of knowledge within the profession, thus furthering the science of nursing. To prepare for this week’s section of Application 5: Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Essay Assignments – NURS 8410.

Continue (from this week’s Discussion) to:
- Analyze the role of the DNP-prepared nurse in scholarship

The full Application 5 is due by Day 6 of week 11.

For this assignment you will prepare a scholarly product that reports the results and implications of your project to designed audience. The scholarly product for dissemination reports the results and implications of your project to a specified audience. Your scholarly product may be in the form of a project summary and evaluation report, poster presentation, program evaluation report, or a media or technology-based deliverable, Your scholarly product must include the following:

Background, Purpose, and Nature of the Project (2 points)
Describe the larger problem or issue you explored in your DNP Project. Identify your practice-focused question. Explain how this problem or issue affects nursing practice and the overall health care system, and describe how your DNP Project explored possible strategies for addressing the problem or issue.
Evidence (2 points)

Identify the practice setting and context in which you conducted your project, a summary of the evidence supporting the project, and the process for implementation and evaluation.

Presentation of Results (2 points)

Explain the results of your DNP Project and recommendations for change that you made to the organization.

Note: Up to 2 points may be deducted for grammar, spelling, and/or APA errors.

This Application is due by Day 6 of Week 11.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Continue to keep a time log and journal of your practicum experiences. See the Practicum Guidelines located in the Practicum area of the Course Overview page for a complete description of the practicum.

By Day 7 of Week 11

Reminder: You will submit your time log and a journal entry in Week 11.

This week, you evaluated new practice approach outcomes in a specialty area and developed guidelines for practice based on the evaluation of outcomes. You also recommended new standards of care to address a health issue in a specialty area.

In this final week, you will assess the role of dissemination in scholarship. You will complete your practicum experience and submit your time log and final journal entry.

“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”
—Milton Friedman

How do you measure the success of a translation project to determine if new practice approaches actually make a difference? Evaluating the results or outcomes of the translation of evidence into practice is the key. Only by evaluating the outcomes can you ensure the effectiveness and sustainability of your new practice approaches.

During Week 9, you outlined desired outcomes for the issue you have been addressing through your EBP Assignment. In the Discussion, you suggested changes at the micro and/or macro systems level to improve quality outcomes.

This week, you determine how the success of the new practice approaches can be evaluated. Then, you explore the next steps of translating research evidence into new guidelines for practice, and ultimately, standards of care. You also continue your practicum experience.

Reference: Friedman, M. (Guest). (1975). Living within our means [Television series episode]. In The Open Mind. New York, NY.

Learning Objectives

Students will:

Evaluate the outcomes of new practice approaches in a specialty area
Develop guidelines for practice based on the evaluation of outcomes of new practice approaches in a specialty area
Recommend new standards of care to address a health issue in a specialty area

Photo Credit: [stevanovicigor]/[iStock / Getty Images Plus]/Getty Images

Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings

White, K. M., Dudley-Brown, S., & Terharr, M. F. (2016). Translation of evidence into nursing and health care practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

Chapter 17, “Data Management and Evaluation of Translation”

Erickson, K., Monsen, K.A., Artleson, I.S., Radosevich, D.M., Oftedahl, G., Neely, C., & Thorsen, D.R. Translation of obesity practice guidelines: Measurement and evaluation. Public Health Nursing, 12(3), 222–231

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Wang, Y., Xiao, L.D., Ullah, S., Guo-Ping, H., & De Bellis, A. Evaluation of a nurse-led dementia education and knowledge translation programme in primary care: A cluster randomized controlled trial (2017). Nurse Education Today, 49, 1-7.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Abdullah, G., Rossy, D., Ploeg, J., Davies, B., Higuchi, K., Sikora, L., & Stacey, D. (2014). Measuring the effectiveness of mentoring asa knowledge translation intervention for implementing empirical evidence: A systematic review. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 11 (5) 284–300.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Einarson, A., Egberts, T.c., & Heerdink, E.R. (2015). Antidepressant use in pregnancy: knowledge transfer and translation of research findings. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 21, 579-583 doi:10.1111/jep.12338

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Discussion: Evaluation of Outcomes

As you translate evidence into practice, it is essential to consider how you will evaluate the outcomes. As introduced in Week 8, you are likely to encounter barriers as you integrate research findings into practice. Using a framework for evaluation can assist in minimizing those barriers.

As a nurse engaged in advanced practice, it is now time to take your practicum project to the next level—evaluating the outcomes you identified for the Week 9 Discussion and then developing new practice guidelines. Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Essay Assignments – NURS 8410.

To prepare for Discussion: Evaluation of Outcomes:

The course text, Translation of Evidence Into Nursing and Health Care Practice, provides a list of questions that should be considered when planning for evaluation. See page 239 for this list of questions.

Review the Learning Resources focusing on the various evaluation frameworks presented. Select a framework and determine how you would evaluate the outcomes you identified in the Week 9 Discussion.

Based on the possible results of your evaluation, envision new practice guidelines you would develop.

What new standards of care might this lead to?

By Day 3 of Discussion: Evaluation of Outcomes

Post a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:

In the first line of your posting, state the outcomes you are addressing (those you initially identified in the Week 9 Discussion).

How would you evaluate the outcomes? Support your response with evidence from the literature.

What new practice guidelines would you create based on your evaluation of those outcomes?

Discuss any new standards of care that would be appropriate based on the new practice guidelines.

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.

By Day 6 of Discussion: Evaluation of Outcomes

Respond to two of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:

Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.

Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.

Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom and/or from your own research in the Walden Library.

Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.

Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.

Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.

Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you learned and/or any insights you gained as a result of the comments made by your colleagues.

Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and any additional sources.

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: NURS_8410_ Week10_Discussion_Rubric

Excellent Good Fair Poor

RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONDiscussion post minimum requirements:

*The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course. Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Essay Assignments – NURS 8410

CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas

QUALITY OF WRITING

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.

