Article #1 The development of evidence-based prevention. Health promotion and education as an approach to continuous quality improvement of health care. Transliterated Title: Evidenzbasierte Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung. Probleme und Lösungsansätze zur kontinuierlichen Qualitätsverbesserung der Versorgung. Authors: Kliche T; Universitätsklinikum Eppendorf, Hamburg. t.kliche@uke.uni-hamburg.de Koch U Lehmann H Töppich J Source: Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz [Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz] 2006 Feb; Vol. 49 (2), pp. 141-50. Publication Type: English Abstract; Journal Article Language: German Journal Info: Publisher: Springer Country of Publication: Germany NLM ID: 101181368 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Print ISSN: 1436-9990 (Print) Linking ISSN: 14369990 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz Subsets: MEDLINE Imprint Name(s): Original Publication: Berlin : Springer, MeSH Terms: Delivery of Health Care/*organization & administration Evidence-Based Medicine/*organization & administration Health Education/*organization & administration Health Promotion/*organization & administration Preventive Medicine/*organization & administration Quality Assurance, Health Care/*organization & administration Delivery of Health Care/methods ; Evidence-Based Medicine/methods ; Germany ; Health Education/methods ; Health Promotion/methods ; Preventive Medicine/methods ; Quality Assurance, Health Care/methods Abstract: Evidence-based health promotion and education relies on the systematic and critical discussion of the best available research on the effectiveness of interventions. In the last decade, evidence-based reviews provided decisive proof for the effectiveness of health promotion and education. The approach is also capable of identifying high-quality interventions and deficiencies. Nevertheless, there is an ongoing dispute concerning the transfer of evidence-based medicine to health promotion and education. Arguments concern databases, research strategies, validity and practical applicability of results. A discussion of these issues suggests that the methodology of evidence-based medicine is pertinent and informative. Some adaptations for health promotion and education would make sense, though: contexts and characteristics of interventions should be documented and published in rather more detail in order to reach better causal models. Pre-post studies which are of particular importance for health promotion and education should be elaborated according to the psychological multi-trait multi-method strategy (multiple measurements, modelling of process levels, multidimensional operationalization of complex outcomes). All relevant knowledge including qualitative studies should be integrated into cycles of theory formulation and evidence testing. Finally, a reappraisal of expert opinion is proposed relying on specific criteria for the transparency and plurality of consensus procedures ruling out conflicts of interest. Entry Date(s): Date Created: 20060214 Date Completed: 20060330 Latest Revision: 20160707 Update Code: 20161213 PMID: 16429307 Database: MEDLINE Complete References APA format: Kliche, T., Koch, U., Lehmann, H., & Töppich, J. (2006). [The development of evidencebased prevention. Health promotion and education as an approach to continuous quality improvement of health care]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 49(2), 141-150. Article #2 Providing individualized education to patients post myocardial infarction: A literature review. Authors: Garvey, Niamh Noonan, Brendan Source: British Journal of Cardiac Nursing; Feb2011, Vol. 6 Issue 2, p73-79, 7p, 1 Color Photograph, 1 Chart Publication Year: 2011 Author-Supplied Keywords: Cardiac rehabilitation Education methods Heart attack Literature review Myocardial infarction Abstract: Aim: This article aims to review the published literature on providing individualized education to patients post myocardial infarction with focus on education methods. Background: Myocardial infarction (MI) is a leading cause of death worldwide. Patient education is vital to cardiac rehabilitation to reduce morbidity and mortality. Many factors increase a patient's risk of reoccurrence of MI including smoking, obesity, hypertension, high cholesterol and sedentary lifestyle. Cardiac rehabilitation is vital to increase patient's awareness of risk factors in order to improve their chance of recovery and