NUR 550 Translational Research Graphic Organizer GCU

NUR 550 Translational Research Graphic Organizer GCU

NUR 550 Translational Research Graphic Organizer GCU

Translational Research PICOT Project

The purpose of this assignment is to conduct a comparison on different research designs to better understand their designs and application. Understanding the different types of research design is important so that nurses can effectively apply evidence-based research into practice to address issues and offer better patient care.

You will utilize your approved nursing practice problem to complete the evidence-based practice project proposal assignments for this course and NUR-590, during which you will synthesize all of the sections into a final written paper detailing your evidence-based practice project proposal.

Review feedback from your instructor on your \”Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal: Identification of Nursing Practice Problem,\” submitted in Topic 1. If your original proposed nursing problem was outside the scope of nursing practice or not conducive to an evidence-based practice project proposal, work with your instructor to identify a new topic prior to beginning this assignment. If your proposed topic requires revision, complete this prior to beginning this NUR 550 Translational Research Graphic Organizer GCU assignment.

Conduct a literature search on your approved nursing practice problem. Find two translational research articles, one quantitative article, and one qualitative article. Using the \”Translational Research Graphic Organizer,\” present your proposed topic and, in the tables provided, compare one translational study to the quantitative study, and one translational study to the qualitative study.

Refer to the \”Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal – Assignment Overview\” document for an overview of the evidence-based practice project proposal NUR 550 Translational Research Graphic Organizer GCU assignments.

You are required to cite four peer-reviewed sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the NUR 550 Translational Research Graphic Organizer GCU assignment criteria and nursing content.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be 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 not required to submit this NUR 550 Translational Research Graphic Organizer GCU assignment to LopesWrite.

Translational Research Graphic Organizer Sample Paper

State the nursing practice problem for your evidence-based practice project. If your nursing problem has not yet been approved, make any required changes or revisions to your nursing practice problem prior to starting the assignment. Using your proposed topic, conduct a literature search and complete the tables below.

Nursing Practice Problem:  Central Line associated blood stream Infection (CLABSI)

Comparison 1: Translational Research vs. Qualitative Research

Criteria Peer-Reviewed Translational Article and Permalink/Working Link:  Zamir, N., Pook, M., McDonald, E., & Fox-Robichaud, A. E. (2020). Chlorhexidine locking device for central line infection prevention in ICU patients: protocol for an open-label pilot and feasibility randomized controlled trial. Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 6(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-020-0564-9. 

 

Translational Research Type:   interventional

 

Peer-Reviewed Traditional Article and Permalink/Working Link:  Scheck McAlearney, A., Hefner, J. L., Robbins, J., Harrison, M. I., & Garman, A. (2017). Preventing central line-associated bloodstream infections: a qualitative study of management practices. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology: The Official Journal of the Society of Hospital Epidemiologists of America, 36(5), 557–563. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2015.27

 

Traditional Qualitative Research Type:  extensive case study

Observations (Similarities/Differences)
Methodology The study was done in 3 ICUs at Hamilton General hospital. A randomized control design was used.  The study population was 100. Of the 100 patients, 50 were used as control while the other 50 were used in the study (Zamir et al., 2020). A chlorehexidine locking tool was used in 50 patients while the other half were subjected to usual care. The usual care included flushing the central line using 0.9% normal saline and maintaining hygiene. Those included in the study were >18 years, had a central venous catheter in situ, with no history of active infection, those with first ICU admission, and were expected to stay in for >72 hours in ICU. Those with active infection, allergic to chlorehexidine, and those who stayed for less than 72 hours were excluded. 

 

The study was conducted in 8 US hospitals. Three hospitals were chosen based on their effort in preventing central line infections (Scheck et al., 2017). Low and high performing hospitals were compared. An extensive case study was performed.

Transcribed verbatim interviews were used.

Randomized control trial was used in the translational study unlike the case study that was performed in qualitative study. Both studies aimed at reducing the rate of central line infections.
Goals The primary goal was to test the feasibility of chlorehexidine locking device in ICU patients. The efficacy of the device was also tested. The secondary goal was to evaluate the uptake of the device among ICU nurses. 

                                  

 

 

 

The goal was to identify different factors that could explain disparities in infection prevention among different levels of hospitals.  The translational study conducted a trial of a device to reduce the rate of infection. The results of the study would be used to determine if the tool could be employed in large population study. However, in both studies, infection prevention was the major goal.
Data Collection Voluntary survey was used to collect data. The nurses who cared for the patient provided the data. A paper-based survey was administered to nurses in ICU. Additionally, the participants’ blood was collected every 48 hours for culture. Data from culture results was collected and stored using electronic health record.