4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

0 (0%) – 3 (10%)

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Total Points: 30

Name: NURS_8410_ Week10_Discussion_Rubric

ssignment 1: Application 4: Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Assignments

Implementing EBP Projects

It is essential to consider those systems that inhibit and facilitate change within the health care organization. Recognizing how one system influences another is a necessary step in moving an EBP assignment forward.

For this week’s Discussion, you examined the macro and micro systems within your practicum organization and how these systems affect your EBP Assignment issue. For this section of Application 4, reflect on your colleagues’ feedback regarding your Microsoft PowerPoint presentation. What new insights did you gain? How might you modify your strategies for resolving the issue?

Prepare for this week’s section of Application 4 as follows:

Continue (from this week’s Discussion) to refine your desired outcomes and strategies for resolving the issue.

Also continue (from this week’s Discussion) to evaluate how resolving the issue will improve quality and patient safety.

You will integrate this information (not in PowerPoint) into your Application paper.

By Day 7 of Week 10 of Assignment 1: Application 4: Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Assignments

Application 4 is due. You do not need to submit anything this week.

NURS 8410 Week 9 Assignment 2: Application 5: Disseminating the EBP Assignment

One of the chief purposes of translating evidence into practice is to advance the field of nursing. Dissemination is a critical step in this process. It is important to disseminate and share the information gained from a translation-of-evidence project to enhance the body of knowledge within the profession, thus furthering the science of nursing. To prepare for this week’s section of Application 5:

Continue (from this week’s Discussion) to:

Analyze the role of the DNP-prepared nurse in scholarship

The full Application 5 is due by Day 6 of week 11.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

For this assignment you will prepare a scholarly product that reports the results and implications of your project to designed audience. The scholarly product for dissemination reports the results and implications of your project to a specified audience. Your scholarly product may be in the form of a project summary and evaluation report, poster presentation, program evaluation report, or a media or technology-based deliverable, Your scholarly product must include the following:

Background, Purpose, and Nature of the Project (2 points)
Describe the larger problem or issue you explored in your DNP Project. Identify your practice-focused question. Explain how this problem or issue affects nursing practice and the overall health care system, and describe how your DNP Project explored possible strategies for addressing the problem or issue.

Evidence (2 points)

Identify the practice setting and context in which you conducted your project, a summary of the evidence supporting the project, and the process for implementation and evaluation.

Presentation of Results (2 points)

Explain the results of your DNP Project and recommendations for change that you made to the organization.

Note: Up to 2 points may be deducted for grammar, spelling, and/or APA errors.

This Application is due by Day 6 of Week 11.

Continue to keep a time log and journal of your practicum experiences. See the Practicum Guidelines located in the Practicum area of the Course Overview page for a complete description of the practicum.

By Day 7 of Week 11 of Assignment 1: Application 4: Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Assignments

Reminder: You will submit your time log and a journal entry in Week 11.

This week, you applied systems theory to the evaluation of quality improvement and safety initiatives.

Next week, you will determine how the success of the new practice approaches can be evaluated and explore the next steps of translating research evidence into new guidelines for practice and, ultimately, standards of care.

“In a large, complex organization…the primary consequences of our actions may well be in the distant future or in a distant, but interrelated, part of a larger system in which we operate. For this reason, we are often puzzled by the underlying causes of current problems within our organizations. We are unable to look at underlying structures or patterns of behavior that may have resulted in less than stellar outcomes” (Zaccagnini & White, 2011, p. 45).

How can the perspective described above be shifted to provide a fuller view of the dynamics in today’s health care organizations? Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Essay Assignments – NURS 8410 And, in doing so, how could this promote the achievement of positive outcomes related to quality and safety?

In previous courses you have examined systems theory, as well as the interrelationships of various areas within an organization. This week, you revisit these concepts as you assess an issue within an organization—analyzing the system at the macro- and the micro-level. You also identify strategies that can be used to assess the clinical environment and the associated nonclinical units that support the provision of quality. In addition, you develop outcomes related to quality and safety.

This week you continue to engage in your practicum experience and on Application 4.

Reference: Zaccagnini, M. E., & White, K. W. (2011). The doctor of nursing ractice essentials: A new model for advanced practice nursing. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

Learning Objectives

Students will:

Apply systems theory to the evaluation of quality improvement and patient safety initiatives

Photo Credit: [Blend Images – Jose Luis Pelaez Inc]/[Brand X Pictures]/Getty Images

Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings

Brooks, P., Spillane, J.J., Dick, K., & Stuart-Shor, E. (2014). Developing a strategy to identify and treat older patients with postoperative delirium. AORN Journal, 99(2), 256-276.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Jarden, R.J. & Sutton, L.J. (2014). A practice change initiative to improve the provision of enteral nutrition to intensive care patients. British Association of Critical Care Nurses, 20(5), 242-254.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

McCluskey, A. & Middleton, S. (2010). Delivering an evidence-based outdoor journey intervention to people with stroke: Barriers and enablers experienced by community rehabilitation teams. BMC Health Services Research, 10(18). doi: 10.1186/1472-6962-10-18. Retrieved from https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6963-10-18

Murfet, G.O., Allen, P., & Hingston, T.J. (2014). Maternal and neonatal health outcomes following the implementation of an innovative model of nursepractitioner-led care for diabetes in pregnancy. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70(5), 1150-1163.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

NURS 8410 Week 9 Discussion: Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Initiatives

Discussion: Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Initiatives

The vice president of nursing, Dr. Sasha Mendez, has had a lot of complaints from patients and their families about the difficulties they experience navigating the system at her organization; e.g., going from the E.R. to admissions. Dr. Mendez’s nursing specialty area is psych/mental health. As such, she is very concerned about the stress this is causing the patients.

What are the macro systems that are affecting patient satisfaction at Dr. Mendez’s facility? What micro systems should she also analyze to look at how the patient moves through—from entry, to possible admission, to possible discharge? How do these systems relate? What impacts each system?