survival. The participation of patients in their own care has also been shown to improve cardiac rehabilitation. Research has demonstrated that information plays a vital role in patient recovery and prevention of further MI. Nonetheless, research studies continue to conclude that patient education needs are not being met. Conclusions: In this literature review individualized education was identified as the most effective rehabilitation for MI patients. Patient education needs, preferences, social factors and stage of recovery need to be individually assessed. Only then can education specific to the individual patient be compiled and the most appropriate education method chosen through which the information can be delivered. Relevance to clinical practice: Nurses are in a prime position to assess patient education needs and with the help of evidence-based practice and research findings, nurses can implement cardiac rehabilitation programmes that will provide the most effective education for the individual patient and family. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of British Journal of Cardiac Nursing is the property of Mark Allen Holdings Limited and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) ISSN: 17496403 Accession Number: 59258427 References Garvey, N., & Noonan, B. (2011). Providing individualized education to patients post myocardial infarction: A literature review. British Journal Of Cardiac Nursing, 6(2), 73. Article #3: Comparative cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve medication adherence after myocardial infarction. Authors: Ito K; Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02120, USA. Shrank WH Avorn J Patrick AR Brennan TA Antman EM Choudhry NK Source: Health Services Research [Health Serv Res] 2012 Dec; Vol. 47 (6), pp. 2097-117. Date of Electronic Publication: 2012 Sep 21. Publication Type: Comparative Study; Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Language: English Journal Info: Publisher: Blackwell Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 0053006 Publication Model: PrintElectronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1475-6773 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 00179124 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Health Serv Res Subsets: MEDLINE Imprint Name(s): Publication: Malden, MA : Blackwell Original Publication: Chicago, Hospital Research and Educational Trust. MeSH Terms: Cardiovascular Agents/*therapeutic use Medication Adherence/*statistics & numerical data Myocardial Infarction/*drug therapy Aged ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Disease Management ; Drug Therapy, Combination ; Humans ; Markov Chains ; Models, Economic ; Patient Education as Topic/economics ; Patient Education as Topic/methods ; Polypharmacy ; Quality-Adjusted Life Years Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the comparative cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve adherence to evidence-based medications among postmyocardial infarction (MI) patients. Data Sources/study Setting: Cost-effectiveness analysis. Study Design: We developed a Markov model simulating a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old post-MI patients who were prescribed secondary prevention medications. We evaluated mailed education, disease management, polypill use, and combinations of these interventions. The analysis was performed from a societal perspective over a lifetime horizon. The main outcome was an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) as measured by cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Data Collection/extraction Methods: Model inputs were extracted from published literature. Principal Findings: Compared with usual care, only mailed education had both improved health outcomes and reduced spending. Mailed education plus disease management, disease management, polypill use, polypill use plus mailed education, and polypill use plus disease management cost were $74,600, $69,200, $133,000, $113,000, and $142,900 per QALY gained, respectively. In an incremental analysis, only mailed education had an ICER of less than $100,000 per QALY and was therefore the optimal strategy. Polypill use, particularly when combined with mailed education, could be cost effective, and potentially cost saving if its price decreased to less than $100 per month. Conclusions: Mailed education and a polypill, once available, may be the cost-saving strategies for improving post-MI medication adherence. (© Health Research and Educational Trust.) Comments: Cites: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008 Dec;17(12):1189-96. (PMID: 18956426) Cites: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(2):CD000011. (PMID: 18425859) Cites: Circulation. 