EBP Assignment: PICO Clinical Question

EBP Assignment: PICO Clinical Question

EBP Assignment: PICO Clinical Question

For this Assignment, review the following:

• Academic Writing Expectations Checklist 4000 Level Courses.
• Walden paper template. (No abstract required for AWE 4000.)

Using AWE Level 4000 writing guidelines submit a 3- to 4-page paper (not including the title page, reference list, and appraisal guides) on your EBP project including:

• PICO clinical question:
• How does purposeful hourly rounding impact patient’s falls in the acute care setting?
• Recommended change in practice citing high-level evidence to support your suggested change in practice
• Evaluation strategies and outcome measures
• Select at least 5 sources of evidence from the following categories:  (a) systematic review, (b) national clinical guidelines and/or (c) peer-reviewed quantitative / qualitative studies. Attach appraisal guides for all peer-reviewed articles.

I attached the format again for the appraisal guides

I just need 3 appraisal guides for 3 articles that you use because you did 2 already on previous articles. Daniels and Jackson  that I will attach. 

Pay specific attention to the Writing Expectations 4000 Checklist. Paraphrase, avoid direct quotes, and use your own words supported by evidence to exhibit scholarly writing. Do not use articles older than 5 years unless they have been confirmed as seminal articles by your Instructor. At least 5 sources of evidence are required for your paper. Attach appraisals after the reference page for each article used. (See the Clinical Guideline Appraisal and Systematic Review Appraisal in this week’s Resources.)

By Day 7. EBP Assignment: PICO Clinical Question

APPENDIX F

Appraisal Guide:

Findings of a Quantitative Study

APA Formatted Citation: (4 pts.)

Answer Here:

Synopsis (16 pts.)

1. What was the purpose of the study (research questions, purposes, and hypotheses)?

Answer Here:

2. How was the sample obtained?

Answer Here:

3. What inclusion or exclusion criteria were used?

Answer Here:

4. Who from the sample actually participated or contributed data (demographic or clinical profile and dropout rate)?

Answer Here:

5. What methods were used to collect data (e.g., sequence, timing, types of data, and measures)?

Answer Here:

6. Was an intervention tested? Answer Yes or No
7. How was the sample size determined?

Answer Here:

1. Were patients randomly assigned to treatment groups?

Answer Here:

7. What are the main findings of the study? (10 pts.)

Answer Here:

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

Credibility (14 pts.)	Yes	No	Not Clear
Is the study published in a source that required peer review?
*Did the data obtained and the analysis conducted answer the research question?
Were the measuring instruments reliable and valid?
*Were important extraneous variables and bias controlled?
*If an intervention was tested, answer the following five questions:
Were participants randomly assigned to groups and were the two groups similar at the start (before the intervention)?
Were the interventions well defined and consistently delivered?
Were the groups treated equally other than the difference in interventions?
If no difference was found, was the sample size large enough to detect a difference if one existed?
If a difference was found, are you confident it was due to the intervention?
Are the findings consistent with findings from other studies?
	All	Some	No
ARE THE FINDINGS CREDIBLE?

 

Clinical Significance (6 pts.)

1. Note any difference in means, r²s, or measures of clinical effects (ABI, NNT, RR, OR)

Answer Here:

 

	Yes	No	Not Clear
*Is the target population clearly described?
*Is the frequency, association, or treatment effect impressive enough for you to be confident that the finding would make a clinical difference if used as the basis for care?
	All	Some	No
ARE THE FINDINGS CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT?

 

*= Important criteria

 

Comments

Answer Here:

 

APPENDIX E

Appraisal Guide:

Findings of a Qualitative Study

APA Formatted Citation: (4 pts.)

Answer Here:

Synopsis (12 pts.)

1. What experience, situation, or subculture does the researcher want to understand?

Answer Here:

 

2. Does the researcher want to produce a description of an experience, or a social process, or an event, or is the goal to generate a theory?

Answer Here:

3. How was data collected?

Answer Here:

4. How did the researcher control his or her biases and preconceptions?

Answer Here:

5. Are specific pieces of data (e.g., direct quotes) and more generalized statements (themes, theories) included in the report?

Answer Here:

6. What are the main findings of the study? (10 Pts.)

Answer Here:

Credibility (18 pts.)	Yes	No	Not Clear
Is the study published in a source that required peer review?
Were the methods used appropriate to the study purpose?
Was the sampling of observations or interviews appropriate and varied enough to serve the purpose of the study?
*Were data collection methods effective in obtaining in-depth data?
Did the data collection methods avoid the possibility of oversight, underrepresentation, or overrepresentation from certain types of sources?
Were data collection and analysis intermingled in dynamic way?
*Is the data presented in ways that provide a vivid portrayal of what was experience or happened and its context?
*Does the data provided justify generalized statements, themes, or theory?
	All	Some	No
ARE THE FINDGINGS CREDIBLE?
Clinical Significance (6 pts.)	Yes	No	Not Clear
*Are the findings rich and informative?
*Is the perspective provided potentially useful in providing insight, support, or guidance for assessing patient status or progress?

 

*= Important criteria

Comments

Answer Here:

 

APPENDIX C

Appraisal Guide:

Conclusions of a Systematic Review with Narrative Synthesis

APA Formatted Citation:

Answer Here:

Synopsis

7. What organizations or persons produced the systematic review (SR)?

Answer Here:

8. How many persons were involved in conducting the review?

Answer Here:

9. What topic or question did the SR address?

Answer Here:

10. How were potential research reports identified?

Answer Here:

11. What determined if a study was included in the analysis?

Answer Here:

12. How many studies were included in the review?

Answer Here:

13. What research designs were used in the studies?

Answer Here:

14. What were the consistent and important across-studies conclusions?

Answer Here:

 

Credibility	Yes	No	Not Clear
Was the topic clearly defined?
Was the search for studies and other evidence comprehensive and unbiased?
Was the screening of citations for Inclusion based on explicit criteria?
*Were the included studies assessed for quality?
Were the design characteristics and findings of the included studies displayed or discussed in sufficient detail?
*Was there a true integration (i.e., synthesis) of the findings- not merely reporting of findings from each study individually?
*Did the reviewers explore why differences in findings might have occurred?
Did the reviewers distinguish between conclusions based on consistent findings from several good studies and those based on inferior evidence (number or quality)?

 

Which conclusions were supported by consistent findings from two or more good or high-quality studies?  List

Answer Here:

	All	Some	No
ARE THE CONSLUSIONS CREDIBLE?
Clinical Significance	Yes	No	Not Clear
*Across studies, is the size of the treatment or the strength of the association found or the meaningfulness of qualitative findings strong enough to make a difference in patient outcomes or experiences of care?
Are the conclusions relevant to the care the nurse gives?
	All	Some	No
ARE THE CONCLUSIONS CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT?
Applicability
Does the SR address a problem, situation, or decision we are addressing in our setting?
Are the patients in the studies or a subgroup of patients in the studies similar to those we see?

 

What changes, additions, training or purchases would be needed to implement and sustain a clinical protocol based on these conclusions?  Specify

Answer Here:

	Yes	No	Not Clear
Is what we will have to do to implement the new protocol realistically achievable by us (resources, capability, commitment)?

 

How will we know if our patients are benefiting from our new protocol? Specify

Answer Here:

	All	Some	No
ARE THESE CONCLUSIONS APPLICABLE TO OUR SETTING?
SHOULD WE PROCEED TO DESIGN A PROTOCO INCORPORATING THESE CONCLUSIONS?

 

Comments

Answer Here: