DNP Project

Home>Homework Answsers>Nursing homework helpDNP project revisionsa year ago18.08.202440Report issuefiles (9)DNPPROJECT____.docxAppendixDHierarchyofEvidenceGuide.pdfAppendixGIndividualEvidenceSummary1.docxEvaluationResults.pdfAppendixHSynthesisandRecommendations.docxAppendixFNonresearchEvidenceAppraisal.docxDNPProjectProcessGuide1.pdfAppendixEResearchEvidenceAppraisal.docxP2S1Assgn_CHERRY_T_Staff_Education_Project_Docs.zipDNPPROJECT____.docxDNP PROJECT1. More evidence to support project is needed educational intervention and tool need further development2. problem, gap, and practice change are clear in most documents but some revisions are needed to fully clarify and align the intervention to the outcome.3. Sources of evidence and educational program need further developed and outcome needs clarified in some documents.AppendixDHierarchyofEvidenceGuide.pdfJohns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model for Nursing and Healthcare ProfessionalsHierarchy of Evidence Guide
Appendix D© 2022 Johns Hopkins Health System/Johns Hopkins School of Nursing P a g e | 1Note: Refer to the appropriate Evidence Appraisal Tool (Research [Appendix E] or Nonresearch [Appendix F]) to determine quality ratings.Evidence Level Types of EvidenceR
esea
r
chE
v
iden
ce(A
pp
end
ixE
)Level I
• Experimental study, randomized controlled trial (RCT)• Explanatory mixed methods design that includes only a Level I quaNtitative study• Systematic review of RCTs, with or without meta-analysisLevel II
• Quasi-experimental study• Explanatory mixed methods design that includes only a Level II quaNtitative study• Systematic review of a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental studies, or quasi-experimentalstudies only, with or without meta-analysisLevel III• Nonexperimental study• Systematic review of a combination of RCTs, quasi-experimental and nonexperimental studies, ornonexperimental studies only, with or without meta-analysis.• Exploratory, convergent, or multiphasic mixed methods studies• Explanatory mixed methods design that includes only a Level III quaNtitative study• QuaLitative study• Systematic review of quaLitative studies with or without meta-synthesisN
o
nre
sea
r
chE
v
iden
ce(A
pp
end
ixF
)Level IVOpinion of respected authorities and/or nationally recognized expert committees or consensus panels basedon scientific evidence. Includes:• Clinical practice guidelines• Consensus panels/position statementsLevel VBased on experiential and non-research evidence. Includes:• Scoping reviews• Integrative reviews• Literature reviews• Quality improvement, program or financial evaluation• Case reports• Opinion of nationally recognized expert(s) based on experiential evidenceAppendixGIndividualEvidenceSummary1.docxJohns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model for Nursing and Healthcare ProfessionalsIndividual Evidence Summary ToolAppendix GJohns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based PracticeIndividual Evidence Summary Tool (Appendix G)EBP Question:Reviewer name(s)Article numberAuthor, date, and titleType of evidencePopulation, size, and settingInterventionFindings that help answer the EBP questionMeasures usedLimitationsEvidence level and qualityNotes to teamDirections for use of the Individual Evidence Summary ToolPurpose:Use this form to document and collate the results of the review and appraisal of each piece of evidence in preparation for evidence synthesis. The table headers indicate important elements of each article that will contribute to the synthesis process. The data in each cell should be complete enough that the other team members can gather all relevant information related to the evidence without having to go to each source article.See Chapter 11, Lessons from Practice, for examples of completed tools.Reviewer name(s):Record the member(s) of the team who are providing the information for each article. This will provide tracking if there are follow-up items or additional questions on an individual piece of evidence.Article number:Assign a number to each piece of evidence included in the table. This organizes the individual evidence summary and provides an easy way to reference articles.Author, date, and title:Record the last name of the first author of the article, the publication/communication date, and the title. This will help track articles throughout the literature search, screening, and review process. It is also helpful when someone has authored more than one publication included in the review.Type of evidence:Indicate the type of evidence for each source. This should be descriptive of the study or project design (e.g., randomized control trial, meta-analysis, mixed methods, qualitative, systematic review, case study, literature review) and not simply the level on the evidence hierarchy.Population, size, and setting:For research evidence, provide a quick view of the population, number of participants, and study location. For non-research evidence, population refers to the target audience, patient population, or profession. Non-research evidence may or may not have a sample size and/or location as found with research evidence.Intervention:Record the