2009 Dec 1;120(22):2271-306. (PMID: 19923169) Cites: Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2010;10(2):95-103. (PMID: 20334446) Cites: J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Oct;25(10):1090-6. (PMID: 20464522) Cites: N Engl J Med. 2010 Sep 23;363(13):1245-55. (PMID: 20860506) Cites: Circulation. 2010 Nov 16;122(20):2078-88. (PMID: 21098469) Cites: Circulation. 2011 Feb 1;123(4):e18-e209. (PMID: 21160056) Cites: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Feb 15;57(7):784-91. (PMID: 21310313) Cites: Am Heart J. 2011 Apr;161(4):719-25. (PMID: 21473971) Cites: Arch Intern Med. 2011 May 9;171(9):814-22. (PMID: 21555659) Cites: N Engl J Med. 2011 Nov 3;365(18):1704-12. (PMID: 22047561) Cites: Am Heart J. 2011 Nov;162(5):811-817.e1. (PMID: 22093195) Cites: N Engl J Med. 2011 Dec 1;365(22):2088-97. (PMID: 22080794) Cites: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(12):CD008895. (PMID: 22161440) Cites: J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2012 May-Jun;52(3):381-97. (PMID: 22618980) Cites: Ann Intern Med. 2000 May 16;132(10):780-7. (PMID: 10819700) Cites: Lancet. 2001 May 5;357(9266):1385-90. (PMID: 11356434) Cites: J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Dec;54(12):1244-50. (PMID: 11750193) Cites: JAMA. 2002 Jul 24-31;288(4):455-61. (PMID: 12132975) Cites: Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2003 Apr 1;60(7):657-65. (PMID: 12701547) Cites: Ann Intern Med. 2004 Sep 7;141(5):343-51. (PMID: 15353425) Cites: Circulation. 1995 Nov 15;92(10):2811-8. (PMID: 7586246) Cites: Bull World Health Organ. 2004 Dec;82(12):935-9. (PMID: 15654408) Cites: CMAJ. 2005 Feb 1;172(3):345-51. (PMID: 15684117) Cites: Circulation. 2006 Jan 17;113(2):203-12. (PMID: 16401776) Cites: Bull World Health Organ. 2005 Dec;83(12):885-7. (PMID: 16462975) Cites: Arch Intern Med. 2006 Apr 10;166(7):787-96. (PMID: 16606817) Cites: Med Decis Making. 2006 Jul-Aug;26(4):391-400. (PMID: 16855127) Cites: Lancet. 2006 Aug 19;368(9536):679-86. (PMID: 16920473) Cites: Am Heart J. 2006 Sep;152(3):454.e1-8. (PMID: 16923412) Cites: Stroke. 2006 Oct;37(10):2567-72. (PMID: 16946158) Cites: JAMA. 2007 Jan 10;297(2):177-86. (PMID: 17213401) Cites: Arch Intern Med. 2007 Mar 26;167(6):540-50. (PMID: 17389285) Cites: Ann Intern Med. 2007 May 15;146(10):714-25. (PMID: 17502632) Cites: Am J Med. 2007 Aug;120(8):713-9. (PMID: 17679131) Cites: Circulation. 2008 Feb 26;117(8):1028-36. (PMID: 18299512) Cites: Arch Intern Med. 2008 Mar 10;168(5):477-83; discussion 483; quiz 447. (PMID: 18332291) Cites: Circulation. 2008 Mar 11;117(10):1261-8. (PMID: 18285564) Cites: Am Heart J. 2008 Apr;155(4):772-9. (PMID: 18371492) Cites: Lancet. 2009 Apr 18;373(9672):1341-51. (PMID: 19339045) Molecular Sequence: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01057537 Substance Nomenclature: 0 (Cardiovascular Agents) Entry Date(s): Date Created: 20121113 Date Completed: 20130122 Latest Revision: 20161206 Update Code: 20161213 PubMed Central ID: PMC3523366 DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01462.x PMID: 22998129 Database: MEDLINE Complete References Ito, K., Shrank, W. H., Avorn, J., Patrick, A. R., Brennan, T. A., Antman, E. M., & Choudhry, N. K. (2012). Comparative cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve medication adherence after myocardial infarction. Health Services Research, 47(6), 2097-2117. doi:10.1111/j.14756773.2012.01462.x Article #4: Developing a more integrated support system for people postMI: lessons from the research evidence. Authors: Jackson, Angela1 A.M.Jackson-1@sms.ed.ac.uk Source: International Journal of Integrated Care (IJIC). 2008 Supplement, Special section p1-1. 