Literature Evaluation Table Student Name: Change Topic (2-3 sentences): Criteria Article 1 Article 2 Article 3 Author, Journal (PeerReviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article Article Title and Year Published Research Questions (Qualitative)/Hypothesis (Quantitative) Purposes/Aim of Study Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative) Setting/Sample Methods: Intervention/Instruments Analysis Key Findings Recommendations Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP/Capstone Project © 2015. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Article 4 Criteria Article 5 Article 6 Article 7 Author, Journal (PeerReviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article Article Title and Year Published Research Questions (Qualitative)/Hypothesis (Quantitative) Purposes/Aim of Study Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative) Setting/Sample Methods: Intervention/Instruments Analysis Key Findings Recommendations Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP/Capstone © 2017. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Article 8 Course Code NRS-493 Class Code NRS-493-O503 Criteria Content Percentage 100.0% Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article 5.0% Article Title and Year Published 5.0% Research Questions (Qualitative) or Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes or Aim of Study 10.0% Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative) 5.0% Setting or Sample 5.0% Methods: Intervention or Instruments 5.0% Analysis 10.0% Key Findings 10.0% Recommendations 10.0% Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP or Capstone 10.0% Presentation 10.0% Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use) 10.0% Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style 5.0% Total Weightage 100% Assignment Title Literature Evaluation Table 1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%) Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is not included. Article title and year published section is not included. Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is not included. Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is not included. Setting or sample section is not included. Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is not included. Analysis section is not included. Key findings section is not included. Recommendations section is not included. Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is not included. The piece is not neat or organized, and it does not include all required elements. Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed. Sources are not documented. Total Points 50.0 2: Less Than Satisfactory (75.00%) Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. Article title and year published section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. Setting or sample section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. Analysis section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. Key findings section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. Recommendations section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. The work is not neat and includes minor flaws or omissions of required elements. 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. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. 3: Satisfactory (79.00%) Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is present. Article title and year published section is present. Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is present. Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present. Setting or sample section is present. Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is present. Analysis section is present. Key findings section is present. Recommendations section is present. Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is provided. The overall appearance is general, and major elements are missing. 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. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. 4: Good (89.00%) Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is clearly provided and well developed. Article title and year published section is clearly provided and well developed. Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is clearly provided and well developed. Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is clearly provided and well developed. Setting or sample section is clearly provided and well developed. Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is clearly provided and well developed. Analysis section is clearly provided and well developed. Key findings section is clearly provided and well developed. Recommendations section is clearly provided and well developed. Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is clearly provided and well developed. The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor flaws or missing elements. 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. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. 5: Excellent (100.00%) Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details. Article title and year published section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details. Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details. Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details. Setting or sample section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details. Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details. Comments Analysis section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details. Key findings section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details. Recommendations section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details. Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details. The work is well presented and includes all required elements. The overall appearance is neat and professional. The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. Points Earned 1. Articles Summary Votruba, L., Graham, B., Wisinski, J., & Syed, A. (2016, July-August). Video monitoring to reduce falls and patient companion costs for adult inpatients. Nursing Economics, 34(4), 185+. This article details a study whereby video monitoring was compared to having a patient sitter or companion. The findings were that video monitoring improved patient falls and increased number of patients who were monitored. The article presents the strength of comparing two interventions which are utilized in the area of practice. On the other hand, the article does not address the weaknesses of monitoring system. However, it can be used as evidence for an alternative to using patient sitters or companions. Cournan, M., Fusco-Gessick, B., & Wright, L. (2018). Improving patient safety through video monitoring. Rehabilitation Nursing Journal, 43(2), 111-115. In this study, patient monitoring systems were installed in high risk units of an in-patient hospital to monitor falls. A sequential cohort study was conducted and showed that patient falls reduced from 6.34 per 1000 patients to 5.099. This reduction was statistically significant hence promoting usage of monitoring systems. On the one hand, the study is applicable to any high-risk unit and hence presents reliable evidence. On the other hand, the researchers did not account for patient fluctuations and conditions that patients had as determinants of falls. Sand-Jecklin, K., Johnson, J. R., & Tylka, S. (2016). Protecting patient safety: Can video monitoring prevent falls in high-risk patient populations? Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 31(2), 131-138. This article describes the implementation and implications of using video monitoring to prevent falls in high-risk patient populations. It concludes that although the approach is effective, it also presents various barriers such as cost and the response to patient falls. On the upper side, the article draws evidence from various previous studies and hence combines a lot of evidence to make the argument. On the downside, the article lacks originality and hence the provisions of the authors are not reliable evidence. Klymko, K., Etcher, L., Munchiando, J., & Royse, M. (2016). Video monitoring: a room with a view, or a window to challenges in falls prevention research?. Medsurg Nursing, 25(5), 329. This is a qualitative study on the experiences of using video monitoring to reduce patient falls. The authors sought to determine the advantages and weaknesses of using video monitoring. They discovered that although the method presents an opportunity to understand fall risk behavior, there is need for more studies on it to promote knowledge and implementation. The study presents the benefit of considering practitioners’ views in addressing patient falls. Elsewhere, the findings were based on a single location and hence reduce the reliability and transferability of findings. Brown Kramer, J., Sabalka, L., Rush, B., Jones, K., & Nolte, T. (2020). Automated Depth Video Monitoring for Fall Reduction: A Case Study. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (pp. 294-295). This conference article describes a video monitoring technology to use for fall reduction in healthcare systems. The authors claim that the technology is accurate in monitoring patterns and enabling providers to prevent falls. The presentation of specific technology supports the actual implementation of video monitoring and hence presents a tool that can be used in healthcare organizations. A weakness of the study is that the tool’s reliability has not been tested hence presenting barriers to its implementation. King, B., Pecanac, K., Krupp, A., Liebzeit, D., & Mahoney, J. (2018). Impact of fall prevention on nurses and care of fall risk patients. The Gerontologist, 58(2), 331-340. The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of fall reduction interventions on practice. To do so, the researchers implemented a qualitative study of nurses’ experiences and fall prevention in hospital settings. The study showed that intense messaging from hospital administration on fall reduction led to nurses developing fear of falls, protecting themselves, and restricting patients at high risk. The study’s strength is in identifying unintended consequences of fall reduction interventions. Elsewhere, it does not offer commentary on effectiveness of fall reduction and hence might not be of much use in this project.
Purchase answer to see full attachment