intervention(s) implemented or discussed in the article. This should relate to the intervention or comparison elements of your PICO question.Findings that help answer the EBP question:List findings from the article that directly answer the EBP question. These should be succinct statements that provide enough information that the reader does not need to return to the original article. Avoid directly copying and pasting from the article.Measures used:These are the measures and/or instruments (e.g., counts, rates, satisfaction surveys, validated tools, subscales) the authors used to determine the answer to the research question or the effectiveness of their intervention. Consider these measures as identified in the evidence for collection during the implementation of the EBP team’s project.Limitations:Provide the limitations of the evidence—both as listed by the authors as well as your assessment of any flaws or drawbacks. Consider the methodology, quality of reporting, and generalizability to the population of interest. Limitations should be apparent from the team’s appraisals using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tools (Appendices E and F). It can be helpful to consider the reasons an article did not receive a “high” quality rating because these reasons are limitations identified by the team.Evidence level and quality:Using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal tools (Appendices E and F), record the level (I-V) and quality (A, B or C) of the evidence. When possible, at least two reviewers should determine the level and quality.Notes to team:The team uses this section to keep track of items important to the EBP process not captured elsewhere on this tool. Consider items that will be helpful to have easy reference to when conducting the evidence synthesis.© 2021 Johns Hopkins Health System/Johns Hopkins School of Nursing Page |1© 2022 Johns Hopkins Health System/Johns Hopkins School of Nursing Page |3image1.jpegEvaluationResults.pdfThis file is too large to display.View in new windowAppendixHSynthesisandRecommendations.docxThis file is too large to display.View in new windowAppendixFNonresearchEvidenceAppraisal.docxThis file is too large to display.View in new windowDNPProjectProcessGuide1.pdfThis file is too large to display.View in new windowAppendixEResearchEvidenceAppraisal.docxThis file is too large to display.View in new windowP2S1Assgn_CHERRY_T_Staff_Education_Project_Docs.zipThis file is too large to display.View in new windowP2S1Assgn_CHERRY_T_Staff_Education_Project_Docs.zipThis file is too large to display.View in new windowDNPPROJECT____.docxDNP PROJECT1. More evidence to support project is needed educational intervention and tool need further development2. problem, gap, and practice change are clear in most documents but some revisions are needed to fully clarify and align the intervention to the outcome.3. Sources of evidence and educational program need further developed and outcome needs clarified in some documents.AppendixDHierarchyofEvidenceGuide.pdfJohns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model for Nursing and Healthcare ProfessionalsHierarchy of Evidence Guide
Appendix D© 2022 Johns Hopkins Health System/Johns Hopkins School of Nursing P a g e | 1Note: Refer to the appropriate Evidence Appraisal Tool (Research [Appendix E] or Nonresearch [Appendix F]) to determine quality ratings.Evidence Level Types of EvidenceR
esea
r
chE
v
iden
ce(A
pp
end
ixE
)Level I
• Experimental study, randomized controlled trial (RCT)• Explanatory mixed methods design that includes only a Level I quaNtitative study• Systematic review of RCTs, with or without meta-analysisLevel II
• Quasi-experimental study• Explanatory mixed methods design that includes only a Level II quaNtitative study• Systematic review of a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental studies, or quasi-experimentalstudies only, with or without meta-analysisLevel III• Nonexperimental study• Systematic review of a combination of RCTs, quasi-experimental and nonexperimental studies, ornonexperimental studies only, with or without meta-analysis.• Exploratory, convergent, or multiphasic mixed methods studies• Explanatory mixed methods design that includes only a Level III quaNtitative study• QuaLitative study• Systematic review of quaLitative studies with or without meta-synthesisN
o
nre
sea
r
chE
v
iden
ce(A
pp
end
ixF
)Level IVOpinion of respected authorities and/or nationally recognized expert committees or consensus panels basedon scientific evidence. Includes:• Clinical practice guidelines• Consensus panels/position statementsLevel VBased on experiential and non-research evidence. Includes:• Scoping reviews• Integrative reviews• Literature reviews• Quality improvement, program or financial evaluation• Case reports• Opinion of nationally recognized expert(s) based on experiential evidenceAppendixGIndividualEvidenceSummary1.docxJohns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model for Nursing and Healthcare ProfessionalsIndividual Evidence Summary ToolAppendix GJohns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based PracticeIndividual Evidence Summary Tool (Appendix G)EBP