1p. Document Type: Article Subject Terms: *CARDIAC rehabilitation *MYOCARDIAL infarction *INTEGRATED delivery of health care *SUPPORT groups *COMMUNITY health services Author-Supplied Keywords: myocardial infarction rehabilitation Scotland NAICS/Industry Codes: 621498 All Other Outpatient Care Centers 621494 Community health centres 913910 Other local, municipal and regional public administration 623220 Residential Mental Health and Substance Abuse Facilities 624190 Other Individual and Family Services 624120 Services for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Abstract: Purpose: This PhD study explores the perspectives and experiences of people who do not use existing cardiac resources following a myocardial infarction (MI)/'heart attack', and of their family members/friends. How might the system of post-MI support be improved to help more people care for their heart instead of 'voting with their feet'? Background: A large proportion of post-MI people, and particularly certain demographic groups, do not attend Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR)--the main support programme following an MI/'heart attack', or Cardiac Support Groups (CSGs)--the main communitybased resource. Research indicates that post-MI people experience difficulties recovering after an MI and undertaking secondary prevention measures, and family members/carers experience difficulty supporting this process. Little is known or understood about the substantial 'non-participant' group. Methods: Qualitative study in Lothian region, Scotland. In-depth interviews with 27 post-MI 'nonparticipants' identified by screening questionnaire from the wider post-MI population, and 17 family members/friends. Findings and Implications: Insight is given into the perspectives of people who did not use CR and/or a CSG about the reasons for non-use and their experiences of post-MI rehabilitation/recovery and managing CHD without these resources. Implications of the findings in terms of these specific resources and the current model of post-MI support are discussed. Suggestions are made for ways that a more integrated post-MI support system might cater better for the needs of people who otherwise may end up outside the system without the support they require. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of International Journal of Integrated Care (IJIC) is the property of Ubiquity Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) Author Affiliations: 1Research Unit in Health, Behaviour and Change, The University of Edinburgh, Clinical Sciences and Community Health Medical School, Edinburgh, UK. ISSN: 1568-4156 Accession Number: 40513698 Database: Health Policy Reference Center References Jackson, A. (2008). Developing a more integrated support system for people post-MI: lessons from the research evidence. International Journal Of Integrated Care (IJIC), 1. Chamberlain College of Nursing NR 439 PICOT and Evidence Appraisal Worksheet PICOT and Evidence Appraisal Worksheet – Week 3 PART 1: PICOT QUESTION Name: Date: 03/13/17 Your Instructor’s Name: Purpose: To identify a problem or concern that nursing can change and develop a PICOT question to guide the change project. Directions: Use the form below to complete the Week 3 Assignment PICOT Evidence Worksheet. This includes filling in the table with information about your research question and your PICOT elements and the second part is filling in the Evidence Worksheet. Step 1: Select the key PICO terms for searching the evidence. Clearly define your PICOT question. List each element P (problem, population, or problem), I (intervention), C (Comparison with other treatment/current practice), and O (Desired outcome), T (Time Frame). Is the potential solution something for which you (as nurse or student) can find a solution through evidence research? Look in your book for guidelines to developing your PICOT question and also read the required articles. Step 2: Identify the problem. What have you noticed in your work or school environment that isn’t achieving the desired patient or learning outcomes? What needs to change in nursing, what can you change with the support of evidence in the literature? Describe the problem or practice issue that you want to research. What is your practice area; clinical, education, or administration? (This is NOT where you will list your PICOT question) Step 3: How was the practice issues identified? How did you come to know this was a problem in your clinical practice? Review the listed concerns and check all that apply. Step 4: What evidence must be gathered? Everyone should have a literature search. However, what other sources of reliable information will be helpful for your particular question? Step 5: What terms will you use in order to make sure that your search is wide enough to obtain required information but narrow enough to keep it focused? What databases will you search? How will you narrow your search if needed? NR439 PICOT and Evidence Appraisal Worksheet 2/13/17 jw 1 Chamberlain College of Nursing NR 439 PICOT and Evidence Appraisal Worksheet PICOT Question What is the PICOT question? Can post management of an MI reduce readmissions for further complications and reoccurrences? Define each element of the question below: P- (Patient, population, or problem): Target population is over the age of 25, male or female. I- (Intervention): Implement diet programs, safe exercise routines and educational material along with prevention resources. C- (Comparison with other treatment/current practice): Hospitals to continue current management and continued increase in hospital costs, readmissions and increased surgeries vs. implementing early prevention programs and post management. O- (Desired outcome): Desired outcome will be to see a decrease in patients being re-hospitalized for myocardial infarctions and a decrease in surgeries. T- (Time Frame): no time factor. What is the practice issue/problem? Readmissions due to MI. What is the practice area? ___ Clinical ___ Administration __X_ Education ___ Other How was the practice issue identified? (check all that apply) ___ Difference between hospital and community practice __X_ Safety/risk management concerns ___ Clinical practice issue is a concern ___ Unsatisfactory patient outcomes ___ Procedure or process is a time waster ___ Wide variations in practice ___ Clinical practice issue has no scientific base ___ Significant financial concerns ___ Other: What evidence must be gathered? (check all that apply) __X_ Literature search __X_ Clinical Expertise ___ Guidelines _X__ Financial Analysis __X_ Expert Opinion ___ Standards (Regulatory, professional, community) NR439 PICOT and Evidence Appraisal Worksheet 2/13/17 jw 2 Chamberlain College of Nursing __X_ Patient Preferences NR 439 PICOT and Evidence Appraisal Worksheet X___ Other: Family/social support, risk factors. Search terms: Databases to search: Search Strategies: NR439 PICOT and Evidence Appraisal Worksheet 2/13/17 jw 3 Chamberlain College of Nursing NR 439 PICOT and Evidence Appraisal Worksheet PART 2: EVIDENCE APPRAISAL Name: Date: 03/13/17 Your Instructor’s Name: Purpose: To find evidence to support an intervention that will change the outcomes. Directions: Type your search question below. Find FOUR sources to support the need for change and the potential intervention you have selected to solve the problem. All of your sources must be peerreviewed articles, written within the last 5 years and from the CCN Library. Using the table below, insert and describe your four chosen resources. Step 1: APA Reference for the article. You will need to list the reference for the source in APA format. Be careful when using built-in APA formats and library citations. They may not be in APA format. Refer to Chapter 7 of your APA manual and the resources in Course Resources. Step 2: Type of Source. If your source is a research article, you will need to ensure that it is a peer review article, written within 5 years and from the CCN Library. Step 3: Level of Evidence. Refer to page 23 in your text for levels of evidence. Step 4: Brief Description of the Research. In this section, you will summarize the source in your own words. How does this information apply to your project? What are the results of the source? What are their recommendations? What was the sample? NR439 PICOT and Evidence Appraisal Worksheet 2/13/17 jw 4 Chamberlain College of Nursing NR 439 PICOT and Evidence Appraisal Worksheet Evidence Appraisal APA Reference for Article Type of Level of Source Evidence and Purpose of Research Describe Sample Brief Description of Research Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4 NR439 PICOT and Evidence Appraisal Worksheet 2/13/17 jw 5 Chamberlain College of Nursing NR439 Evidence Based Practice PICOT and Evidence Appraisal Worksheet: Guidelines and Grading Rubric PURPOSE Clear identification of the problem or opportunity is the first step in evidence-based nursing. This assignment offers two tools to assist in the identification and gathering of evidence to link the problem, proposed intervention, and desired outcomes. Completion of the assignment will include identification of the problem or concern using the PICOT format and an evidence appraisal to find evidence to support an intervention that will change the outcomes. COURSE OUTCOMES This assignment enables the student to meet the following Course Outcome. CO 1: Examine the sources of evidence that contribute to professional nursing practice. (PO 7) DUE DATE This assignment consists of the completion of a