NURS2006 Assignment 3: Evidence Summary (1500 words)Purpose: The purpose of the evidence-based practice project is to have the studentdemonstrate skills in applying research to practice. The PICOT and all tools are available onNURS2006 FLO page.Learning outcomesLO1- Apply evidence-based practice (EBP) in the provision of patient careLO2. Formulate a clinical question to yield the most relevant and best evidencethe healthcare organisation.LO 3- List the steps of evidence-based practice and the skills associated with itLO 4- Analyse the impact of clinical governance on efficiency and practice standardsLO 5- Critically appraise different study designs and exhibit an understanding of theevidence they produceLO 6- Develop strategies to disseminate the outcomes of evidenceLO 7- Reflect on the role of the Registered Nurse in maximising EBP across thehealthcare organisation.Procedures:Students will work independently, Each student will:a) Identify a topic of interest from the list of the topics given.b) Conduct a literature search on the chosen topic and select appropriate articles forcritique. Include at least five articles of evidence. Critique each article using theJHNEBP tools. Include of the abstracts of the articles as a separate file.c) Complete an individual summary tool that includes limitations, level, and quality ofevidence.d) Complete a synthesis and recommendations tool that includes practicerecommendations.The evidence summary should be organised in a narrative report in the following way:Title of the Summaryo Include a title that is relevant to the EBP project1. Overview of Clinical problem area and Why change is needed (5 marks)o Include several brief statements that show why change is needed. Include referencesto show the size of the problem and why it is important.o Use surveillance and causation data to justify why change is needed in this particulararea.2. Review question (5 marks)o State the review question using PICOT format.Example question formats:1. Is (intervention) effective in the promotion and /or prevention of (risk factor and/ ordisease) in (population)?2. Is (intervention) cost-effective in the promotion and or prevention of (risk factor and/ ordisease) in (population)?3. Methodology (20 marks)• Selection criteria: (Inclusion criteria and Exclusion criteria for studies)o Inclusion criteria is everything that a study must have in order to be included in yourreview.o Exclusion criteria are the factors that would make a study ineligible to be included inyour review. These criteria are usually applied to the results of a search and are notused to limit the search results.o Specify the inclusion criteria and exclusion for studies in a table with the headings:population, interventions, comparisons ( for example, no intervention, othertreatment), outcomes, time (if relevant) and study types ( for example, systematicreview, economic evaluation).o You should also specify any exclusion criteria used, if any (for example, studiespublished before 2010, other language, certain type of study types)• Search strategyo Specify the search strategy, including resources searched and search terms.o Specify the date last searched (For example: these searches were current as at [monthand year].o Include the search string and search history (see module 4 for details)4. Brief Results (25 marks)• Using the synthesis table, summarise how many studies of each type were used for theevidence summary (for example, how many systematic reviews and how many economicevaluations, if any).• Include the reference and a description of the study with reference to the inclusion criteria,noting details of the participants, intervention(s), comparisons, outcomes and study types.Example of synthesis table: Study authoryear & titleStudy Design& Level ofevidenceSetting and Sample (N=number of participants)InterventionComparisonOutcomeSmith et al (2020)Falls prevention inMars.RCT (level II)Royal Great hospital inMarsN=1820 patients with milddementiaI= SpeedwalkingC= yogaFalls ↓Memory ↑John et al (2021)Effectiveness ofphysical exercisein falls preventionsSystematicReview (Level I)N=225539 participants (20studies; 10 RCTs, 5 quasiexperimental studies,5mixed methods ).I=Speed walkingC=Swimming;running; Lowdensity exerciseFalls –Anxiety ↓Self-esteem↑socialwithdrawal ↓ Note: ↓= decrease; ↑ increase; – no difference5. The evidence (20 marks)o This is the answer to the question. Start with a statement that shows the level and quantity ofevidence you found to answer the question. Cite all of the references that meet your inclusioncriteria.o Use a separate heading for this if relevant. Consider splitting the evidence into sectionsaccording to population groups, settings, determinants, risk factors and/or interventiontypes and outcomes – whatever works best for the evidence you have and the messages youwish to convey.o If possible, summarise what is involved in the intervention in terms of frequency, duration,delivery method, participants (including age) and so on. This will help for implementation,though it may be difficult to do if more than one intervention type is being considered.6. Research gaps (5 marks)Summarise research gaps using dot points.