Need help? We are here

Assignment: Evidence-Based Project
Is there a difference between “common practice” and “best practice”?
When you first went to work for your current organization, experienced colleagues may have shared with you details about processes and procedures. Perhaps you even attended an orientation session to brief you on these matters. As a “rookie,” you likely kept the nature of your questions to those with answers that would best help you perform your new role.
Over time and with experience, perhaps you recognized aspects of these processes and procedures that you wanted to question further. This is the realm of clinical inquiry.
Clinical inquiry is the practice of asking questions about clinical practice. To continuously improve patient care, all nurses should consistently use clinical inquiry to question why they are doing something the way they are doing it. Do they know why it is done this way, or is it just because we have always done it this way? Is it a common practice or a best practice?
In this Assignment, you will identify clinical areas of interest and inquiry and practice searching for research in support of maintaining or changing these practices. You will also analyze this research to compare research methodologies employed.
To Prepare:
· Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry.
· Based on the clinical issue of interest and using keywords related to the clinical issue of interest, search at least four different databases in the Walden Library to identify at least four relevant peer-reviewed articles related to your clinical issue of interest. You should not be using systematic reviews for this assignment, select original research articles.
· Review the results of your peer-reviewed research and reflect on the process of using an unfiltered database to search for peer-reviewed research.
· Reflect on the types of research methodologies contained in the four relevant peer-reviewed articles you selected.
Part 1: An Introduction to Clinical Inquiry
Create a 4- to 5-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:
· Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest. This clinical issue will remain the same for the entire course and will be the basis for the development of your PICOT question
· Describe how you used keywords to search on your chosen clinical issue of interest.
· Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected.
· Provide APA citations of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected.
Part 2: Identifying Research Methodologies
After reading each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, use the Matrix Worksheet template to analyze the methodologies applied in each of the four peer-reviewed articles. Your analysis should include the following:
· The full citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format.
· A brief (1-paragraph) statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest, including a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest.
· A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article.
· A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the research methodology used. Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific.
· A brief (1- to 2-paragraph) description of the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles you selected.
Submit Part 1 and Part 2 of your Evidence-Based Project.
Note: Part 1 is a 4-5 slide PowerPoint and Part 2 is the Matrix. Be sure to attach both of your documents (Part 1 and Part 2) before you click Submit.
RUBRIC
Part 1: An Introduction to Clinical Inquiry
Create a 4- to 5-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do
the following:
·
Identify and briefly describe your chosen
clinical issue of interest.
·
Describe how you used keywords to search on your
chosen clinical issue of interest.
·
Identify the four research databases that you
used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected.
·
Provide APA citations of the four-peer reviewed
articles you selected.
36 (36
%) – 40 (40
%)
The presentation
clearly and accurately identifies and describes in detail the chosen clinical
issue of interest.
The presentation accurately and thoroughly describes in detail how keywords
were used to search on the chosen clinical issue of interest.
The presentation accurately and clearly identifies in detail four or more
research databases that were used to conduct a search for selected
peer-reviewed articles.
The presentation accurately provides APA citations of four or more
peer-reviewed articles selected.
32 (32
%) – 35 (35
%)
The presentation
accurately identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest.
The presentation accurately describes how keywords were used to search on the
chosen clinical issue of interest.
The presentation accurately identifies at least four research databases that
were used to conduct a search for selected peer-reviewed articles.
The presentation accurately provides APA citations of at least four
peer-reviewed articles selected.
28 (28
%) – 31 (31
%)
The presentation
inaccurately or vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of
interest.
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes how keywords were used to
search on the chosen clinical issue of interest.
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely identifies at least four research
databases that were used to conduct a search for selected peer-reviewed
articles.
The presentation inaccurately provides APA citations of the peer-reviewed
articles selected.
0 (0
%) – 27 (27
%)
The presentation
inaccurately and vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue
of interest or is missing.
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes how keywords were used to
search on the chosen clinical issue of interest or is missing.
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies less than four research
databases that were used to conduct a search for selected peer-reviewed
articles or is missing.