worksheet that contains two parts, i.e., the PICOT question and the Evidence Appraisal Worksheet. Submit the completed worksheet to the Dropbox by Sunday, 11:59 p.m. MT at the end of Week 3. POINTS This assignment is worth 200 points (75 points for the PICOT question and 125 points for the evidence appraisal). DIRECTIONS 1. Read these guidelines including the grading rubrics below. Watch this video on how to complete the assignment at http://www.brainshark.com/devry/vu?pi=zGTzdYMTLzHr05z0 2. Download the PICOT and Evidence Appraisal worksheet form from Course Resources. Consider what is the nursing problem or issue that you have uncovered. Make sure it is related to nursing, i.e., one that a nurse can solve independently. Do not select a medical problem that is dependent upon a medical professional to resolve. Completion of the PICOT portion of the worksheet will offer a tool for your literature search. 3. For the evidence appraisal portion of the worksheet, find FOUR sources to support the need for change and the potential intervention you have selected to solve the problem. All sources must be peer-reviewed articles, published in within the past 5 years and be able to be accessed from the CCN Library. 4. Submit the completed PICOT and Evidence Appraisal Worksheet to the Week 3 Dropbox. NR439 PICOT and Evidence Appraisal Worksheet Guidelines 2/13/17 jw 1 Chamberlain College of Nursing NR439 Evidence Based Practice GRADING CRITERIA: PICOT AND EVIDENCE WORKSHEET Category PICOT question and components Practice issue and scope of the problem Evidence and search terms Points % 40 20% 20 10% 20 10% Article Selection 30 15% Level of Evidence Description of Research 30 15% 60 30% 200 100 TOTAL Description Question or nursing problem is identified and is an independent nursing decision. PICOT elements are correctly identified. Outcomes are measurable. Practice issue/problem is thoroughly described. The need for change is evident. Practice area is identified. Identification of the practice issue is clear. Scope of the problem is identified. Appropriately identifies the types of evidences that should be gathered (must include literature search). Uses manageable search terms and ways in which the search can be narrowed if discussed. Four articles used. All are peer-reviewed research, published in last 5 years and from CCN Library. Type of source is properly identified. References are listed in APA format. Correct Level of Evidence applied. Reasons why the rating was given is clearly discussed and logical. Description of the research is thorough and detailed. Summary was given in own words. Results of the study were summarized with the application to the project noted. Recommendations for clinical practice were discussed. GRADING RUBRIC: PICOT AND EVIDENCE WORKSHEET Assignment Criteria PICOT question and components 40 points Practice issue and A (100%) Exceptional B (88%) Exceeds C (80%) Meets Outstanding or highest level of performance Question or nursing problem is identified and is an independent nursing decision. PICOT elements are correctly identified. Outcomes are measurable. 40 points ☐ Very good or high level of performance Question or nursing problem is identified and is an independent nursing decision. PICOT elements are correctly identified. Outcomes but are not measurable. 35 points ☐ Practice issue/problem is thoroughly Practice issue/problem is vaguely Competent or satisfactory level of performance Question or nursing problem is identified and is an independent nursing decision. One PICOT element is not correctly identified. Outcomes but are not measurable. 32 points ☐ Practice issue/problem is vaguely NR439 PICOT and Evidence Appraisal Worksheet Guidelines NI (38%) Needs Improvement Poor or failing level of performance Question or nursing problem is identified but is not an independent nursing decision. Several PICOT elements are not correctly identified. Outcomes are not measurable. 15 points ☐ Practice issue/problem is vaguely 2/13/17 jw F (0%) Developing Unsatisfactory level of performance Question or nursing problem is not identified. PICOT elements are not identified. Outcomes are not identified. 0 points ☐ Practice issue/problem is not described. 2 Chamberlain College of Nursing scope of the problem 20 points Evidence and search terms 20 points Article Selection 30 points Level of Evidence 30 points NR439 Evidence Based Practice described. The need for change is evident. Practice area is identified. Identification of the practice issue is clear. Scope of the problem is identified. 