The concepts presented in Week 8 serve as a foundation for this week as you continue to look at factors within an organization’s environment that are barriers and facilitators for implementing change. In this Discussion, you examine the macro and micro systems within the organization (of your practicum setting) and identify changes that may need to take place to facilitate quality improvement and achievement of patient safety outcomes.

To prepare for Discussion: Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Initiatives:

Reflect on the issue you have been addressing through your EBP Assignment.

Identify the macro and micro systems that influence the issue. Review the McClusky and Middleton (2010) article for an example of this process.

Determine the desired outcomes of resolving the EBP Assignment issue and how resolving it will improve quality and patient safety. (Note: Next week you will evaluate these outcomes. You may want to view the Week 10 Discussion as you prepare.)

What procedures/processes would need to be modified to achieve the desired outcomes?

Develop a 5-slide Microsoft PowerPoint presentation for the business unit team and leadership within the organization, sharing your issue, strategies for resolving the issue, and how it will improve quality and patient safety. Note: The purpose of the presentation is to persuade the business unit team and leadership to accept your recommendations.

By Day 3 of Discussion: Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Initiatives

Post your PowerPoint presentation.

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.

By Day 6 of Discussion: Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Initiatives

Respond to two of your colleagues using the following scenario:

Imagine you are a manager from the business unit or leadership team who is also involved in your organization’s quality management committee. Employing this perspective, critique at least three of your colleagues’ presentations.

When critiquing your colleagues’ presentations be sure to:

Determine the extent to which the PowerPoint presentation convinces you that the appropriate systems were examined and that the identified outcomes are attainable

Provide feedback on whether you believe the suggested modifications to the systems will lead to the desired outcomes

Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you learned and/or any insights you gained as a result of the comments made by your colleagues.

Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and any additional sources.

Submission and Grading Information

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: NURS_8410_ Week9_Discussion_Rubric

Excellent Good Fair Poor

RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONDiscussion post minimum requirements:

*The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas

QUALITY OF WRITING

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.

4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

0 (0%) – 3 (10%)

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Assignment

Planning for Change

Change can be difficult—and implementing new practices based on evidence can present challenges. How can you effectively prepare your work environment for change? What factors need to be considered (e.g., financial, legislative, systems)?

This week you begin working on Application 4, which builds on this week’s Discussion and is a continuation of your EBP Assignment. For this first section of the assignment, determine the factors that would impact stakeholders or end users as you create change and implement a new process/project to address your EBP issue.

Prepare for this week’s section of Application 4 as follows:

Continue (from this week’s Discussion) to analyze the impact of implementing change in your practice environment. What factors need to be considered regarding stakeholders or end users? How would you communicate with them to address their questions or concerns? How would you enlist their support?

Develop a summary of the methods you would use to ensure that those factors are adequately addressed.

By Day 7 of Week 10 of Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Assignment

Application 4 is due. You do not need to submit anything this week.

Practicum- Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Assignment

Continue to keep a time log and journal of your practicum experiences. See the Practicum Guidelines located in the Practicum area of the Course Overview page for a complete description of the practicum.

By Day 7 of Week 11 of Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Assignment

Reminder: You will submit your time log and a journal entry in Week 11.

This week, you assessed change readiness in a practice environment and developed theory-based strategies to facilitate the implementation of change.

Next week, you will assess an issue within an organization—analyzing the system at the macro- and micro-level—and identify strategies that can be used to assess the clinical environment and the associated nonclinical units that support the provision of quality.

NURS 8410 Week 8: Creating an Environment for Evidence-Based Practice

“What health care needs most are effective leaders who understand innovation and how it spreads, who respect the diversity of change itself, and who can nurture innovation in all its rich and many costumes” (Hyrkäs & Harvey, 2010, p. 1).

As a nurse engaged in advanced practice, you are uniquely positioned to motivate your colleagues and contribute toward the development of a culture that embraces change. Yet, even with the worthwhile goal of translating evidence into practice, barriers present a formidable challenge in many settings in today’s health care system.

This week you examine barriers that may inhibit the adoption and implementation of evidence-based practice. You also explore change theories and consider how they can be applied to help create an environment that facilitates practice grounded in evidence and, ultimately, to promote the achievement of outcomes related to quality and safety.

In addition, you continue your practicum experience and begin Application 4 this week.

Learning Objectives

Students will:

Assess the readiness for change in a practice environment

Develop theory-based strategies to facilitate the implementation of change in a practice environment

Photo Credit: [Sam Edwards]/[Caiaimage]/Getty Images

Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings

White, K. M., Dudley-Brown, S., & Terharr, M. F. (2016). Translation of evidence into nursing and health care practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

Review Chapter 3, “Change Theory and Models: Framework for Translation”

Chapter 14, “Creating a Culture That Promotes Translation”

Chapter 15, “Best Practices in Translation: Challenges and Barriers in Translation”

Darling, F. (2016). Practitioners’ views and barriers to implementation of the Keeping Birth Normal tool: A pilot study. British Journal of Midwifery, 24(7), 508-519.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Sadeghi-Bazargani, H., Tabrizi, J.S., & Azami-Aghdash, S. (2014). Barriers to evidence-based medicine: a systematic review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 20, 793-802.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Smith, E.L., Rice, K.L., & Agrell-Kann, M. (2015). Improving quality outcomes using a champion model for ancillary nursing staff, Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 46(12), 539-541.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Discussion: Preparing for Change

What steps might be utilized to move a practice issue from development and design through implementation to the realization of positive outcomes? How does theory provide a framework? What barriers might you encounter?

To prepare for Discussion: Preparing for Change:

Review the theories and frameworks (i.e., change, organizational, behavioral) presented in Chapter 3 of the course text, Translation of Evidence Into Nursing and Health Care Practice, and conduct additional research of your own. What insights do these theories provide regarding how to take your practice issue from development and design through implementation to the realization of positive outcomes?

Think about your practicum setting and evaluate the readiness for change in this environment. Identify barriers and facilitators for change.

