Research in Nursing

Evidence-Based Practice Project

Title

Name

NSG 415 Nursing Research

Date

Abstract

  • Abstract (10% of paper grade, approximately 1 page – single space is acceptable  )
    • Clearly and concisely identify purpose (to include issue and brief significance), process (PET Model), and outcome (decision made with brief rationale) in a 1 page with headings for each section (Should appear on a page of its own following the title page).

Background:

Purpose:

Method:

Results:

Conclusion:

Implications to Nursing:
Top: Repeat topic at top of the page – Not all caps. Center (bolded).

  • Introduction/Practice Question (10% of paper grade, approximately 1 page)

Define the Problem (~one paragraph):  Present the background information (chosen topic)

  • Identify the specific practice issue to be addressed, include setting & population

Significance (~one paragraph): Introduce your proposed intervention

  • Discuss the significance of the problem

Purpose/PICO(~one paragraph): Purpose statement and your PICO question                                  

  • Provide your purpose statement for the paper
  • State your EBP question using the PICO mnemonic

Synthesis of Evidence

  • (20% of paper grade, approximately 3-5 pages)

Selection of the Articles (Level 2 heading):  approximately 2 pages

Provide an overview of the literature search process.  Describe your method of literature review, and take 2 to 3 sentences to describe what search engines and what keys words you used.  Also briefly note how you narrowed down your selected research study articles.  You should select articles no older than 5 years.

Statement such as: Table 1 reports the summary of the selected literature.  Use at least 7 articles within your table.

Report the evidence hierarchy by Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt.  i.e. The evidence hierarchy of each article were analyzed. Using the Rating System for Hierarchy of Evidence provided by Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (as cited in Schmidt  & Brown, 2019), xx article was a Level III, xx were Level V, and xx  was Level VI.

Article Critiques (Level 2 heading) – approximately 2 pages

Critique the body of research on the topic as a whole: describe the methodological strengths and limitations of the current research. Be sure to include specific examples from all seven articles with in-text citations in this section. 

Do you see any problems or shortcomings in the methods?

Do you see any strengths of the articles?

Are the results able to be generalized to other (clinical) settings? 

Do their results have clinical (EBP) implications?  

Provide the conclusion statement indicating the overall evaluation of the work. In some circumstances, recommendations for improvement on the work may be appropriate.   

Translation- Fit and Feasibility

  • (25% of paper grade, approximately 2 -3 pages)

Comparisons  Describe the similarity/differences of the characteristics of the sample and environment to those of the population in the practice area for the proposed utilization project. Recommendations: you can combine with samples and environment

      Samples.

     Environment. 

Ideal Recommendations

            Stakeholders.

  • Detail what stakeholders would need to be involved in this change of practice

            Resources.

  • Explain the amount of resources that would be needed to implement such a change in practice.

Translation Path Recommendation

  • (25% of paper grade, approximately 2 -3 pages)

Rationale for Implementation or Need for Further Research

Rationale.

  • Include rationale for your decision

Change Steps

  • If determined appropriate for translation, create an action plan with the ‘change’ steps needed to implement the findings.
    • If determined not appropriate for translation, describe your next steps for further research.

Conclusion sentences (paragraph) at the end of the paper

References

List all references cited in the text (APA format)- Need at least 10 sources total

Table 1.   Summary of Selected Literature with Level of Evidence Rating

TitleAuthorsPurposeMethodsFindings/ ConclusionLevel of     Evidence*
      
      
      
      
      

* Rating System for Hierarchy of Evidence provided by Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (as cited in Schmidt & Brown, 2015