20 points ☐ Appropriately identifies the types of evidences that should be gathered (must include literature search). Uses manageable search terms and ways in which the search can be narrowed if discussed. 20 points ☐ Four articles used. All are peer-reviewed and written within last 5 years and from CCN Library. Type of source is properly identified. References are listed in APA format. 30 points ☐ described. The need for change is evident. Practice area is identified. Identification of the practice issue is clear. Scope of the problem is identified. 18 points ☐ described. The need for change is not obvious. Practice area is identified. Identification of the practice issue is clear. Scope of the problem is identified. 16 points ☐ described. Need for change is not obvious. Practice issues or scope of the problem are not accurate. 8 points ☐ Need for change is not stated. Practice issues or scope of the problem are not addressed. 0 points ☐ Appropriately identifies the types of evidences that should be gathered (must include literature search). Uses manageable search terms. Ways in which the search can be narrowed is not included. 18 points ☐ Appropriately identifies the types of evidences that should be gathered (must include literature search). Search terms are not measurable. Ways in which the search can be narrowed is not included. 16 points ☐ Types of evidence that should be gathered is incorrect Literature search yielded irrelevant results. Search terms are not measurable. Ways in which the search can be narrowed is not included. 8 points ☐ Types of evidence that should be gathered is not noted. Literature search not identified. Search terms are absent. Ways in which the search can be narrowed is not included. 0 points ☐ Four articles used. All are peer-reviewed and written within last 5 years and from CCN Library. Type of source is not properly identified. References are listed in APA format. 26 points ☐ Four articles used. All are peer-reviewed and written within last 5 years and from CCN Library. Type of source is not properly identified References some errors in APA format. 24 points ☐ Three articles are peer-reviewed research. Other source is not scholarly but deals with the change project. Type of source is not properly identified. References have multiple errors in APA. 11 points ☐ Correct Level of Evidence applied. Reasons why the rating was Correct Level of Evidence applied. Reason why the rating was given is Correct Level of Evidence applied. Reason why the rating Incorrect Level of Evidence is chosen. Reason why the rating Less than three articles are peerreviewed research. Other source is not scholarly nor does it deal with the change project. Type of source is not properly identified. References have multiple errors in APA. 0 points ☐ Level of Evidence is not mentioned. Reason why the rating was given is absent. NR439 PICOT and Evidence Appraisal Worksheet Guidelines 2/13/17 jw 3 Chamberlain College of Nursing given is clearly discussed and logical. 30 points ☐ Description of Research 60 points Description of the research is thorough and detailed. Summary was given in own words. Results of the study were summarized with the application to the project noted. Recommendati ons for clinical practice were discussed. 60 points ☐ documented but is not logical or clearly discussed. 26 points ☐ Description of the research is thorough and detailed. Summary was given in own words. Results of the study were listed but no application or summary of results were given. Recommendatio ns for clinical practice were discussed. 53 points ☐ NR439 Evidence Based Practice was given is vague or absent. 24 points ☐ was given is vague. 11 points ☐ 0 points ☐ Description of the research is vague. Summary was given in own words. Results of the study were listed but no application or summary of results were given. Recommendatio ns for clinical practice were not discussed. 48 points ☐ Description of the research is vague. Summary was not in own words but rather quotes from the source. Results of the study may not be listed but are inaccurate. Recommendation s for clinical practice were not discussed. 23 points ☐ Description of the research is missing. Summary is missing. Results of the study may not be listed. Recommendation s for clinical practice are missing. 0 points ☐ TOTAL Points Possible = 200 points NR439 PICOT and Evidence Appraisal Worksheet Guidelines 2/13/17 jw 4 
Purchase answer to see full attachment