Question:Reviewer name(s)Article numberAuthor, date, and titleType of evidencePopulation, size, and settingInterventionFindings that help answer the EBP questionMeasures usedLimitationsEvidence level and qualityNotes to teamDirections for use of the Individual Evidence Summary ToolPurpose:Use this form to document and collate the results of the review and appraisal of each piece of evidence in preparation for evidence synthesis. The table headers indicate important elements of each article that will contribute to the synthesis process. The data in each cell should be complete enough that the other team members can gather all relevant information related to the evidence without having to go to each source article.See Chapter 11, Lessons from Practice, for examples of completed tools.Reviewer name(s):Record the member(s) of the team who are providing the information for each article. This will provide tracking if there are follow-up items or additional questions on an individual piece of evidence.Article number:Assign a number to each piece of evidence included in the table. This organizes the individual evidence summary and provides an easy way to reference articles.Author, date, and title:Record the last name of the first author of the article, the publication/communication date, and the title. This will help track articles throughout the literature search, screening, and review process. It is also helpful when someone has authored more than one publication included in the review.Type of evidence:Indicate the type of evidence for each source. This should be descriptive of the study or project design (e.g., randomized control trial, meta-analysis, mixed methods, qualitative, systematic review, case study, literature review) and not simply the level on the evidence hierarchy.Population, size, and setting:For research evidence, provide a quick view of the population, number of participants, and study location. For non-research evidence, population refers to the target audience, patient population, or profession. Non-research evidence may or may not have a sample size and/or location as found with research evidence.Intervention:Record the intervention(s) implemented or discussed in the article. This should relate to the intervention or comparison elements of your PICO question.Findings that help answer the EBP question:List findings from the article that directly answer the EBP question. These should be succinct statements that provide enough information that the reader does not need to return to the original article. Avoid directly copying and pasting from the article.Measures used:These are the measures and/or instruments (e.g., counts, rates, satisfaction surveys, validated tools, subscales) the authors used to determine the answer to the research question or the effectiveness of their intervention. Consider these measures as identified in the evidence for collection during the implementation of the EBP team’s project.Limitations:Provide the limitations of the evidence—both as listed by the authors as well as your assessment of any flaws or drawbacks. Consider the methodology, quality of reporting, and generalizability to the population of interest. Limitations should be apparent from the team’s appraisals using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tools (Appendices E and F). It can be helpful to consider the reasons an article did not receive a “high” quality rating because these reasons are limitations identified by the team.Evidence level and quality:Using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal tools (Appendices E and F), record the level (I-V) and quality (A, B or C) of the evidence. When possible, at least two reviewers should determine the level and quality.Notes to team:The team uses this section to keep track of items important to the EBP process not captured elsewhere on this tool. Consider items that will be helpful to have easy reference to when conducting the evidence synthesis.© 2021 Johns Hopkins Health System/Johns Hopkins School of Nursing Page |1© 2022 Johns Hopkins Health System/Johns Hopkins School of Nursing Page |3image1.jpegEvaluationResults.pdfThis file is too large to display.View in new windowAppendixHSynthesisandRecommendations.docxThis file is too large to display.View in new windowAppendixFNonresearchEvidenceAppraisal.docxThis file is too large to display.View in new windowDNPProjectProcessGuide1.pdfThis file is too large to display.View in new windowAppendixEResearchEvidenceAppraisal.docxThis file is too large to display.View in new windowP2S1Assgn_CHERRY_T_Staff_Education_Project_Docs.zipThis file is too large to display.View in new windowDNPPROJECT____.docxDNP PROJECT1. More evidence to support project is needed educational intervention and tool need further development2. problem, gap, and practice change are clear in most documents but some revisions are needed to fully clarify and align the intervention to the outcome.3. Sources of evidence and educational program need further developed and outcome needs clarified in some documents.AppendixDHierarchyofEvidenceGuide.pdfJohns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model for Nursing and Healthcare ProfessionalsHierarchy of Evidence Guide
