Identify at least two central elements of the Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Choose a peer- reviewed journal article that uses one of the theories and analyze how that theory was used to guide the study.This journal entry should be 400M5 Theory Journal RubricM5 Theory Journal RubricCriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentification of central elements of theories17.5 to >15.73 ptsAStudent clearly identifies at least 2 central elements of Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behavior and discusses them thoroughly.15.73 to >13.98 ptsBStudent identifies 1- 2 central elements of Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behavior; this discussion lacks some depth or detail.13.98 to >12.23 ptsCStudent identifies 1 central element of Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behavior; this discussion lacks depth and detail.12.23 to >0 ptsFStudent fails to identify elements of Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behavior.17.5 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentification of a peer-reviewed journal article using one of the theories10.5 to >9.43 ptsAStudent identifies a peer-reviewed journal article using one of the theories, and clearly and thoroughly discusses how the theory was used to guide the study.9.43 to >8.38 ptsBStudent clearly identifies a peer-reviewed journal article using one of the theories and discusses how the theory was used to guide the study; this discussion may lack some depth or detail.8.38 to >7.33 ptsCStudent identifies a peer-reviewed journal article using one of the theories and discusses how the theory was used to guide the study; this discussion lacks depth and detail.7.33 to >0 ptsFStudent fails to identify a peer-reviewed article using one of the theories and/or fails to discuss how the theory was used to guide the study; or the discussion provided is unclear.10.5 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAcademic writing5.25 to >4.71 ptsAWriting demonstrates attention to logic and reasoning of points; writing is unified and clearly leads the reader through the points presented.4.71 to >4.19 ptsBWriting is coherent and logically organized, although somewhat wordy in places.4.19 to >3.66 ptsCWriting is coherent and logically organized, although some points may stray from the topic, and some passages are unnecessarily wordy.3.66 to >0 ptsFWriting is disorganized and difficult to follow, may be unnecessarily wordy.5.25 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFormat (APA, spelling, grammar, length)1.75 ptsAEntry meets length requirements with no errors in APA format, spelling, or grammar.1.75 to >1.39 ptsBEntry meets length requirements with only a few minimal errors in APA format, spelling, and/or grammar; these errors do not detract from the readability of the entry.1.39 to >1.22 ptsCEntry meets length requirements with several errors in APA format, spelling, and/or grammar; spell-check and grammar-check is recommended to help catch these errors.1.22 to >0 ptsFEntry does not meet length requirements, and/or has extensive errors in APA format, spelling, and/or grammar; use of the University Writing Center is highly recommended.1.75 pt

While the implementation plan prepares students to apply their research to the problem or issue they have identified for their capstone project change proposal, the literature review enables students to map out and move into the active planning and development stages of the project.A literature review analyzes how current research supports the PICOT, as well as identifies what is known and what is not known in the evidence. Students will use the information from the earlier PICOT Question Paper and Literature Evaluation Table assignments to develop a 750-1,000 word review that includes the following sections:Title pageIntroduction sectionA comparison of research questionsA comparison of sample populationsA comparison of the limitations of the studyA conclusion section, incorporating recommendations for further researchPrepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

Choose a patient-care situation in which the RN should intervene and advocate for the patient. An example of such a situation might be when a patient has not been given complete informed consent.Include the following in your paper:Describe the clinical situation concisely and descriptively. It can be an actual situation or a hypothetical one.Apply the bioethical decision making model to the specific clinical ethical situation that you choose. Address each section of the model in your paper.Conclude with a discussion of nursing advocacy in the clinical setting and the nurse’s role as a patient advocate. Your paper should be 4-5 pages.You must reference and cite 1-2 scholarly sources other than your text. Include a title page and a reference page to cite your text and adhere to APA formatting. an example is taken from COMPETENT PATIENT A competent adult patient’s wishes concerning his or her person may not be disregarded. The court in In re Melideo12 held that every human being of adult years has a right to determine what shall be done with his or her own body and cannot be subjected to medical treatment without his or her consent. When there is no compelling state interest that justifies overriding an adult patient’s decision, that decision should be respected. State interests include preserving life, preventing suicide, safeguarding the integrity of the medical profession, and protecting innocent third parties SPOUSE The patient in Greynolds v. Kurman13 suffered a transient ischemic attack, a sudden loss of neurological function caused by vascular impairment to the brain. He was taken to an emergency department. Because of the patient’s prior medical history, which included transient ischemic attacks, he was at high risk for a stroke. After receiving the results of noninvasive tests, Dr. Rafecas, a consulting physician, ordered a cerebral angiogram. Dr. Kurman performed the angiogram, and the patient suffered a stroke during the procedure that left him severely disabled. The patient and his wife filed a medical malpractice action against Rafecas and Kurman, asserting that Rafecas had negligently recommended the procedure and that Kurman had performed the procedure without obtaining informed consent. The court of appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to support a judgment in favor of the patient and his wife. The jury needed to determine that the risks involved in the cerebral angiogram were not disclosed, that the risks involved in the procedure materialized and caused the stroke, and that a reasonable person in the position of the patient would have decided against having the angiogram had the risks associated with the procedure been disclosed. The jury concluded that the patient did not consent to the angiogram because he “was not … capable of comprehending the consent form” and further noted that Kurman should have sought consent from the next of kin, specifically the spouse. Given the evidence of the patient’s condition when he signed the consent forms, his past medical history, and his increased risk of suffering complications during an angiogram, the court found that evidence supported a finding of lack of informed consent. This is from Pozgar, G.D Legal and Ethical Issues for Health Professional. Bioethical decision making model is based on these Bullet point Introduction Dilemma Medical facts Non-medical facts Review the Underlaying Ethical Principles Define Alternatives Define the process to be used with the chosen alternative. Conclusion