Walden University NUR 550 Benchmark Assignment: Evidence-Based Practice Project

Assessment Description
Refer to the PICOT you developed for your evidence-based practice project proposal. If your PICOT required revision, include those revisions in this assignment. You will use your PICOT paper for all subsequent assignments you develop as part of your evidence-based practice project proposal in this course and in NUR-590, during which you will synthesize all of the sections into a final written paper detailing your evidence-based practice project proposal.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Good News For Our New customers . We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us

Write a 750-1,000-word paper that describes your PICOT.

Describe the population’s demographics and health concerns.
Describe the proposed evidence-based intervention and explain how your proposed intervention incorporates health policies and goals that support health care equity for the population of focus.
Compare your intervention to previous practice or research.
Explain what the expected outcome is for the intervention.
Describe the time for implementing the intervention and evaluating the outcome.
Explain how nursing science, social determinants of health, and epidemiologic, genomic, and genetic data are applied or synthesized to support population health management for the selected population.
Create an Appendix for your paper and attach the PICOT. Be sure to review feedback from your previous submission and revise your PICOT accordingly.
Complete the “APA Writing Checklist” to ensure that your paper adheres to APA style and formatting criteria and general guidelines for academic writing. Include the completed checklist as the final appendix at the end of your paper.
Refer to the “Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal â€“ Assignment Overview” document for an overview of the evidence-based practice project proposal assignments.

You are required to cite at least four to six peer-reviewed sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

Benchmark Information

This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies:

MBA-MSN; MSN-Nursing Education; MSN Acute Care Nurse Practitioner-Adult-Gerontology; MSN Family Nurse Practitioner; MSN-Health Informatics; MSN-Health Care Quality and Patient Safety; MSN-Leadership in Health Care Systems; MSN-Public Health Nursing

MS Nursing: Public Health

MS Nursing: Education

MS Nursing: Acute Care Nurse Practitioner

MS Nursing: Family Nurse Practitioner

MS Nursing: Health Care Quality and Patient Safety

4.1: Synthesize nursing science, determinants of health, and epidemiologic, genomic, and genetic data in the management of population health.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Rubric Criteria

Population Demographics and Health Concerns
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Population Demographics and Health Concerns

5. Excellent
7.5 points
The demographics and health concerns for the population are accurate and thoroughly described using substantial evidence.

4. Good
6.9 points
The demographics and health concerns for the population are described using sufficient evidence.

3. Satisfactory
6.6 points
The demographics and health concerns for the population are summarized. More information and supporting evidence are needed.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
6 points
The demographics and health concerns for the population are incorrect or only partially described.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The demographics and health concerns for the population are not described.

Proposed Evidence-Based Intervention
19.5 points
Criteria Description
Proposed Evidence-Based Intervention

5. Excellent
19.5 points
The proposed evidence-based intervention is well-developed and clearly described. Explanation of how the proposed intervention incorporates health policies and goals that support health care equity for the population of focus is thorough.

4. Good
17.94 points
The proposed evidence-based intervention is described. Explanation of how the proposed intervention incorporates health policies and goals that support health care equity for the population of focus is adequate. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.

3. Satisfactory
17.16 points
The proposed evidence-based intervention is outlined. Explanation of how the proposed intervention incorporates health policies and goals that support health care equity for the population of focus is general. Some aspects are unclear. More information is needed.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
15.6 points
The proposed evidence-based intervention is incomplete. It is unclear how the proposed intervention incorporates health policies and goals that support health care equity for the population of focus.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The proposed evidence-based intervention is omitted.

Comparison of Intervention to Current Research
18 points
Criteria Description
Comparison of Intervention to Current Research

5. Excellent
18 points
Comparison of intervention to previous practice or research is thorough and clearly presented.

4. Good
16.56 points
Comparison of intervention to previous practice or research is adequately presented.

3. Satisfactory
15.84 points
Comparison of intervention to previous practice or research is generally presented. Some areas are vague.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
14.4 points
Comparison of intervention to previous practice or research is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Comparison of intervention to previous practice or research is omitted.