Consider strategies to address the barriers, and assess why they might be effective based on theory.

By Day 3 of Discussion: Preparing for Change

Post a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:

Assess the readiness for change in your practicum environment. Discuss those factors (barriers and facilitators) that need to be considered.

Identify a theory or framework that will guide your change efforts.

Discuss strategies to address barriers, and provide one or more insights regarding why you think they might be effective based on theory.

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.

By Day 6 of Discussion: Preparing for Change

Respond to two of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:

Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.

Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.

Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom and/or from your own research in the Walden Library.

Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.

Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.

Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.

Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you learned and/or any insights you gained as a result of the comments made by your colleagues.

Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and any additional sources.

Submission and Grading Information

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: NURS_8410_ Week8_Discussion_Rubric

Excellent Good Fair Poor

RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONDiscussion post minimum requirements:

*The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas

QUALITY OF WRITING

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.

4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

0 (0%) – 3 (10%)

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Total Points: 30

Name: NURS_8410_ Week8_Discussion_Rubric

NURS 8410 Week 7 Assignment: Application 3: Becoming a Leader in the Translation of Evidence to Practice

Becoming a Leader in the Translation of Evidence to Practice

Reflect on your growth, professionally and personally, since you embarked on your DNP journey. The AACN believes that one of the benefits of a practice doctorate is that it enhances your leadership skills to “strengthen practice and health care delivery” (2006, p. 5). As you continue to engage in your practicum experience, be cognizant of your growth in these areas.

In Week 6, you were asked to reflect on your leadership skills for this Assignment. This week, you continue your reflection on leadership and how you can lead the translation of evidence to practice through contribution to policy development.

Prepare for this week’s section of Application 3 as follows:

Building on the work you began in Week 6 for this Application, review this week’s Discussion posting, and consider how you can lead policy development to address your EBP Assignment issue.

The full Application 3 is due by Day 7 of this week. Instructions for how to prepare for previous sections of this Application have been provided in Week 6.

To complete Becoming a Leader in the Translation of Evidence to Practice:

Write a 3- to 5-page paper that synthesizes:

Your vision of yourself as a leader—specifically:

How you would continue to increase your knowledge and awareness of financial, economic, and other concerns related to new practice approaches

How translating evidence would enable you to affect or strengthen health care delivery and nursing practice

How you would advocate for the use of new evidence-based practice approaches through the policy arena

By Day 7 of Becoming a Leader in the Translation of Evidence to Practice

Application 3 is due.

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK7Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.

Click the Week 7 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.

Click the Week 7 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.

Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK7Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.

If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.

Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.

NURS 8410 Week 7 Assignment Application 3: Becoming a Leader in the Translation of Evidence to Practice (6 points)

To students: In addition to the Learning Resources and facilitated discussions provided each week, you are expected to integrate articles from peer-reviewed journals to inform and support your positions and conclusions in the Application Assignments. Graduate-level scholarship provides the foundation for your work and requires a higher level of evidence than lay references, such as the dictionary, Wikipedia, general Internet sites, nursing newspapers, expert opinion, and the like.

Write a 2- to 3-page paper that summarizes:

Your vision of yourself as a leader—specifically:

How you would continue to increase your knowledge and awareness of financial, economic, and other concerns related to new practice approaches (2 pts)

How translating evidence would enable you to affect or strengthen health care delivery and nursing practice (2 pts)

How you would advocate for the use of new evidence-based practice approaches through the policy arena (2 pts)

Note: Up to 2 points may be deducted for grammar, spelling, and/or APA errors.

This Application is due by Day 7 of Week 7.

“Engagement in the process of policy development is central to creating a health care system that meets the needs of its constituents” (AACN, 2006, p. 13).

As a professional nurse, you are well positioned to affect changes in health care through policy. Nurses are frequently asked to testify before Congress or congressional committees on important health care matters; being able to present the scientific evidence on a health care issue can contribute to this process and thereby inform the formation of health policy.

This week, you explore how to utilize the concepts presented in earlier weeks to advocate for health care policy to improve health-related outcomes. In addition, you submit your time log and a journal entry for your practicum experience.

Reference: American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2006). The essentials of doctoral education for advanced nursing practice. Retrieved from http://www.aacn.nche.edu/publications/position/DNPEssentials.pdf

Learning Objectives

Students will:

Develop strategies for advocating for health policy to enhance health care outcomes

Analyze professional growth and development as a leader in evidence-based practice

Assess the practicum experience

Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Essay Assignments – NURS 8410

Photo Credit: Hero Images / Hero Images / Getty Images

Learning Resources

Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings

White, K. M., Dudley-Brown, S., & Terharr, M. F. (2016). Translation of evidence into nursing and health care practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

Chapter 4, “Translation of Evidence to Improve Clinical Outcomes”

Chapter 5, “Translation of Evidence for Improving Safety and Quality”

Chapter 7, “Translation of Evidence for Health Policy”

Andermann, A., Pang, T., Newton, J.T., Davis, A., & Panisset, U. (2016). Evidence for health II: Overcoming barriers to using evidence in policy and practice. Health Research Policy and Systems, 14 (17) doi 10.1186/s12961-016-0086-3

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Catallo, C. & Sidani, S. The self-assessment for organizational capacity instrument for evidence-informed health policy: Preliminary reliability and validity of an instrument (2014). Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 11(1), 35–45.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Malterud, K., Bjelland, K., & Elvbakken, K.T. (Evidence-based medicine – an appropriate tool for evidence-based health policy? A case study from Norway. Health Research Policy and Systems, 14 (15) doi 10.1186/s12961-016-0088-1

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Rehfuess, E.A., Durao, S., Kyamanywa, P., Meerpohl, J. J., Young, T., & Rohwer, A. (2016). An approach for setting evidence-based and stakeholder-informed research priorities in low- and middle-income countries, Policy & Practice, 94, 297–305 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.15.162966

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

NURS 8410 Week 7 Practicum: Journal and Time Log

By Day 7

You will submit a journal entry (along with your time log) for Weeks 4-7. Journal entries need to connect your previous professional experience with your practice, competencies/concepts in the program, and the literature. Your journal entry should be week-based and sequential so that all journal entries are contained in one file.