Grading Rubric for the Final EBP Paper 

Category  Excellent      Good      Fair      Poor    Possible Points  
AbstractExemplary; Clearly and concisely identifies purpose to include issue and brief significance, and the outcome of decision made with brief rationale; use of headings of background, purpose, methods, results, and conclusion, 1 pageProficient; Clearly identifies 2 of the 3: purpose to include issue and brief significance,  and the outcome of decision made with brief rationale; no headingsIncomplete; Clearly identifies 1 of the 3: purpose to include issue and brief significance, and the outcome of decision made with brief rationale; no headingsAbsent; Fails to include the abstract      3
Introduction/Practice Question  Exemplary; Purpose of the paper well developed and clearly stated; Clearly identified the specific issue to be addressed, include setting & population; Sound significance of the problem developed from concepts, theories and literature  Proficient; Purpose of the paper apparent but not developed sufficiently; Issue apparent but not described sufficiently, lacking specificity for setting &/or population;  Significance relevant but limited development  Incomplete; Purpose of the paper poorly developed, not clear; Issue poorly described, lacking setting or population; Significance not developed, limited support for ideasAbsent; Purpose of paper absent; issue not relevant to purpose of the paper, lacking both setting and population; Significance not relevant to issue, lacks support for ideas3
Synthesis of Evidence  Exemplary; Conducted a thorough review of  the research-based literature concerning the selected topic, 7 or more relevant research articles analyzed;  Synthesized the summary of the research findings; Accurately and effectively critiqued the body of research, clearly identified and described the methodological strengths and limitations of the current research Table included  Proficient; Conducted a good review of the research-based literature concerning the selected topic, 5-6 relevant research articles used; Summarized the major highlights of the research findings; Most of the research critique was accurate, lacked depth/insight into strengths and limitations of current research Table not included  Incomplete; Conducted a fair review of the research-based literature concerning the selected topic, 4 relevant research articles used; Provided a limited summary of the research findings; Incomplete critique of the research findings, missed major strengths and limitations of current research  Absent; Conducted a poor review of the research-based literature concerning the selected topic, < 4 relevant research articles used; Major gaps in summary of research findings; Lacks critique of research findings, lacked strengths and limitations of current research                  6
Category  Excellent      Good      Fair      Poor    Points Earned
Translation- Fit and FeasibilityExemplary; Synthesized and integrated the compare and contrast of the recommendation from review of research to current level of practice; Accurately identified stakeholders to involve and resources needed for changeProficient; Provided an accurate compare and  contrast summary between the recommendation from review of research to current practice; Most of the identified stakeholders to involve and resources needed for change were accurateIncomplete; Provided a limited compare and  contrast summary between the recommendation from review of research to current practice; Failed to identify several stakeholders to involve or resources needed for changeAbsent; Lacked a compare and  contrast summary between the recommendation from review of research to current practice; Failed to identify stakeholders to involve and resources needed for change7.5
Translation Path Recommend-ationExemplary; Excellent evaluation of potential for implementation of research utilization project in practice; Decision and rationale relevant to review of research and comprehensive and in depth; Change steps needed and method of evaluation accurate and clearly described; Clear and logical conclusionProficient; Good evaluation of potential for implementation of research utilization project in practice; Decision and rationale relevant to review of research, lacks depth; Change steps needed and method of evaluation mostly accurate; address conclusionIncomplete; Fair evaluation of potential for implementation of research utilization project in practice; Either decision or rationale lacks relevancy to review of research; Change steps needed or method of evaluation not accurate; No conclusionAbsent; Poor evaluation of potential for implementation of research utilization project in practice; Both decision and rationale lacks relevancy to review of research; Both change steps needed and method of evaluation not accurate7.5
Organization of Paper and Writing StyleExemplary; Ideas well organized and logically presented, organization supports development of ideas; Thorough discussion of ideas, includes multiple perspectives; Effective transitions from one idea to another and effective summaries with integration of ideas; clear conclusion; Sentence structure clear, correct grammar and punctuation, no spelling errorsProficient; Clear organization of main points and ideas; Adequate discussion of ideas, alternate perspectives considered; Adequate transitions from one idea to another and adequate summary of ideas; Adequate sentence structure with conclusion; minimal grammar, punctuation, and spelling errorsIncomplete; Ideas not developed clearly throughout entire paper; Discussion lacks details at times, minimal alternate perspectives considered; Confusing transitions from one idea to anther and summaries lack integration of ideas; Inadequate sentence structure with unclear conclusion, several grammar, punctuation, and spelling errorsAbsent; Lacks organization and flow; Lacks discussion of ideas – ideas merely stated without discussion; Lacks transitions from one idea to another and lacks summaries of ideas; Poor sentence structure with no conclusion, numerous grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors1.5
APA FormatExemplary; Solicited and referenced more than an adequate number of resources, citations cited accurately, reference list correct;  Professional appearance of paper, adheres to APA format of 10 or more referencesProficient; Solicited and referenced fewer than expected resources, 2-3 mistakes noted with citations and in reference list; Paper legible, 2-3 errors noted in APA format; 7-9 references  Incomplete; Solicited and referenced suboptimal number of resources, 4-6 errors noted with citations and in reference list; Unprofessional appearance, 4-6 errors noted in APA format. 5-6 referencesAbsent; Solicited and referenced too few resources; >6errors noted with citations and in reference list; Unprofessional appearance, >6 errors noted in APA format <5 references1.5

Leave a Reply