WEEK 10 CLARIFYING CONNECTIONS: PRACTICE PROBLEM, EVIDENCE, CHANGING PRACTICE DISCUSSION
WEEK 10 CLARIFYING CONNECTIONS: PRACTICE PROBLEM, EVIDENCE, CHANGING PRACTICE DISCUSSION
A cell structure Your literature review should be completed at this point in the module. Working from that assumption, you will use this Discussion to share your preliminary outcomes and analysis from your literature review with colleagues for their comment. You may choose to incorporate feedback from peers before submitting your Module Assignment on Day 7, although that is not required. The aim of this Discussion is to support you in providing the kind of analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of evidence to a group that would be involved in presenting a quality improvement initiative to stakeholders.
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
Good RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
WEEKLY RESOURCES
TO PREPARE:
Review the Module 4 Learning Resources with guidance for analyzing and synthesizing evidence from your literature review.
Complete your analysis of outcomes and synthesis of evidence to inform a practice change.
Consider the linkage between your practice problem, evidence to address it, and the need for a practice change initiative.
Assess the strength of this linkage and how to present it to colleagues.
With these thoughts in mind …
BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 10
Post an explanation of the results of your literature review and the connection to your practice problem. Then, explain your synthesis of evidence on which to base a practice change, and the need for a practice change initiative. Be specific and provide examples.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ posts.
BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 10
Respond to at least two colleagues on 2 different days with questions to clarify or suggestions to sharpen or finesse their explanation of their problem-evidence-change initiative linkage.
ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
NURS_8114_Week10_Discussion_Rubric
NURS_8114_Week10_Discussion_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting: Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current scholarly sources.
44 to >39.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current scholarly sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three current scholarly sources that are correctly cited and formatted.
39 to >34.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three scholarly sources that are correctly cited and formatted.
34 to >30.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Supported by fewer than two scholarly sources that are correctly cited and formatted.
30 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no scholarly sources.
44 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting: Writing
6 to >5.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Response is effectively written in Standard Academic English.
5 to >4.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
Written clearly and concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Response is effectively written in Standard Academic English.
4 to >3.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
Written somewhat clearly and concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. Edits are needed to follow standards for Standard Academic English.
3 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. Does not follow Standard Academic English for most of the post.
6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting: Timely and full participation
10 to >8.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. … Posts main Discussion by due date.
8 to >7.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
Meets requirements for full participation. … Posts main Discussion by due date.
7 to >6.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
Posts main Discussion by due date.
6 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
Does not meet requirements for full participation. … Does not post main Discussion by due date.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with scholarly sources.
9 to >8.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. Uses scholarly sources to support ideas. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted.
8 to >7.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Uses scholarly sources to support ideas. Demonstrates a beginning synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted.
7 to >6.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
Response is on topic and may have some depth. Minimal or no scholarly sources provided.
6 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. No sources.
9 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response: Writing
6 to >5.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions is fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more scholarly sources. Response is effectively written in Standard Academic English.
5 to >4.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions is mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Response is written in Academic English.
4 to >3.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions is minimally addressed, if posed. Few or no scholarly sources are cited.
3 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions is missing. No scholarly sources are cited.
6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response: Timely and full participation
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. … Posts by due date.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
Meets requirements for full participation. … Posts by due date.
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
Posts by due date.
2 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
Does not meet requirements for full participation. … Does not post by due date.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with scholarly sources.
9 to >8.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. Uses scholarly sources to support ideas. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted.
8 to >7.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Uses scholarly sources to support ideas. Demonstrates a beginning synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted.
7 to >6.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
Response is on topic and may have some depth. Minimal or no scholarly sources provided.
6 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. No sources.
9 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response: Writing
6 to >5.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions is fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more scholarly sources. Response is effectively written in Standard Academic English.
5 to >4.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions is mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few at least two scholarly sources…. Response is written in Standard Academic English.
4 to >3.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions is minimally addressed, if posed. Few or no scholarly sources are cited.
3 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions is missing. No scholarly sources are cited.
6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response: Timely and full participation
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date.
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
Posts by due date.
2 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date.
5 pts
Total Points: 100