• Consider what the included studies identify as a research need.• Identify any study types, population groups and so on that were missing from the studies foundin your search.7. Implication for Practice (10 marks)Implications are basically the conclusions that you draw from your results and explain how the findingsmay be important for policy and practice.8. References (5 marks)o Only include references that meet the inclusion criteria and/or that are cited in the text.o Use APA referencing format.4 NURS2006 |2021NURS 2006/: Clinical Governance.Assessment 3: Marking Rubric: (40%, 1500 words) CriteriaHigh DistinctionDistinctionCreditPassFailStructure and Writing style 5%• Each section of the summary is structured in a logical sequence so that the content flows• The essay is written with clear sentence structure, clarity of argument and precision of expression and the spelling and grammar are correct• Consistent and clear application of Flinders University academic integrity principlesStructure and Writingstyle(5%)Fulfils the technicalaspects of the task.Very well-structured withall components present asoutlined in assessmentdetails.Systematically andlogically organised.Flawless grammar,spelling and sentencestructureThe overall paper, fromintroduction toconclusion, flowsextremely wellConsistent and clearapplication of FlindersUniversity academicintegrity principlesClear structure whichenhances the discussionand argumentSystematically andlogically organised.Excellent grammar,spelling and sentencestructureAdheres to word count +/-10%Consistent application ofFlinders Universityacademic integrityprincipleGenerally well-structuredwith all componentspresent as outlined inassessment details.Evidence of systematicorganisation of content.Minimal errors in spelling,grammar, or syntax so thepaper is easy to read.Adheres to word count +/-10%Mostly consistentapplication of FlindersUniversity academicintegrity principlesAdequately structured asoutlined in assessmentdetails but one or twocomponents need furtherdevelopment.Structures may make itdifficult to read, but itadequately communicatesinformation.Problems evident withgrammar, spelling, andsentence structure but thepaper is mostly easy to readAdheres to word count +/-10%Inconsistent application ofFlinders University academicintegrity principleInadequate structure asoutlined in assessmentdetails with poororganisation ofcomponents.No clear flow, rambling,repetitive, difficult to readand to understand themeaning.Includes significant errorsin spelling, grammar, andsyntax, so the intent of thepaper is difficult todetermine.Over/under the word limit(-/+10%)The Flinders UniversityAcademic Integrityrequirements have notbeen met.Content & Critical Analysis 90%• The introduction and background set the scene for the evidence summary and outlines the context and area of interest 5 NURS2006 |2021 • A clear and concise justification of the research problem and its significance is provided.• A preliminary review and critique of the literature has been undertaken and used to demonstrate a need for improvement• Demonstrates depth of understanding of the topic and significant issuesA step by step plan of the evidence summary is outlined and a high-level understanding of research process is demonstrated by:• Electronic database used was clearly named and rationale for the choice is clearly and succinctly stated.• Identifies search terms used which were appropriate and logical• Demonstrates an excellent understanding of using Boolean operators, Wildcard and Truncation• Detail explanation of implementation of search strategy given• A comprehensive search string attached• Clear succinct and logical framework used to present the chosen articles.• A comprehensive summary table- all articles relevant to the review question selected stating the type and level of evidence for each.• Summarises the research gaps using dot points.Overview of Clinicalproblem area andWhy change isneeded (5 marks)Presents a comprehensivedescription of a clinicalproblem, why change isneeded, and its significanceis provided.Rich in content. Full ofcritical and evidencebased thought, insight andanalysis.Discussion/ ideas aresupported with relevantextensive literature showingevidence that the studenthas read widely beyond setreadings with evidence wellintegrated.Presents a clear andconcise description ofwhy change is needed,Shows thoroughknowledge andunderstanding of thechosen topic is evident.Discussion/ ideas aresupported with strongdepth of evidence-basedinformation, thought andinsight and analysisevidentAdequate description ofthe clinical problem andwhy change is needed, isprovided.Shows evidence ofrelevant and soundknowledge andunderstanding of the topic.Discussion/ ideas aresupported with relevantliterature and evidence isintegrated adequately.The potential clinicalproblem was mostly clear,with minimal detail and largeamounts of extraneousdetail.The potential clinicalproblem needed more depthand robust discussionShows basic knowledge ofthe topic but not a thoroughunderstanding of some keyconcepts.Discussion/ ideas aresupported with relevantliterature, but evidence isintegrated at a basic level.Inadequate