The presentation inaccurately provides APA citations of the peer-reviewed
articles selected.
Part 2: Identifying Research Methodologies
After reading each of the four peer-reviewed articles you
selected, use the Matrix Worksheet template to analyze the methodologies
applied in each of the four peer-reviewed articles. Your analysis should
include the following:
·
The full citation of each peer-reviewed article
in APA format.
·
A brief statement explaining why you chose this
peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of
interest, including a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to
your clinical issue of interest.
·
A brief description of the aims of the research
of each peer-reviewed article.
·
A brief description of the research methodology
used. Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative,
quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific.
45 (45
%) – 50 (50
%)
The response
accurately and clearly provides a full citation of each article in APA
format.
The responses accurately and thoroughly explain the selection of these
articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including a
detailed explanation of the ethics of research.
The responses accurately and clearly describe the aims of the research.
The responses accurately and clearly describe the research methodology used,
and clearly identify the type of methodology used with specific and relevant
examples.
The responses accurately and clearly describe the strengths of each of the
research methodologies used, including a detailed explanation of the
reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the
articles selected.
The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two
outside resources related to the selection of articles and two or three
course-specific resources.
40 (40
%) – 44 (44
%)
The response
accurately provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format.
The responses accurately explain the selection of these peer-reviewed
articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including an
accurate explanation of ethics.
The responses accurately describe the aims of the research of each
peer-reviewed article.
The responses accurately describe the research methodology used and type of
methodology used with some examples.
The responses accurately describe the strengths of each of the research
methodologies used, including an explanation of the reliability and validity
of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles
selected.
The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource
related to the selection of the peer-reviewed articles. The response
integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific
resources.
35 (35
%) – 39 (39
%)
The response
inaccurately or vaguely provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in
APA format.
The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the selection of these articles
and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including the
explanation of the ethics.
The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the aims of the research of
each article.
The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the research methodology used
and the type of methodology used, with only some examples.
The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the strengths of each of the
research methodologies used, including the explanation of the reliability and
validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the articles selected.
The responses provided vaguely or inaccurately synthesize outside resources
related to the selection of the articles. The response minimally integrates
resources that may support the responses provided.
0 (0
%) – 34 (34
%)
The response
inaccurately and vaguely provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in
APA format or is missing.
The responses inaccurately and vaguely explain the selection of these
articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue, including the
explanation of ethics of research, or they are missing.
The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the aims of the research, or
they are missing.
The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the research methodology used,
the type of methodology used with no examples present, or they are missing.
The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the strengths of each of the
methodologies used, including the explanation of the reliability and validity
of the methodology, or they are missing.
The responses provide a vague and inaccurate synthesis of outside resources
related to the selection of the articles and fail to integrate any resources
to support the responses provided, or is missing.
Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and
Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed
ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are
carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance.
A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided,
which delineates all required criteria.
5 (5
%) – 5 (5
%)
Paragraphs and
sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.
A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are
provided, which delineates all required criteria.
4 (4
%) – 4 (4
%)
Paragraphs and
sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80
% of
the time.
Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated but are
brief and not descriptive.
3.5 (3.5
%) – 3.5 (3.5
%)
Paragraphs and
sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79
%
of the time.
Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.
0 (0
%) – 3 (3
%)
Paragraphs and
sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less
than 60
% of the time.
No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion is provided.
Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.
5 (5
%) – 5 (5
%)
Uses correct
grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
READINGS
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.
Chapter 2, “Asking
Compelling Clinical Questions” (pp. 33–54)
Chapter 21, “Generating Evidence Through
Quantitative and Qualitative Research” (pp. 607–653)
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Hoare, Z., & Hoe, J. (2013). Understanding quantitative research: Part 2. Nursing Standard, 27(18), 48–55. doi:10.7748/ns2013.01.27.18.48.c9488
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Hoe, J., & Hoare, Z. (2012). Understanding quantitative research: Part 1. Nursing Standard, 27(15), 52–57. doi:10.7748/ns2012.12.27.15.52.c9485
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

error: Content is protected !!