Expected Outcome for Intervention
15 points
Criteria Description
Expected Outcome for Intervention

5. Excellent
15 points
The expected outcome for the intervention is thoroughly explained using substantial evidence.

4. Good
13.8 points
The expected outcome for the intervention is explained using sufficient evidence.

3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
The expected outcome is for the intervention is summarized. More information and supporting evidence is needed.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
The expected outcome is for the intervention is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The expected outcome is for the intervention is omitted.

Time Estimated for Implementing Intervention and Evaluating Outcome
15 points
Criteria Description
Time Estimated for Implementing Intervention and Evaluating Outcome

5. Excellent
15 points
A description of the timeline is extremely thorough with substantial evidence.

4. Good
13.8 points
A description of the timelines is complete and includes a sufficient amount of evidence.

3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
A description of the timeline is included but lacks evidence.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
A description of the timeline is incomplete or incorrect.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
A description of the timeline is not included.

Support (B)
15 points
Criteria Description
Support for Population Health Management for Selected Population (C 4.1)

5. Excellent
15 points
Explanation of how nursing science; social determinants of health; and epidemiologic, genomic, and genetic data are applied or synthesized to support population health management for the selected population is thorough. The narrative is insightful and demonstrates an understanding of how the various aspects contribute to population health management for selected populations.

4. Good
13.8 points
Explanation of how nursing science; social determinants of health; and epidemiologic, genomic, and genetic data are applied or synthesized to support population health management for the selected population is adequate. Some detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.

3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
Explanation of how nursing science; social determinants of health; and epidemiologic, genomic, and genetic data are applied or synthesized to support population health management for the selected population is summarized. More information and support are needed.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
Explanation of how nursing science; social determinants of health; and epidemiologic, genomic, and genetic data are applied or synthesized to support population health management for the selected population is incomplete. There are major inaccuracies.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Explanation of how nursing science; social determinants of health; and epidemiologic, genomic, and genetic data are applied or synthesized to support population health management for the selected population is omitted.

Appendix
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Appendix

5. Excellent
7.5 points
The APA Writing Checklist and PICOT are attached in the appendix. It is clearly evident by the quality of the paper that the APA Writing Checklist was used in development.

4. Good
6.9 points
The APA Writing Checklist and PICOT are attached in the appendix. It is apparent that the APA Writing Checklist was used in development of the paper.

3. Satisfactory
6.6 points
The APA Writing Checklist and PICOT are attached in the appendix. The APA Writing Checklist was generally used in development of the paper, but some aspects are inconsistent with the paper format or quality.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
6 points
The APA Writing Checklist and PICOT are attached, but an appendix has not been created. The paper does not reflect the use of the APA Writing Checklist during development.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The appendix and required resources are omitted.

Required Sources
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Required Sources

5. Excellent
7.5 points
Number of required resources is met. Sources are current and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.

4. Good
6.9 points
Number of required sources is met. Sources are current, but not all sources are appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.

3. Satisfactory
6.6 points
Number of required sources is met, but sources are outdated or inappropriate.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
6 points
Number of required sources is only partially met.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Sources are not included.

Thesis Development and Purpose
10.5 points
Criteria Description
Thesis Development and Purpose

5. Excellent
10.5 points
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

4. Good
9.66 points
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

3. Satisfactory
9.24 points
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
8.4 points
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Argument Logic and Construction
12 points
Criteria Description
Argument Logic and Construction

5. Excellent
12 points
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

4. Good
11.04 points
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

3. Satisfactory
10.56 points
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
9.6 points
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

Mechanics of Writing
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

5. Excellent
7.5 points
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. Good
6.9 points
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.

3. Satisfactory
6.6 points
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
6 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.

Paper Format
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

5. Excellent
7.5 points
All format elements are correct.

4. Good
6.9 points
Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

3. Satisfactory
6.6 points
Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
6 points
Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.

Documentation of Sources
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)

5. Excellent
7.5 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

4. Good
6.9 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

3. Satisfactory
6.6 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
6 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Sources are not documented.

Total
150 points