Describe the observed activity.

Using an evidence-based approach, analyze the problem, issue, or situation. Address questions posed in the weekly practicum pages if appropriate.

Reveal how the real-world might mirror or diverge from program-related evidence, concepts, and/or theories.

Time Log submission.

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Practicum for review and grading, do the following:

Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK7Practicum+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.

Click the Week 7 Practicum link.

Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK7Practicum+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.

If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.

Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.

Advocating for New Practice Approaches Through Policy

“I think one’s feelings waste themselves in words; they ought all to be distilled into actions which bring results.”
—Florence Nightingale

Through the policy process, nurses can put their feelings—as well as their experiences and expertise—into actions that create results. In this course, you have been honing your skills for critically assessing evidence with the purpose of improving practice and developing new practice approaches. As a DNP-prepared nurse, you can influence health care outcomes at the population or aggregate level. Leading policy development to address health care concerns is a vital way to achieve this.

For the past several weeks, you have been focusing on a health care issue of interest to you for your EBP Assignement. For this Discussion, consider how you could lead policy development in support of a proposed evidence-based practice approach that addresses that issue and is designed to promote quality.

Reference: Nursing Schools. (2012). 100 entertaining and inspiring quotes for nurses. Retrieved from http://www.nursingschools.net/blog/2010/06/100-entertaining-inspiring-quotes-for-nurses/

To prepare of Discussion: Advocating for New Practice Approaches Through Policy:

Select one of the new practice approaches you developed for the Week 6 Discussion.

Review the Trautman (2009) article listed in the Learning Resources. Assess the strategies for engaging in the policy process.

By Day 3 of Discussion: Advocating for New Practice Approaches Through Policy

Post a cohesive response that addresses the following:

Identify your proposed practice approach in the first line of your posting.

How would you lead policy development for your selected issue?

What strategies could you use to overcome barriers you may encounter while engaging policy makers? (Select two or more strategies to focus on in your posting.)

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.

By Day 6 of Discussion: Advocating for New Practice Approaches Through Policy

Respond to two of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:

Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.

Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.

Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom and/or from your own research in the Walden Library.

Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.

Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.

Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.

Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you learned and/or any insights you gained as a result of the comments made by your colleagues.

Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and any additional sources.

Submission and Grading Information

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: NURS_8410_ Week7_Discussion_Rubric

Excellent Good Fair Poor

RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONDiscussion post minimum requirements:

*The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas

QUALITY OF WRITING

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.

4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

0 (0%) – 3 (10%)

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Total Points: 30

Name: NURS_8410_ Week7_Discussion_Rubric

Assignment: Application 3: Becoming a Leader in the Translation of Evidence to Practice

This week you begin working on Application 3. As a nurse engaged in advanced practice, you have the exciting opportunity to be a leader in translating evidence into practice.

For this first section of Application 3, consider the economic and financial implications of addressing your EBP Assignment issue. In addition, reflect on your leadership skills. As a DNP-prepared nurse, you are expected to employ the principles of business, finance, and health policy in the development of initiatives that will improve the quality of care delivered.

Prepare for this week’s section of Application 3 as follows:

Continue (from this week’s Discussion) to evaluate the new strategies you developed to address your selected issue and the potential economic impact.

Review Chapter 6 in the course text, Translation of Evidence Into Nursing and Health Care Practice, and ask yourself the following: How are these activities enhancing my leadership skills? How does translating evidence enable me, as a leader, to affect or strengthen health care delivery and my nursing practice?

You will build on this Application next week as you look at advancing new approaches to practice through the policy process.

By Day 7 of Week 7 OF Assignment: Application 3: Becoming a Leader in the Translation of Evidence to Practice

Application 3 is due. You do not need to submit anything this week.

Practicum FOR Assignment: Application 3: Becoming a Leader in the Translation of Evidence to Practice

Continue to keep a time log and journal of your practicum experiences. See the Practicum Guidelines located in the Practicum area of the Course Overview page for a complete description of the practicum.

By Day 7 of Week 7 OF Assignment: Application 3: Becoming a Leader in the Translation of Evidence to Practice

Reminder: You will submit your time log and a journal entry in Week 7.

This week, you evaluated economic impacts of new practice strategies and integrated theoretical foundations in developing evidence-based practice strategies. You also appraised your personal growth in leadership skills.

Next week, you will explore how to utilize the concepts presented in earlier weeks to advocate for health care policy to improve health-related outcomes.

The first several weeks of this course have presented the foundational information necessary for you and your colleagues to develop new practice strategies. Think of the EBP Assignment issue that you have been addressing in this course. How could you synthesize the evidence you reviewed for Application 2 and what you have learned in this course to create a new approach?

This week you formulate evidence-based practice strategies designed to promote health care quality, and develop a plan for evaluating these strategies as well. As you begin Application 3, you consider the financial and economic impact of implementing these new strategies. As you continue your practicum experience, you are asked to reflect on your leadership skills and your ability to integrate business, finance, and health policy principles in the development of initiatives that will improve the quality of care delivered.

Learning Objectives

Students will:

Integrate theoretical foundations in the development of evidence-based practice strategies

Evaluate the potential economic impact of new practice strategies that address a selected specialty issue

Appraise personal growth in leadership skills

Photo Credit: Hero Images / Hero Images / Getty Images

Learning Resources

Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings

White, K. M., Dudley-Brown, S., & Terharr, M. F. (2016). Translation of evidence into nursing and health care practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

Chapter 6, “Translation of Evidence for Leadership”

Balakas, K., Sparks, L., Steurer, L., & Bryant, T. (2013). An outcome of evidence-based practiced education: Sustained clinical decision-making among bedside nurses. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 28, 479-485.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Brown, D.S. (2012). Interview with quality leaders: Dr. Donna E. Shalala and Dr. Linda Burnes Bolton on the committee on the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation initiative on the future of nursing at the Institute of Medicine. Journal for Healthcare Quality, 24(4), 40-44.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Brandt, B., Lutfiyya, M.N., King, J.A., & Chioresco, C. ( 2014). A scoping review of interprofessional collaborative practice and education using the lens of the Triple Aim. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 28(5), 393-399.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Grindel, C.G. (2016). Clinical leadership: A call to action. Med-Surg Nursing, 25(1), 9-16.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Mannix, J., Wilkes, L, & Daly, J. (2015). Grace under fire: Aesthetic leadership in clinical nursing, Journal of Clinical Nursing, 24, 2649-2658.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Stetler, C.B., Ritchie, J.A., Rycroft-Malone, J., & Charns, M.P. (2014). Leadership for evidence-based practice: Strategic and functional behaviors for institutionalizing EBP. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 11(4), 219-226.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

NURS 8410 Week 6 Discussion: Developing and Evaluating New Practice Approaches

Discussion: Developing and Evaluating New Practice Approaches

One of the exciting aspects of participating in the health care field is the discovery of new techniques, treatments, and technologies that improve the quality of care and improve health outcomes. As someone engaged in advanced nursing practice, you have the opportunity to search for new solutions to issues in your specialty area. What tools can you use to guide the discovery process? What needs to be considered as you determine new practice approaches to address issues in health care? This week, you consider new ways to address the EBP Assignment issue you identified in Week 2.

To prepare for Discussion: Developing and Evaluating New Practice Approaches:

Reflect on your analysis of the evidence base that addresses your selected issue from the EBP Assignment (identified during Week 2).

Using methods articulated in the Learning Resources, formulate new evidence-based practice strategies to address the issue and improve health care quality.

What are the theoretical bases for your proposed strategies?

What might be the economic impact of implementing your proposed strategies?

By Day 3 of Discussion: Developing and Evaluating New Practice Approaches

Post a cohesive response that addresses the following:

Briefly summarize your selected issue and propose new evidence-based practice strategies. Describe the theoretical basis for your strategies.

Discuss the potential economic impact of your suggested strategies.

How could the new practice strategies improve health care quality?

Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.

By Day 6 of Discussion: Developing and Evaluating New Practice Approaches

Respond to two of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:

Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.

Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.

Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom and/or from your own research in the Walden Library.

Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.

Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.

Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.

Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you learned and/or any insights you gained as a result of the comments made by your colleagues.

Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and any additional sources.

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: NURS_8410_ Week6_Discussion_Rubric

Excellent Good Fair Poor

RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONDiscussion post minimum requirements:

*The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas

QUALITY OF WRITING

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.

4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

0 (0%) – 3 (10%)

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

NURS 8410 Week 5 Assignment: Application 2: Laying the Foundation for New Approaches to Practice

Application 2: Laying the Foundation for New Approaches to Practice

As frequently noted in the literature, there is often a gap between research evidence and practice. This is not a new phenomenon; however, with the rapid growth of knowledge, it is essential that nurses hone their ability to identify this gap, determine best practices based on the evidence, and then apply this evidence to practice through the development of new approaches. In order for that to transpire, nurses must be skilled in leading change efforts so that adoption of new practice approaches can be successful.

For your EBP Assignment in Week 2 (Application 1), you identified an issue in your practicum setting in which the outcome is different from what would be expected according to the research literature. This week, continue to explore current research literature looking for new evidence to address the problem. In addition, you build on the work you began in this week’s Discussion and select an evidence-based practice model and change theory or framework that will support your efforts.

To prepare for Application 2 address the following:

How current is the science underlying the practices related to your EBP Assignment issue?

Consider possible causes of the difference in outcomes from what would be expected according to the research literature.

Evaluate the effect the EBP Assignment issue is having in practice.

Using the Walden Library and other credible sources, locate current research evidence of new practices that are effective in addressing the issue.

Use the GRADE model presented in the Guyatt et al. (2011) article to evaluate the research evidence.

The full Application 2 is due by Day 7 of this week. Instructions for how to prepare for previous sections of this Application have been provided in Week 4.

To complete Application 2: Laying the Foundation for New Approaches to Practice:

In a 3- to 5-page paper, include the following:

A brief summary of the currency of the science underlying the practices used to address your EBP Assignment issue

Possible causes of the difference in outcomes from what would be expected according to the research literature

The effect the EBP Assignment issue is having in practice

Current research evidence on new practices for addressing the EBP Assignment issue

A summary of the evidence-based practice model (including models from other disciplines as appropriate) and/or change theory or framework you will utilize to systematically integrate new approaches to practice to address the issue

By Day 7 OF Application 2: Laying the Foundation for New Approaches to Practice

Application 2 is due.

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK5Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.

Click the Week 5 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.

Click the Week 5 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.

Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK5Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.

If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.

Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.

NURS 8410 Week 5: New Practice Approaches, Part II

A hallmark of the DNP-prepared nurse is the ability to go into a health setting, identify a problem, examine the evidence, and develop new approaches in practice to improve outcomes for patients, populations, and/or organizations. This, in turn, can lead to the development of new models of evidence-based practice.

This week you examine evidence-based practice models and frameworks that assist with the adoption of new practice approaches. You apply this focus as you continue your practicum experience.

