NURS 8114 Blog Observation of Evidence-Based Practice Walden
As a DNP, you will have a significant voice in your health care setting to . Understanding how evidence can inform better nursing care and patient outcomes is fundamental to successful advocacy, as are examples of where, why, and how evidence-based practice is needed.
Photo Credit: steheap / Adobe Stock
For this activity, you will essentially observe for evidence to . You will write and post a blog in which you identify examples of evidence-based practice in your health care organization and/or examples of need for application of evidence-based practice. Although the blog functions like a Discussion Board, the aim is to be somewhat more informal in sharing your perspectives. Colleagues will respond to your blog, as you will respond to theirs.
To prepare:
- Review the Learning Resources, particularly the chapter on evidence-based practice from McEwen and Wills, and readings in the White, Dudley-Brown, and Terhaar text.
- With your understanding of evidence-based practice in mind, observe for examples of evidence-based practice (EBP) in the health care organization where you practice, and/or examples of nursing practice that are tradition bound and lack an evidence base.
- Consider conditions that support within health care organizations and recommendations for application of EBP.
With these thoughts in mind …
By Day 3 of Week 4
Post a blog on the topic of. Drawing on your understanding of EBP and your firsthand observations within your organization, include the following content in your blog:
- Briefly describe one specific example of evidence-based practice that produced/is producing significant patient outcomes. Or, if
NURS 8114 Blog Observation of Evidence-Based Practice Walden
you are lacking examples, describe a recent patient experience that might have been improved through application of evidence-based practice. Explain your reasoning. Note: To maintain confidentiality, do not refer to individuals by name or with identifying details.
- Evaluate the overall application of within your health care organization, including conditions that support it or roadblocks to overcome. Explain your reasoning, including how you have arrived at your conclusions.
- Describe how you can advocate for application of evidence-based practice within your health care organization.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ blogs.
By Day 6 of Week 4
Respond to at least two of your colleagues on 2 different days. Compare their observations and evaluations of EBP in their health care organizations with your own and offer recommendations for advancing EBP or identify suggestions you will apply in your own practice setting.
Week 4: Evidence-Based Practice, Quality Improvement, and Implementation Science: Interrelationships
From your experience as a registered nurse or APRN, how does change occur in a health care setting? How do outdated protocols get updated or the actual root cause of a persistent problem get uncovered and resolved?
You may have answers that speak to the commitment of health care organizations to continually improve. You may also have examples that demonstrate the inherent challenges in any change initiative. If only change were as clear and quick as striking a key. Rather, it requires a whole series of figurative keystrokes and, depending on the setting, may seem as though the whole world needs to be onboard.
This week you will explore a particular set of keys to quality improvement in health care. It involves reliance on science for evidence to inform nursing practice and implementation that makes sense to practitioners and patients. Your getting-started activities will include observing for and blogging about evidence-based practice, and looking for health care settings in your locale for investigating needs and acceptance of practice change.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
- Evaluate application of evidence-based practice in health care organizations
- Analyze approaches to advocacy of evidence-based practice in health care organizations
- Compare health care settings for quality improvement projects
- Justify practice problems for quality improvement
- Analyze site and stakeholder requirements for quality improvement projects in nursing practice settings
- Compare stakeholder requirements for quality improvement projects across nursing practice settings
- Apply implementation science frameworks/models for evidence-based practice quality improvement projects
Learning Resources
White, K. M., Dudley-Brown, S., & Terhaar, M. F. (Eds.). (2019). Translation of evidence into nursing and healthcare (3rd ed.). Springer.
- Chapter 1, “Evidence-Based Practice” (pp. 3–25); for reading about the PET model, focus on pp.14–16
- Chapter 2, “The Science of Translation and Major Frameworks” (pp. 27–58)
- Chapter 8, “Methods for Translation” (pp. 185–187 Quality Improvement and RCPI)
- Chapter 9, “Project Management for Translation” (pp. 199–228)
Dang, D., & Dearholt, S. L. (Eds.). (2018). Johns Hopkins nursing evidence-based practice: Model and guidelines (3rd ed.). Sigma Theta Tau International.
- Chapter 5, “Searching for Evidence” (pp. 79–96)
Note: The survey findings can be used to explore relationships between nursing attitudes concerning QI and other organizational characteristics such as QI environment.
Walden University. (2011). An evidence-based practice model [Video]. Author.
Translation text lead author Kathleen White discusses the PET model.
Accessible player
ing |
Points Range: 5 (8.33%) – 5 (8.33%)
Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
Points Range: 4 (6.67%) – 4 (6.67%)
Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
Points Range: 3 (5%) – 3 (5%)
Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (3.33%)
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 Posting:
Timely and full participation |
Points Range: 9 (15%) – 10 (16.67%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Blog post by due date. |
Points Range: 8 (13.33%) – 8 (13.33%)
Posts main Discussion by due date. Meets requirements for full participation. |
Points Range: 7 (11.67%) – 7 (11.67%)
Posts main Blog post by due date.
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (10%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main Blog post by due date. |
First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective. |
Points Range: 9 (15%) – 9 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. |
Points Range: 8 (13.33%) – 8 (13.33%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
|
Points Range: 7 (11.67%) – 7 (11.67%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (10%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
|
First Response: Writing |
Points Range: 6 (10%) – 6 (10%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response fully answers faculty questions, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
Points Range: 5 (8.33%) – 5 (8.33%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response mostly answers faculty questions, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas. Response is written in standard, edited English. |
Points Range: 4 (6.67%) – 4 (6.67%)
Response posed in the Blog may lack effective professional communication. Response somewhat answers faculty questions, if posed. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (5%)
Responses posted in the Blog lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions is missing |
First Response: Timely and full participation |
Points Range: 5 (8.33%) – 5 (8.33%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
Points Range: 4 (6.67%) – 4 (6.67%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
Points Range: 3 (5%) – 3 (5%)
Posts by due date.
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (3.33%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective. |
Points Range: 9 (15%) – 9 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. |
Points Range: 8 (13.33%) – 8 (13.33%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
|
Points Range: 7 (11.67%) – 7 (11.67%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (10%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
|
Second Response: Writing |
Points Range: 6 (10%) – 6 (10%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response fully answers faculty questions, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
Points Range: 5 (8.33%) – 5 (8.33%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response mostly answers faculty questions, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas. Response is written in standard, edited English. |
Points Range: 4 (6.67%) – 4 (6.67%)
Response posed in the Blog may lack effective professional communication. Response somewhat answers faculty questions, if posed. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (5%)
Responses posted in the Blog lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions is missing. |
Second Response: Timely and full participation |
Points Range: 5 (8.33%) – 5 (8.33%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
Points Range: 4 (6.67%) – 4 (6.67%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
Points Range: 3 (5%) – 3 (5%)
Posts by due date.
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (3.33%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
Total Points: 60 |
---|