 

 

 

 

 

In depth interviews were administered to administrators, clinical teams, nurses, and physicians. Nurses who are the cornerstone of patient care were involved in both cases. Unlike in qualitative study where in-depth interviews were used, the translational study used surveys.

Human specimen including blood was used for culture in translational study and this helped in identifying specific organism. NUR 550 Translational Research Graphic Organizer GCU

 

 

Comparison 2: Translational Research vs. Quantitative Research

            Criteria Peer-Reviewed Translational Article and Permalink/Working Link: Patel, P. K., Greene, M. T., Jones, K., Rolle, A. J., Ratz, D., Snyder, A., Saint, S., & Chopra, V. (2019). Quantitative results of a national intervention to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infection: A pre-post observational study: A pre-post observational study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 171(7_Suppl), S23–S29. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-3533

 

Translational Research Type: interventional

Peer-Reviewed Traditional Article and Permalink/Working Link: Lin, K.-Y., Cheng, A., Chang, Y.-C., Hung, M.-C., Wang, J.-T., Sheng, W.-H., Hseuh, P.-R., Chen, Y.-C., & Chang, S.-C. (2017). Central line-associated bloodstream infections among critically-ill patients in the era of bundle care. Wei Mian Yu Gan Ran Za Zhi [Journal of Microbiology, Immunology, and Infection], 50(3), 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmii.2015.07.001

 

Traditional Quantitative Research Type: Prospective. 

 

Observations (Similarities/Differences)
Methodology A total of 462 hospitals were recruited into the study in 4 cohorts. 24 hospitals within the district of Colombia that reported high rates of HAIs were also included. Both rural based and urban hospitals were included. Clustered and nonrandomized study designs were used (Patel et al., 2019). Pre and post interventional results were compared. the interventions used included evidence proven device to reduce HAIs, educational videos, webinar teachings, and expert involvement. The study was carried in acute, long-term care and ICU settings. 

 

 

 

 

 

The study was carried out in national Taiwan University Hospital in Taiwan. A prospective surveillance study was performed on 181 patients admitted in ICU. The effectiveness of prevention was assessed. The bundle included hand hygiene, antisepsis of skin using chlorehexidine, dressing catheter site, and maximal barrier protection (Lin et al., 2017). The patients included were those with indwelling CVC and above 18 years of age. Monitoring of the patient was done from point of central line insertion up to either discharge from ICU, removal of central line, or death of the patient. The translational study was done in several hospitals while the quantitative study was done in a single hospital. Clustered and nonrandomized study designs were used in translational study while prospective surveillance was used in quantitative study. In both cases, the researchers assessed the effectiveness of different prevention strategies.
Goals The goal was to evaluate the impact of multimodal approach in reducing the rate of hospital acquired infections in hospitals that reported high hospital acquired infection

 

 

 

 

 

The goals were to assess the rate of CLABSI among patients admitted in ICU, to identify different organisms that cause CLABSI, and to determine the effectiveness of bundle care in reducing CLABSI incidences.  The goals of two studies varied in a number of ways. For instance, the translational study aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of multimodal approach in infection prevention, while the quantitative study aimed at identifying the cases and causative organisms.
Data Collection Tabulations were used to collect data on the utilization of the device. Hospital data on the rate of infection pre and post intervention were used.

 

 

 

 

 

The researchers collected data using standardized case record. Active surveillance by infection control practitioner was performed to collect data on demography, ICU type, catheter type, length of ICU stay, and the causative organism in every case of CLABSI.

Medical records of patients were also reviewed to find the diagnosis and clinical presentation of the patient prior to admission in the ICU. 

Data was tabulated in translational study while standardized record was use in quantitative study. However, in both studies, the respective researchers used hospital data on patients to find further information about the patient. NUR 550 Translational Research Graphic Organizer GCU

NUR 550 Translational Research Graphic Organizer GCU References

Lin, K.-Y., Cheng, A., Chang, Y.-C., Hung, M.-C., Wang, J.-T., Sheng, W.-H., Hseuh, P.-R., Chen, Y.-C., & Chang, S.-C. (2017). Central line-associated bloodstream infections among critically-ill patients in the era of bundle care. Wei Mian Yu Gan Ran Za Zhi [Journal of Microbiology, Immunology, and Infection], 50(3), 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmii.2015.07.001

Patel, P. K., Greene, M. T., Jones, K., Rolle, A. J., Ratz, D., Snyder, A., Saint, S., & Chopra, V. (2019). Quantitative results of a national intervention to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infection: A pre-post observational study: A pre-post observational study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 171(7_Suppl), S23–S29. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-3533

Scheck McAlearney, A., Hefner, J. L., Robbins, J., Harrison, M. I., & Garman, A. (2017). Preventing central line-associated bloodstream infections: a qualitative study of management practices. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology: The Official Journal of the Society of Hospital Epidemiologists of America, 36(5), 557–563. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2015.27

Zamir, N., Pook, M., McDonald, E., & Fox-Robichaud, A. E. (2020). Chlorhexidine locking device for central line infection prevention in ICU patients: protocol for an open-label pilot and feasibility randomized controlled trial. Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 6(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-020-0564-9

See the NUR 550 EBP PICOT Final Paper

Topic 3: Translational Research Framework And Legal And Ethical Considerations

Objectives:

  1. Discuss ethical guidelines for conducting translational research.
  2. Examine ethical considerations related to translating research into practice .
  3. Examine legal considerations related to translating research into practice.
  4. Discuss ethical research considerations specific to population health.

