NURS 6052 Evidence-Based Discussion

Discussion: Developing a Culture of Evidence-Based Practice

As your EBP skills grow, you may be called upon to share your expertise with others. While EBP practice is often conducted with unique outcomes in mind, EBP practitioners who share their results can both add to the general body of knowledge and serve as an advocate for the application of EBP.

In this Discussion, you will explore strategies for disseminating EBP within your organization, community, or industry.

To Prepare:

Review the Resources and reflect on the various strategies presented throughout the course that may be helpful in disseminating effective and widely cited EBP.

This may include: unit-level or organizational-level presentations, poster presentations, and podium presentations at organizational, local, regional, state, and national levels, as well as publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Reflect on which type of dissemination strategy you might use to communicate EBP.

Learning Resources

Note: To access this module’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus. NURS 6052 Evidence-Based Discussion

Required 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 10, “The Role of Outcomes on Evidence-based Quality Improvement and enhancing and Evaluating Practice Changes” (pp. 293–312)

Chapter 12, “Leadership Strategies for Creating and Sustaining Evidence-based Practice Organizations” (pp. 328–343)

Chapter 14, “Models to Guide Implementation and Sustainability of Evidence-based Practice” (pp. 378–427)

Gallagher-Ford, L., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Stillwell, S. B. (2011). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Implementing an evidence-based practice change. American Journal of Nursing, 111(3), 54–60. doi:10.1097/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000395243.14347.7e. Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/ajnonline/Fulltext/2011/03000/Evidence_Based_Practice,_Step_by_Step_.31.aspx

Newhouse, R. P., Dearholt, S., Poe, S., Pugh, L. C., & White, K. M. (2007). Organizational change strategies for evidence-based practice. Journal of Nursing Administration, 37(12), 552–557. doi:0.1097/01.NNA.0000302384.91366.8f

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M. (2012). Achieving a high-reliability organization through implementation of the ARCC model for systemwide sustainability of evidence-based practice. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 127–135. doi:10.1097/NAQ.0b013e318249fb6a

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Gallagher-Ford, L., & Stillwell, S. B. (2011). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Sustaining evidence-based practice through organizational policies and an innovative model. American Journal of Nursing, 111(9), 57–60. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000405063.97774.0e

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Giggleman, M., & Choy, K. (2017). A test of the ARCC© model improves implementation of evidence-based practice, healthcare culture, and patient outcomes. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 14(1), 5–9. doi:10.1111/wvn.12188

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Gallagher-Ford, L., & Stillwell, S. B. (2011). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Sustaining evidence-based practice through organizational policies and an innovative model. American Journal of Nursing, 111(9), 57–60. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000405063.97774.0e

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: NURS_6052_Module05_Week09_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View

List View

Novice Competent Proficient New Column4

Main Posting

45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Post is cited with two credible sources.

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors. 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Contains only one or no credible sources.

Not written clearly or concisely.

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Main Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Posts main post by day 3.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not post by day 3.

First Response

17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

15 (15%) – 16 (16%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 12 (12% Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response

16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication