NRS490 Grand Canyon Home Health Care Patients in Requiring Wound Care Review P Home health care patients in requiring wound care I Certified (WOC) nurses

NRS490 Grand Canyon Home Health Care Patients in Requiring Wound Care Review P Home health care patients in requiring wound care

I Certified (WOC) nurses versus non- certified nurses

C standard wound care

O Prevalent wound healing as measured by patients receiving care from a certified wound care nurse.

T Six-month time frame

Students need to be able to process and formulate an evidence-based and financially feasible solution to a clinical problem or issue. Working through the element of plan development requires them to assess and address the challenges, barriers, and other facets of change proposal implementation in the real world. The content in this topic will enable students to better understand the cultural environment(s) surrounding a change project and lead them through the steps of how to go about successful implementation of a strategic plan. A change or nursing theory must be used to support rational for proposed implementation plan.

Objectives:
Identify objectives, strategy, and measurable outcomes of the evidence-based practice proposal.
List steps needed to implement each strategy in a change proposal.
Outline the resources needed to develop and implement a change proposal.
Describe methods for obtaining necessary support from key stakeholders.
Develop a plan to evaluate the effectiveness of the change proposal project.
Evaluate the role of information sources and technologies impacting the delivery of care within an adequate environment of care.
Develop appropriate change plans that promote health and prevent disease.While the implementation plan prepares students to apply their research to the problem or issue they have identified for their capstone change proposal project, the literature review enables students to map out and move into the active planning and development stages of the project.A literature review analyzes how current research supports the PICOT, as well as identifies what is known and what is not known in the evidence. Students will use the information from the earlier PICOT Statement Paper and Literature Evaluation Table assignments to develop a 750-1,000 word review that includes the following sections:
Title page
Introduction section
A comparison of research questions
A comparison of sample populations
A comparison of the limitations of the study
A conclusion section, incorporating recommendations for further research
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.
Literature Review

1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%

2
Less than Satisfactory
75.00%

3
Satisfactory
79.00%

4
Good
89.00%

5
Excellent
100.00%

80.0 %Content

10.0 %Introduction

An introduction is not present.

An introduction is present, but it does not relate to the body of the paper.

An introduction is present, and it relates to the body of the paper. There is nothing in the introduction to entice the reader to continue reading.

An introduction is present, and it relates to the body of the paper. Information presented in the introduction provides incentive for the reader to continue reading.

An introduction is present, and it relates to the body of the paper. Information presented in the introduction is intriguing and encourages the reader to continue reading.

20.0 %Comparison of Research Questions

No comparison of research questions is presented.

A comparison of research questions is presented, but it is not valid.

A cursory though valid comparison of research questions is presented.

A moderately thorough and valid comparison of research questions is presented.

A reflective and insightful comparison of research questions is presented.

20.0 %Comparison of Sample Populations

No comparison of sample populations is presented.

A comparison of sample populations is presented, but it is not valid.

A cursory though valid comparison of sample populations is presented.

A moderately thorough and valid comparison of sample populations is presented.

A reflective and insightful comparison of sample populations is presented.

20.0 %Comparison of the Limitations of the Study

No comparison of the limitations of the study is presented.

A comparison of the limitations of the study is presented, but it is not valid.

A cursory though valid comparison of the limitations of the study is presented.

A moderately thorough and valid comparison of the limitations of the study is presented.

A reflective and insightful comparison of the limitations of the study is presented.

10.0 %Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research

No conclusion and recommendations for further research are presented.

A conclusion and recommendations for further research are presented, but they are not valid.

A conclusion and recommendations for further research are valid, but they are cursory.

A conclusion and recommendations for further research are valid and moderately thorough.

A conclusion and recommendations for further research are reflective and insightful.

15.0 %Organization and Effectiveness

5.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

5.0 %Argument Logic and Construction

Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present.

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

5.0 %Format

2.0 %Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.

Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.

Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

All format elements are correct.

3.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)

Sources are not documented.

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

100 %Total Weightage