Learning Objectives

Students will:

Evaluate the use of evidence-based practice models and change theories and frameworks for facilitating the adoption of new practice approaches

Appraise current evidence for addressing a practice issue

Evaluate the quality of evidence using the GRADE guidelines

Photo Credit: [Squaredpixels]/[iStock / Getty Images Plus]/Getty Images

Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings FOR Application 2: Laying the Foundation for New Approaches to Practice

Gallagher-Ford, L., Fineout-Overhold, E., Melnyk, B.M. & Stillwell, S.B. (2011). Evidence-based practice step-by-step: Implementing an evidence-based practice change. American Journal of Nursing, 111(3), 54-60.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Rosswurm, M. A., & Larrabee, J. H. (1999). A model for change to evidence-based practice. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 31(4), 317-322.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Pryse, Y., McDaniel, A., & Schafer, J. (2014). Psychometric analysis of two new scales: The evidence-based practice nursing leadership and work environment scales. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 11(4), 240-247.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Sadeghi-Bazargani, H., Tabrizi, J.S., & Azami-Aghdash, S. (2014). Barriers to evidence-based medicine: A systematic review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 20, 793-802.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Schaffer, M.A., Sandau, K.E., & Diedrick, L. (2013). Evidence-based practice models for organizational change: overview and practical applications. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(5), 1197-1209.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

NURS 8410 Week 5 Discussion: New Models for Evidence-Based Practice

New Models for Evidence-Based Practice

A professional goal for DNP-prepared nurses is to produce new evidence-based models of care and develop evidence-based guidelines. As you continue to develop and engage in your EBP Assignment, keep this aim in mind. What could help to facilitate the acceptance of new practices?

As noted in earlier weeks, every specialty area should base practice on research and evidence. For example, in informatics, an informatician who plans to implement a new health information system would be wise to follow a model that research shows has been effective. Similarly, those involved in leadership or management can review change models and theories, exploring current evidence on best practices that produce positive results. For this Discussion, you evaluate evidence-based practice models, change theories, and frameworks that assist with the adoption of new evidence-based practice approaches.

To prepare for New Models for Evidence-Based Practice:

Reflect on your practicum setting and the use of evidence-based practice models. How are these models used? If they are not used, how might the integration of an evidence-based practice model change practice?

Review the Rosswurm and Larrabee article presented in the Learning Resources focusing on the model they present for integrating new evidence-based practices.

Research and locate an evidence-based practice model from nursing or another discipline that could be used in your specialty area to lead a systematic change to evidence-based practice approaches. You may also use a model or framework discussed in your course text, Translation of Evidence Into Nursing and Health Care Practice.

Consider how using a model for evidence-based practice can facilitate adoption of new approaches to practice.

By Day 3 of New Models for Evidence-Based Practice

Post a cohesive response that addresses the following:

Discuss the use of evidence-based models in your practicum setting.

Describe a model for evidence-based practice or change theories and frameworks that you could utilize to facilitate the adoption of new approaches to practice. Substantiate your selection with evidence from the literature.

Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.

By Day 6 of New Models for Evidence-Based Practice

Respond to two of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:

Provide specific feedback on your colleague’s chosen research method and selected evidence-based practice model.

Suggest another model if appropriate.

Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.

Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom and/or from your own research in the Walden Library.

Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.

Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.

Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.

Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you learned and/or any insights you gained as a result of the comments made by your colleagues.

Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and any additional sources.

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: NURS_8410_ Week5_Discussion_Rubric

Excellent Good Fair Poor

RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONDiscussion post minimum requirements:

*The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas

QUALITY OF WRITING

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.

4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

0 (0%) – 3 (10%)

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Total Points: 30

Name: NURS_8410_ Week5_Discussion_Rubric

NURS 8410 Week 4 Discussion: The Interrelationship Between Theory, Knowledge, and Research and Evidence-Based Practice

Discussion: The Interrelationship Between Theory, Knowledge, and Research and Evidence-Based Practice

Fawcett and Garity (2009) present an overview of the relationship between theory, knowledge, research, nursing research, and evidence-based practice. As you prepare for this Discussion, reflect on your own specialty area and consider how the authors’ definitions of evidence-based practiceand of research align with your understanding of these concepts based on your professional experiences and your experiences as a doctoral student embarking on your EBP Assignment.

To prepare:

Reflect on Fawcett and Garity’s definitions of knowledge, theory, research and evidence-based practice presented in the Learning Resources. How do these definitions align with your understanding of the concepts?

How does this interrelationship support or guide your EBP Assignment?

By Day 3

Post a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:

How do Fawcett and Garity’s definitions align with your understanding of knowledge, theory, research and evidence-based practice? Support your response with evidence from the literature.

Discuss the interrelationship between theory, knowledge, research and evidence-based practice.

How does this interrelationship support or guide your EBP Assignment?

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.

By Day 6

Respond to two of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:

Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.

Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.

Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom and/or from your own research in the Walden Library.

Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.

Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.

Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.

Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you learned and/or any insights you gained as a result of the comments made by your colleagues.

Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and any additional sources.

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: NURS_8410_ Week4_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View

List View

Excellent Good Fair Poor

RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONDiscussion post minimum requirements:

*The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas

QUALITY OF WRITING

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.

4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

0 (0%) – 3 (10%)

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Total Points: 30

Name: NURS_8410_ Week4_Discussion_Rubric

NURS 8410 Week 3: Translating Science in Advanced Nursing Practice

NURS 8410 Week 3 Discussion: The State of the Science in Practice

Discussion: The State of the Science in Practice

The phrase evidence-based practice may be most often thought of as a clinical reference; however, research evidence is applicable in every specialty area. What types of research evidence support your work environment? How does research evidence inform your practice?

Now, how current do you think the science is that underlies your practice? How current is the evidence that supports your specialty practice guidelines?

To prepare for NURS 8410 Week 3 Discussion: The State of the Science in Practice:

Bring to mind an issue related to your practice. You may use the issue you are exploring for your EBP Assignment, or another current issue in your specialty area.

If possible, examine practices and/or practice guidelines established to address your selected issue and determine how current the evidence is that supports them.

Using the Walden Library, locate recently published articles that discuss research translated into evidence that applies to your selected practice issue. If you are unable to locate current articles (within the last five years), use the Internet to find evidence-based practice articles on this topic.

Consider the following questions:

How current is the science that supported the practice or practice guidelines?

What new evidence has emerged since the practice guidelines were crafted and adopted?