level ofknowledge of thechosen topic fordiscussion with fewconcepts thoroughlyunderstoodInadequate to nodescription of a problem.No link between theclinical problem and thechange needed.Discussion/ ideas arenot articulated.Review question(5 marks)State the reviewquestion using PICOTformat.Presents a comprehensivereview question using thePICOT format.Review question is wellformulated.Review question stated isrelevant, researchable,and significant.PICOT clear and accurateand relevant to the clinicalproblem identifiedReview question stated butneeds further work.Some elements of PICOTunclear/ inaccurateReview question isinadequately stated ormissing.There is no linkbetween the reviewquestion and the clinicalproblem 6 NURS2006 |2021 MethodologySelection criteria: (5marks)Specify theinclusion/exclusioncriteria for studies in atable with theheadings: population,interventions,comparisons,outcomes, and studytypes.Search strategy(15 marks)Specify the searchstrategy, includingresources searchedand search terms.Specify the date lastsearchedExceptional levelexplanation of processused to identify theInclusion and Exclusioncriteria and identification ofkeywords,Identifies & justifies awider range of inclusionand exclusion criteriawhich demonstrates ahigh level of criticalanalysis and is supportedby a wider range ofrelevant literature.Identifies acomprehensive range ofkey words related to thestated research questionand the PICOT or PIO.Provides a more detailedexplanation & justificationof inclusion & exclusioncriteria supported by avariety of relevant literature.Identifies a wider range ofrelevant key words relatedto the stated reviewquestion and the PICOT orPIO.Limited but adequatedescription & justification ofthe inclusion & exclusioncriteria for the stated reviewquestion.Identifies a limited number ofkey words related to thestated research question andthe PICOT or PIO.Did not describe /inadequate description &justification of inclusioncriteriaORInclusion criteria unclearor not relevant to theselected questionInsufficient or irrelevantkey words identified.Developed andimplemented asophisticated search stringrelevant to the statedreview question &demonstrates sophisticateduse of truncation,abbreviations, wildcards &Boolean operators.Developed andimplemented a moreadvanced searchstrategy/string relevant tothe stated reviewquestion & demonstratessophisticated use oftruncation, abbreviations,wildcards & Booleanoperators.Developed a moreadvanced searchstrategy/string relevant tothe stated review questionusing truncation,abbreviations, wildcards &Boolean operators.Search history includeddemonstrates a soundunderstanding of databasesearchingDeveloped a limited butadequate search stringrelevant to the reviewquestion.Search history includeddemonstrates limitedunderstanding of databasesearchingUsed either/OR truncation,abbreviations, wildcards &Boolean operators.Search string, inadequate,illogical or absent.search strategy/ notrelevant to the selectedquestionSearch strategy did notinclude all requiredcomponents (PICOT)truncation, wildcards ORBoolean operators notincludedSearch history NOTincluded/ not relevantDid not implement thesearch strategy 7 NURS2006 |2021 Synthesis table: (25marks)Evidence iscategorised correctly.Results displayed areaccurateLevel and strength ofevidence are accurateDemonstrates exemplarycritical analysis, synthesisof information and originalthought in the identificationof 5 highly relevantresearch articles.Demonstrates anexceptional knowledge,understanding, and abilityin identifying study designsand level of evidence.A clear and succinctidentification of 5 highlyrelevant studies, includingthe correct levels ofevidence and studydesigns.Demonstratescomprehensiveknowledge,understanding, and abilityin identifying studydesigns and level ofevidence.Identifies and records thedetails of 5 relevant studiesthat will enable the statedresearch question to beanswered.Demonstrates soundknowledge andunderstanding of studydesigns and level ofevidence.Evidence Type/ level: Allcorrectly documentedSample and Setting: Allresults displayed areaccurateIntervention andComparison: All correctlydocumentedOutcomes: All accuratelysummarisedImplements the searchstrategy and identifies andrecords the details of 3-4relevant studies that willenable to answer theselected review question.Demonstrates basicknowledge andunderstanding of studydesigns and level ofevidence.Evidence Type/ level: threeor more papers correctlydocumentedSample and Setting: threeor more papers correctlydocumentedIntervention andComparison: three or morepapers correctly documentedOutcomes: from three ormore papers accuratelysummarisedFive research articles areidentified & recorded butthe majority will notenable the stated reviewquestion to be answeredOR less than 5 articlesare identified & recorded.Demonstrates limitedknowledge andunderstanding of studydesigns and level ofevidence.Evidence Type / level:three or more inaccurateSample and Setting: threeor more papersdocumented inaccuratelyIntervention andComparison: three ormore not relevant/inaccurateOutcomes: three or morenot relevant/ inaccurate ornot documented 8 NURS2006 |2021 The evidence (20marks)Evidence is