NURS 8410 Week 3 Discussion: The State of the Science in Practice

NURS 8410 Week 3: Translating Science in Advanced Nursing Practice
NURS 8410 Week 3 Discussion: The State of the Science in Practice
The State of the Science in Practice
The phrase evidence-based practice may be most often thought of as a clinical reference; however, research evidence is applicable in every specialty area. What types of research evidence support your work environment? How does research evidence inform your practice?
Now, how current do you think the science is that underlies your practice? How current is the evidence that supports your specialty practice guidelines?
To prepare for NURS 8410 Week 3 Discussion: The State of the Science in Practice:
Bring to mind an issue related to your practice. You may use the issue you are exploring for your EBP Assignment, or another current issue in your specialty area.
If possible, examine practices and/or practice guidelines established to address your selected issue and determine how current the evidence is that supports them.
Using the Walden Library, locate recently published articles that discuss research translated into evidence that applies to your selected practice issue. If you are unable to locate current articles (within the last five years), use the Internet to find evidence-based practice articles on this topic.
Consider the following questions:
How current is the science that supported the practice or practice guidelines?
What new evidence has emerged since the practice guidelines were crafted and adopted?
By Day 3 of NURS 8410 Week 3 Discussion: The State of the Science in Practice
Post a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:
Discuss the state of the scientific underpinnings that relate to your selected issue.
How current is the science that supported the practice or practice guidelines?
What new evidence has emerged since the practice guidelines were crafted and adopted? Provide one or two examples that support your assessment.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.
By Day 6
Respond to two of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:
Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.
Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom and/or from your own research in the Walden Library.
Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.
Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.
Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.
Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you learned and/or any insights you gained as a result of the comments made by your colleagues.
Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and any additional sources.
NURS 8410 Week 3 Discussion: The State of the Science in Practice
NURS 8410 Week 3 Practicum: Journal and Time Log
By Day 7
You will submit a journal entry (along with your time log) for Weeks 1-3. Journal entries need to connect your previous professional experience with your practice, competencies/concepts in the program, and the literature. Your journal entry should be week-based and sequential so that all journal entries are contained in one file.
Describe the observed activity.
Using an evidence-based approach, analyze the problem, issue, or situation. Address questions posed in the weekly practicum pages if appropriate.
Reveal how the real-world might mirror or diverge from program-related evidence, concepts, and/or theories.
Time Log submission.
Submission and Grading Information
To submit your completed Practicum for review and grading, do the following:
Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK3Practicum+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
Click the Week 3 Practicum link.
Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK3Practicum+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
NURS 8410 Week 3: Translating Science in Advanced Nursing Practice
Health care is an increasingly complex field fueled by the explosion of information available at one’s fingertips. As technology, medical research, and information systems continue to evolve, more emphasis is being placed on incorporating science and effective practices into health care. Nurses are increasingly called upon to implement best practices based on scientifically sound evidence.
This week, you examine the current state of science in your specialty area. This is an essential step for being able to assess and promote evidence-based practice, whether or not you are directly involved in the delivery of patient care. For instance, you may investigate the latest research in leadership, economics, management, education, and so on, and apply that research in your specialty practice area.
Also this week, you submit your time log and a journal entry for your practicum experience.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
Evaluate the state of the current context of science in your specialty area in nursing and health care
Assess the practicum experience
Evaluate current literature pertaining to an issue in a specialty area
Photo Credit: [GIPhotoStock]/[Cultura]/Getty Images
Learning Resources
Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.
Required Readings
White, K. M., Dudley-Brown, S., & Terharr, M. F. (2016). Translation of evidence into nursing and health care practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
Chapter 1, “Evidence-Based Practice”
Chapter 2, “The Science of Translation and Major Frameworks”
Terry, A. J. (2018). Clinical research for the doctor of nursing practice (3rd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Pages 15-18, “The Process of Translating Evidence Into Clinical Practice”
Chapter 3, “Conducting a Literature Review”
Djulbergovic, B. (2014). A framework to bridge the gaps between evidence-based medicine, health outcomes, and improvement and implementation science. Journal of Oncology Practice, 10(3), 200-202.
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Fineout-Overhold, E., Melnyk, B.M., Stillwell, S.B., & Williamson, K.M. (2010). Evidence-based practice step-by-step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part 1. American Journal of Nursing, 110(7), 47-52.
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Fineout-Overhold, E., Melnyk, B.M., Stillwell, S.B., & Williamson, K.M. (2010). Evidence-based practice step-by-step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part II. American Journal of Nursing, 110(9), 41-48.
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Fineout-Overhold, E., Melnyk, B.M., Stillwell, S.B., & Williamson, K.M. (2010). Evidence-based practice step-by-step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part III. American Journal of Nursing, 110(11), 43-51
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Guyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Akl, E. A., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., Schünemann, H. J. (2011). GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64 (4), 383-394.
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Jeffs, L., Beswick, S., Lo, J., Campbell, H., Ferris, E., & Sidani, S. (2013). Defining what evidence is, linking it to patient outcomes, and making it relevant to practice: Insight from clinical nurses. Applied Nursing Research, 26, 105-109.
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Leung, K., Trevena, L., & Waters, D. (2014). Systematic review of instruments for measuring nurses’ knowledge, skills and attitudes for evidence-based practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70(10), 2181–2195.
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Rosswurm, M. A., & Larrabee, J. H. (1999). A model for change to evidence-based practice. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 31(4), 317-322.
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Additional Research
Conduct your own research on translational science and how it is utilized in your specialty area. Review your specialty area websites and search for articles on evidence-based practice that address the translation of research into practice. This information will inform the Discussion.
Optional Resources
Terry, A. J. (2018). Clinical research for the doctor of nursing practice (3rd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Chapter 14, “Reducing 30-Day Hospital Readmission of the Patient with Heart Failure: An Evidence-Based Quality Improvement Project”
Chapter 15, “Reducing 30-Day Hospital Readmission of the Patient with Heart Failure: An Evidence-Based Quality Improvement Project”
Chapter 16, “The Impact of Evidence-Based Design”
Chapter 17, “The Lived Experience of Chronic Pain in Nurse Educators”
As you develop sections of your Project Premise, you may wish to review these examples of completed EBP project.
Rubric Detail- NURS 8410 Week 3 Discussion: The State of the Science in Practice
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Name: NURS_8410_ Week3_Discussion_Rubric
Excellent Good Fair Poor
RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION
Discussion post minimum requirements:
*The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.
8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)
Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.
7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)
Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.
6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.
0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)
Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.
7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)
Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.
6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course
0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION
8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)
Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.
7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)
Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature
6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.
0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas
QUALITY OF WRITING
6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.
4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)
Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
0 (0%) – 3 (10%)
Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
Total Points: 30
Name: NURS_8410_ Week3_Discussion_Rubric