Week 3 Assignment: Critical Appraisal of Practice Guidelines - DNP 820

Week 3 Assignment: Critical Appraisal of Practice Guidelines – DNP 820

Details:

While there are several tools to critically appraise practice guidelines, the most comprehensively validated appraisal tool is the AGREE II Instrument. The AGREE II Instrument can be used by individual practitioners to critically appraise health guidelines and by decision makers to inform policy decisions. The purpose of the AGREE II Instrument is to provide a framework to:

Assess the quality of guidelines.
Provide a methodological strategy for the development of guidelines.
Inform what information and how the information ought to be reported in guidelines.

Overall assessment includes rating the overall quality of the guideline and whether the guideline would be recommended for use in practice.

Items are rated on a 7-point scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). A score of 1 is given when there is no information on that item or if it is poorly reported. A score of 7 is given if the quality of reporting is excellent and when full criteria have been met (Score explanations found in the AGREE II-GRS Instrument).

A quality score is calculated for each of the six domains, which are independently scored. Domain scores are calculated by summing up all the scores of the items in the domain and by scaling the total as a percentage of the maximum possible score for that specific domain.

For this assignment, you will choose a guideline and assess the overall quality and whether the guideline would be recommended for use in practice.

General Requirements:

Use the following information to ensure successful completion of this assignment:

Download the AGREE II instrument.
Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please Review the rubric prior to the beginning to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are not required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.

Directions:

Perform the following tasks to complete this assignment:

Using the AGREE II instrument as your guide, create a table that discusses a practice guideline in which you might have questioned the recommendations. (Note: You may be able to copy and paste the instrument into a new Word document and complete the information.)
Each domain must have its own cell (similar to the one shown in the manual) and add domain scores and an overall guideline assessment. Be sure to include comments and additional considerations that influenced your rating decision and cite any sources used.

Portfolio Practice Hours:

Practice immersion assignments are based on your current course objectives, and are intended to be application-based learning using your real-world practice setting. These assignments earn practice immersion hours, and are indicated in the assignment by a Portfolio Practice Hours statement which reminds you, the learner, to enter in a corresponding case log in Typhon. Actual clock hours are entered, but the average hours associated with each practice immersion assignment is 10.

You are required to complete your assignment using real-world application. Real-world application requires the use of evidence-based data, contemporary theories, and concepts presented in the course. The culmination of your assignment must present a viable application in a current practice setting. For more information on parameters for practice immersion hours, please refer to DNP resources in the DC Network.

To earn portfolio practice hours, enter the following after the references section of your paper:

Practice Hours Completion Statement DNP-820

I, (INSERT NAME), verify that I have completed (NUMBER OF) clock hours in association with the goals and objectives for this assignment. I have also tracked said practice hours in the Typhon Student Tracking System for verification purposes and will be sure that all approvals are in place from my faculty and practice mentor.

Week 3 Assignment: Critical Appraisal of Practice Guidelines – DNP 820

KINDLY ORDER NOW FOR A RESOURCEFUL, CUSTOM-WRITTEN AND PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER

Critical Appraisal of Practice Guidelines

	1 Unsatisfactory 0.00%	2 Less Than Satisfactory 74.00%	3 Satisfactory 79.00%	4 Good 87.00%	5 Excellent 100.00%
70.0 %Content
20.0 %Discuss a practice guideline in which you might have questioned the recommendations.	Discussion of the practice is not presented.	Discussion of the practice is presented but incomplete.	Discussion of the practice is presented but at a cursory level.	Discussion of the practice is clearly presented and convincing. Sources cited are from current scholarly but some outdated sources.	Discussion of the practice is clearly presented and perceptive. Sources cited are from current scholarly sources.
25.0 %Create a table for each domain (similar to the one shown in the manual) and add domain scores and an overall guideline assessment.	A table with each domain is not presented.	A table with each domain is presented but incomplete.	A table with each domain is presented but at a cursory level.	A table with each domain is clearly presented. Scores are present for each domain and justification is beyond surface understanding.	A table with each domain is clearly presented. Scores are present for each domain and justification is insightful.
25.0 %Create a table for the overall guideline assessment.	A table for the overall guideline assessment is not presented.	A table for the overall guideline assessment is presented but incomplete.	A table for the overall guideline assessment is presented but at a cursory level.	A table for the overall guideline assessment is clearly presented and convincing.	A table for the overall guideline assessment is clearly presented and perceptive.
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness	Week 3 Assignment: Critical Appraisal of Practice Guidelines – DNP 820
7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose	Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.	Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.	Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.	Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.	Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction	Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.	Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.	Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.	Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.	Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner is present. All sources are authoritative.
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)	Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.	Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.	Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.	Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.	Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
10.0 %Format
5.0 %Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)	Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.	Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.	Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.	Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.	All format elements are correct.
5.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)	Sources are not documented.	Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.	Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.	Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.	Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
100 %Total Weightage