Topic 3 DQ 1

Oct 27-29, 2022

Discuss the ethical guidelines that would need to be implemented when conducting translational research. What are the ethical and legal considerations related to translating research into practice? Discuss what steps you would take as a member of a translational research team in order to establish ethical guidelines for conducting translational research.

Topic 3 DQ 2

Oct 27-31, 2022

Discuss the role of the Institutional Review Board. Discuss ethical research considerations specific to population health. How are respect for the persons, potential benefits and burdens of the research, and justice kept in balance? Provide an example.

Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal: PICOT

Assessment Description

PICOT (Population/Problem, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Time to achieve the outcome) is a method that helps clarify the qualities needed to create a good question out of a practice issue or problem affecting a population of focus.

The purpose of this assignment is to complete your PICOT for your selected nursing practice problem. Refer to your “Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal: Identification of Nursing Practice Problem” assignment from Topic 1 to complete this assignment. If your nursing practice problem or PICOT required revision, include those revisions in this assignment. The final PICOT you develop in this assignment will provide the framework for developing your evidence-based practice project proposal. Use the “PICOT-Final” template to complete this assignment.

Refer to the “Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal – Assignment Overview” document for an overview of the evidence-based practice project proposal assignments.

You are required to cite at least four 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.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be 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 not required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.

Attachments

NUR-550-RS3-EBP PICOT Final.docx

Rubric Criteria

Collapse All Rubric CriteriaCollapse All

Population (Revision)

5.25 points

Criteria Description

Population (Revision)

  1. Excellen

5.25 points

The population is thoroughly and accurately described. No revision was needed.

  1. Good

4.83 points

NA

  1. Satisfactory

4.62 points

Revisions were made accordingly for the population description, but some information or detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.

  1. Less Than Satisfactory

4.2 points

NA

  1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The population is not described, or the required revisions were not made for the population description.

Intervention (Revision)

6 points

Criteria Description

Intervention (Revision)

  1. Excellen

6 points

The proposed intervention is clearly described and relevant to the nursing practice problem and population. No revision was needed.

  1. Good

5.52 points

NA

  1. Satisfactory

5.28 points

Revisions were made accordingly for the proposed intervention, but some information or detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.

  1. Less Than Satisfactory

4.8 points

NA

  1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The proposed intervention is not described, or the required revisions were not made for the described intervention.

Comparison

7.5 points

Criteria Description

Comparison

  1. Excellen

7.5 points

A description of the comparison information is extremely thorough with substantial evidence and measurable outcomes.

  1. Good

6.9 points

A description of the comparison information is complete and includes sufficient evidence and measurable outcomes.

  1. Satisfactory

6.6 points

A description of the comparison information is included but lacks evidence and measurable outcomes.

  1. Less Than Satisfactory

6 points

A description of the comparison information is incomplete or incorrect.

  1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

A description of the comparison information is not included.

Outcome

7.5 points

Criteria Description

Outcome

  1. Excellent

7.5 points

A description of the outcome is extremely thorough with substantial evidence

  1. Good

6.9 points

A description of the outcome is complete and includes sufficient evidence.

  1. Satisfactory

6.6 points

A description of the outcome is included but lacks evidence.

  1. Less Than Satisfactory

6 points

A description of the outcome is not included.

  1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

A description of the outcome is not included.

Timeline

7.5 points

Criteria Description

Timeline

  1. Excellen

7.5 points

A description of the timeline is extremely thorough with substantial evidence.

  1. Good

6.9 points

A description of the timelines is complete and includes sufficient evidence.

  1. Satisfactory

6.6 points

A description of the timeline is included but lacks evidence.

  1. Less Than Satisfactory

6 points

A description of the timeline is incomplete or incorrect.

  1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

A description of the timeline is not included.

PICOT

15 points

Criteria Description

PICOT

  1. Excellen

15 points

The PICOT statement concisely and accurately describes the problem.

  1. Good

13.8 points

The PICOT statement is presented. Some detail is needed.

  1. Satisfactory

13.2 points

The PICOT statement is presented but there some inaccuracies.