By Day 3 of NURS 8410 Week 3 Discussion: The State of the Science in Practice

Post a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:

Discuss the state of the scientific underpinnings that relate to your selected issue.

How current is the science that supported the practice or practice guidelines?

What new evidence has emerged since the practice guidelines were crafted and adopted? Provide one or two examples that support your assessment.

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.

By Day 6 of NURS 8410 Week 3 Discussion: The State of the Science in Practice

Respond to two of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:

Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.

Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.

Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom and/or from your own research in the Walden Library.

Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.

Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.

Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.

Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you learned and/or any insights you gained as a result of the comments made by your colleagues.

Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and any additional sources.

By Day 7

You will submit a journal entry (along with your time log) for Weeks 1-3. Journal entries need to connect your previous professional experience with your practice, competencies/concepts in the program, and the literature. Your journal entry should be week-based and sequential so that all journal entries are contained in one file.

Describe the observed activity.

Using an evidence-based approach, analyze the problem, issue, or situation. Address questions posed in the weekly practicum pages if appropriate.

Reveal how the real-world might mirror or diverge from program-related evidence, concepts, and/or theories.

Time Log submission.

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Practicum for review and grading, do the following:

Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK3Practicum+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.

Click the Week 3 Practicum link.

Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK3Practicum+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.

If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.

Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.

Health care is an increasingly complex field fueled by the explosion of information available at one’s fingertips. As technology, medical research, and information systems continue to evolve, more emphasis is being placed on incorporating science and effective practices into health care. Nurses are increasingly called upon to implement best practices based on scientifically sound evidence.

This week, you examine the current state of science in your specialty area. This is an essential step for being able to assess and promote evidence-based practice, whether or not you are directly involved in the delivery of patient care. For instance, you may investigate the latest research in leadership, economics, management, education, and so on, and apply that research in your specialty practice area.

Also this week, you submit your time log and a journal entry for your practicum experience.

Learning Objectives

Students will:

Evaluate the state of the current context of science in your specialty area in nursing and health care

Assess the practicum experience

Evaluate current literature pertaining to an issue in a specialty area

Photo Credit: [GIPhotoStock]/[Cultura]/Getty Images

Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings

White, K. M., Dudley-Brown, S., & Terharr, M. F. (2016). Translation of evidence into nursing and health care practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

Chapter 1, “Evidence-Based Practice”

Chapter 2, “The Science of Translation and Major Frameworks”

Terry, A. J. (2018). Clinical research for the doctor of nursing practice (3rd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Pages 15-18, “The Process of Translating Evidence Into Clinical Practice”

Chapter 3, “Conducting a Literature Review”

Djulbergovic, B. (2014). A framework to bridge the gaps between evidence-based medicine, health outcomes, and improvement and implementation science. Journal of Oncology Practice, 10(3), 200-202.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Fineout-Overhold, E., Melnyk, B.M., Stillwell, S.B., & Williamson, K.M. (2010). Evidence-based practice step-by-step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part 1. American Journal of Nursing, 110(7), 47-52.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases. Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Essay Assignments – NURS 8410.

Fineout-Overhold, E., Melnyk, B.M., Stillwell, S.B., & Williamson, K.M. (2010). Evidence-based practice step-by-step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part II. American Journal of Nursing, 110(9), 41-48.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Fineout-Overhold, E., Melnyk, B.M., Stillwell, S.B., & Williamson, K.M. (2010). Evidence-based practice step-by-step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part III. American Journal of Nursing, 110(11), 43-51

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Guyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Akl, E. A., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., Schünemann, H. J. (2011). GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64 (4), 383-394.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Jeffs, L., Beswick, S., Lo, J., Campbell, H., Ferris, E., & Sidani, S. (2013). Defining what evidence is, linking it to patient outcomes, and making it relevant to practice: Insight from clinical nurses. Applied Nursing Research, 26, 105-109.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Leung, K., Trevena, L., & Waters, D. (2014). Systematic review of instruments for measuring nurses’ knowledge, skills and attitudes for evidence-based practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70(10), 2181–2195.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Rosswurm, M. A., & Larrabee, J. H. (1999). A model for change to evidence-based practice. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 31(4), 317-322.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Additional Research

Conduct your own research on translational science and how it is utilized in your specialty area. Review your specialty area websites and search for articles on evidence-based practice that address the translation of research into practice. This information will inform the Discussion.

Optional Resources

Terry, A. J. (2018). Clinical research for the doctor of nursing practice (3rd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Chapter 14, “Reducing 30-Day Hospital Readmission of the Patient with Heart Failure: An Evidence-Based Quality Improvement Project”

Chapter 15, “Reducing 30-Day Hospital Readmission of the Patient with Heart Failure: An Evidence-Based Quality Improvement Project”

Chapter 16, “The Impact of Evidence-Based Design”

Chapter 17, “The Lived Experience of Chronic Pain in Nurse Educators”

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

As you develop sections of your Project Premise, you may wish to review these examples of completed EBP project.

Rubric Detail- NURS 8410 Week 3 Discussion: The State of the Science in Practice

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: NURS_8410_ Week3_Discussion_Rubric

Excellent Good Fair Poor

RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONDiscussion post minimum requirements:

*The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas

QUALITY OF WRITING

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.

4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Essay Assignments – NURS 8410

0 (0%) – 3 (10%)

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONDiscussion post minimum requirements: *The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course. Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Essay Assignments – NURS 8410
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas
QUALITY OF WRITING	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.	4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	0 (0%) – 3 (10%) Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONDiscussion post minimum requirements: *The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas
QUALITY OF WRITING	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.	4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	0 (0%) – 3 (10%) Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONDiscussion post minimum requirements: *The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas
QUALITY OF WRITING	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.	4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	0 (0%) – 3 (10%) Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONDiscussion post minimum requirements: *The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas
QUALITY OF WRITING	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.	4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	0 (0%) – 3 (10%) Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONDiscussion post minimum requirements: *The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas
QUALITY OF WRITING	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.	4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	0 (0%) – 3 (10%) Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.