accuratelysummarisedSuccinct & comprehensivediscussion ofOVERALL findings thatincludes clearly drawntogether answers to thereview question.Deep and reflectivesynthesisPresents findings highlyrelevant to theissue/question andincludes a very high levelof synthesis (comparingand contrasting) of studyfindings.Findingsare organised in amanner thatincreases readability,interest and flow.In-depth discussion witha wide-ranginginterpretation andapplication of knowledgeand ideas presented.Thoughtful andconsidered synthesis.Presents findings relevantto the issue/question andincludes a very good levelof synthesis (comparingand contrasting) of studyfindings.Findingsare organised in a mannerthat increases readability.Thorough discussion ofOVERALL findings thatincludes answers to thereview question.Solid interpretation andapplication of knowledgeand ideas.Presents findings relevant tothe issue/question andincludes a good level ofsynthesis (comparing andcontrasting) of studyfindings.Some irrelevantfindings may be present.Readability is slightlyaffected by poororganisation and limited flowbut content accurateSome inconsistencies in theinterpretation andapplication of knowledgeand ideas.Minimal synthesisThere is very little / noevidence of synthesis(comparing andcontrasting studyresults).Instead there is asummary of what eachstudy found, presentedone after the other. Orsources other than thereview studies areincluded in this section.Inaccurate presentationof overall findings.No clear answers to theoriginal question or theanswer given may beunrelated to the originalquestion.No/little interpretationand application ofknowledge and ideas.No/insufficient synthesisof evidence.Research gaps(5 marks)Insightful and skilfulsummary with reference toresearch gaps and futureimplications of the potentialclinical problem.Shows a deep level ofthinking to synthesis mainpoints and identifyingresearch gaps.Clearly and conciselydescribes the main pointsand research gapA generic summary is madewith limited focus andreference to the futureimplications of the potentialclinical problem.A vague andunsupportable summarywith little to no focus onthe overall merit orimplications of thepotential clinical problem.Implication forPractice(10 marks)Practicerecommendations arethoroughProvides a thoroughpractice recommendationsthat are based on theevidence presented.Specificrecommendations forfuture practice andresearch are clearlyoutlined and are linked tothe literature reviewed.Recommendations arehighly relevant to theissue/question.General recommendationsfor future practice andresearch are outlined andare linked to the literaturereviewed.Most recommendationsare relevant tothe issue / question.Recommendations for futurepractice and research aredescribed and may belinked to the literaturereviewed.Some recommendations arenot relevant to theissue / question, but manyare unclear.There are no clearrecommendations, orthe recommendationsare not relevant tothe issue/question.The recommendationsare not supported bythe literature reviewed. 9 NURS2006 |2021 Referencing 5%• The referencing style used throughout the paper is congruent with the College of Nursing and Health Sciences• The reference list is accurate (ie no missing page numbers, volumes, correct title etc), complete (ie no reference is the body of the paper are missing from thereference list) and consistent.• The references cited are contemporary (ie less than 10 years old unless seminal paper)• Primary references are used predominantly (ie the original reference has been sited rather than a secondary source)• There is evidence in the paper that the student has searched widely for information related to the topic/ issues• The student has acknowledged all the sources of information• Direct quotations are only used to make crucial points or to support the discussion/ argumentLocated, evaluated, andsynthesised highlyrelevant information fromquality peer reviewed,relevant, and currentevidence sources.Discerning selection ofreferences from withinand beyond the Topicmaterials.Accurately andconsistently adhered toAPA (6th) referencingconventions in both intext referencing and thereference list with noerrors.Located, evaluated, andsynthesised relevantinformation from peerreviewed, relevant, andcurrent evidence sources.Clear evidence of wideand relevant reading.Accurately adhered toAPA (6th) referencingconventions in both in textreferencing and thereference list.Located, evaluated, andincorporated a range ofquality peer reviewed,relevant, and currentevidence sources.Almost always accuratelyand consistently adhered toAPA (6th) referencingconventions in both in textreferencing and thereference list.Located and collated partlyrelevant information from theTopic and current evidencesources.Attempt made to adhere toAPA (6th) referencingconventions in both in textreferencing and the referencelist, but some referencingomissions or inaccuraciesnoted.Frequent errors in APA(6th) referencing style forreference list and in textreferencingSubstantial lack andInadequate use of qualitypeer reviewed, relevant,and current evidencesources.Overall commentPenaltiesA late penalty has been applied to your assignment YES / NOName of markerDateGrade