  1. Less Than Satisfactory

12 points

The PICOT statement is incomplete.

  1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The PICOT statement is omitted.

Problem Statement

15 points

Criteria Description

Problem Statement

  1. Excellent

15 points

The problem statement concisely describes the issue using strong support to rationalize and justify the problem.

  1. Good

13.8 points

The problem statement is presented. Adequate support is provided to justify or rationalize the problem.

  1. Satisfactory

13.2 points

The problem statement is generally presented. There are some inaccuracies. More support is needed to justify or rationalize the problem.

  1. Less Than Satisfactory

12 points

The problem statement is incomplete.

  1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

A problem statement is not included.

Required Sources

3.75 points

Criteria Description

Required Sources

  1. Excellent

3.75 points

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

  1. Good

3.45 points

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

  1. Satisfactory

3.3 points

Number of required sources is met, but sources are outdated or inappropriate.

  1. Less Than Satisfactory

3 points

Number of required sources is only partially met.

  1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Sources are not included.

Mechanics of Writing

3.75 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)

  1. Excellent

3.75 points

The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

  1. Good

3.45 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.

  1. Satisfactory

3.3 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.

  1. Less Than Satisfactory

3 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 employed.

Documentation of Sources

3.75 points

Criteria Description

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

  1. Excellent

3.75 points

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

  1. Good

3.45 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

  1. Satisfactory

3.3 points

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

  1. Less Than Satisfactory

3 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.

Total75 points

Topic 4: Critical Appraisal Of Research

Objectives:

  1. Distinguish between reliability and validity in research design.
  2. Analyze the reliability and validity of methods and results in a translational research article.
  3. Describe strategies to maintain the integrity of translational research.
  4. Discuss challenges of research design and data collections.

Topic 4 DQ 1

Nov 3-5, 2022

Distinguish between reliability and validity in research design. Using a translational research article from your graphic organizer, analyze the methods and results sections to discuss reliability and validity as it relates to the translational research. Include the permalink to the article in your reference.

Topic 4 DQ 2

Nov 3-7, 2022

Identify a data collection tool you could use for your research. Consider how you could employ translational research to potentially overcome barriers, which may arise during data collection. Identify the best type of translational research to address this barrier and provide rationale for the type you have chosen. What strategies would you employ to provide an understanding of your chosen type of translational research and to gather collaborative support?

Benchmark – Evidence-Based Practice Project: PICOT Paper

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.

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

  1. Describe the population’s demographics and health concerns.
  2. 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.
  3. Compare your intervention to previous practice or research.
  4. Explain what the expected outcome is for the intervention.
  5. Describe the time for implementing the intervention and evaluating the outcome.
  6. 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.
  7. Create an Appendix for your paper and attach the PICOT. Be sure to review feedback from your previous submission and revise your PICOT accordingly.
  8. 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 – 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-MSNMSN-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.

Rubric Criteria

Collapse All Rubric CriteriaCollapse All

Population Demographics and Health Concerns

7.5 points

Criteria Description

Population Demographics and Health Concerns

  1. Excellent

7.5 points

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

  1. Good

6.9 points

The demographics and health concerns for the population are described using sufficient evidence.

  1. Satisfactory

6.6 points

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

  1. 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

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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

  1. Excellent

18 points

Comparison of intervention to previous practice or research is thorough and clearly presented.

  1. Good

16.56 points

Comparison of intervention to previous practice or research is adequately presented.

  1. Satisfactory

15.84 points

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

  1. 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

  1. Excellent

15 points

The expected outcome for the intervention is thoroughly explained using substantial evidence.

  1. Good

13.8 points

The expected outcome for the intervention is explained using sufficient evidence.

  1. Satisfactory

13.2 points

The expected outcome is for the intervention is summarized. More information and supporting evidence is needed.

  1. 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

  1. Excellent

15 points

A description of the timeline is extremely thorough with substantial evidence.

  1. Good

13.8 points

A description of the timelines is complete and includes a sufficient amount of evidence.

  1. Satisfactory

13.2 points

A description of the timeline is included but lacks evidence.

  1. 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)

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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

  1. Excellent

7.5 points

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

  1. 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.

  1. Satisfactory

6.6 points

Number of required sources is met, but sources are outdated or inappropriate.

  1. 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

  1. Excellent

10.5 points

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

  1. 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.

  1. Satisfactory

9.24 points

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

  1. 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

  1. Excellent

12 points

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

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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)

  1. Excellent

7.5 points

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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)

  1. Excellent

7.5 points

All format elements are correct.

  1. Good

6.9 points

Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

  1. Satisfactory

6.6 points

Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

  1. 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)

  1. Excellent

7.5 points

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

  1. Good

6.9 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

  1. Satisfactory

6.6 points

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

  1. 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.

Total150 points