Appendix D© 2022 Johns Hopkins Health System/Johns Hopkins School of Nursing P a g e | 1Note: Refer to the appropriate Evidence Appraisal Tool (Research [Appendix E] or Nonresearch [Appendix F]) to determine quality ratings.Evidence Level Types of EvidenceR
esea
r
chE
v
iden
ce(A
pp
end
ixE
)Level I
• Experimental study, randomized controlled trial (RCT)• Explanatory mixed methods design that includes only a Level I quaNtitative study• Systematic review of RCTs, with or without meta-analysisLevel II
• Quasi-experimental study• Explanatory mixed methods design that includes only a Level II quaNtitative study• Systematic review of a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental studies, or quasi-experimentalstudies only, with or without meta-analysisLevel III• Nonexperimental study• Systematic review of a combination of RCTs, quasi-experimental and nonexperimental studies, ornonexperimental studies only, with or without meta-analysis.• Exploratory, convergent, or multiphasic mixed methods studies• Explanatory mixed methods design that includes only a Level III quaNtitative study• QuaLitative study• Systematic review of quaLitative studies with or without meta-synthesisN
o
nre
sea
r
chE
v
iden
ce(A
pp
end
ixF
)Level IVOpinion of respected authorities and/or nationally recognized expert committees or consensus panels basedon scientific evidence. Includes:• Clinical practice guidelines• Consensus panels/position statementsLevel VBased on experiential and non-research evidence. Includes:• Scoping reviews• Integrative reviews• Literature reviews• Quality improvement, program or financial evaluation• Case reports• Opinion of nationally recognized expert(s) based on experiential evidenceAppendixGIndividualEvidenceSummary1.docxJohns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model for Nursing and Healthcare ProfessionalsIndividual Evidence Summary ToolAppendix GJohns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based PracticeIndividual Evidence Summary Tool (Appendix G)EBP Question:Reviewer name(s)Article numberAuthor, date, and titleType of evidencePopulation, size, and settingInterventionFindings that help answer the EBP questionMeasures usedLimitationsEvidence level and qualityNotes to teamDirections for use of the Individual Evidence Summary ToolPurpose:Use this form to document and collate the results of the review and appraisal of each piece of evidence in preparation for evidence synthesis. The table headers indicate important elements of each article that will contribute to the synthesis process. The data in each cell should be complete enough that the other team members can gather all relevant information related to the evidence without having to go to each source article.See Chapter 11, Lessons from Practice, for examples of completed tools.Reviewer name(s):Record the member(s) of the team who are providing the information for each article. This will provide tracking if there are follow-up items or additional questions on an individual piece of evidence.Article number:Assign a number to each piece of evidence included in the table. This organizes the individual evidence summary and provides an easy way to reference articles.Author, date, and title:Record the last name of the first author of the article, the publication/communication date, and the title. This will help track articles throughout the literature search, screening, and review process. It is also helpful when someone has authored more than one publication included in the review.Type of evidence:Indicate the type of evidence for each source. This should be descriptive of the study or project design (e.g., randomized control trial, meta-analysis, mixed methods, qualitative, systematic review, case study, literature review) and not simply the level on the evidence hierarchy.Population, size, and setting:For research evidence, provide a quick view of the population, number of participants, and study location. For non-research evidence, population refers to the target audience, patient population, or profession. Non-research evidence may or may not have a sample size and/or location as found with research evidence.Intervention:Record the intervention(s) implemented or discussed in the article. This should relate to the intervention or comparison elements of your PICO question.Findings that help answer the EBP question:List findings from the article that directly answer the EBP question. These should be succinct statements that provide enough information that the reader does not need to return to the original article. Avoid directly copying and pasting from the article.Measures used:These are the measures and/or instruments (e.g., counts, rates, satisfaction surveys, validated tools, subscales) the authors used to determine the answer to the research question or the effectiveness of their intervention. Consider these measures as identified in the evidence for collection during the implementation of the EBP team’s project.Limitations:Provide the limitations of the evidence—both as listed by the authors as well as your assessment of any flaws or drawbacks. Consider the methodology, quality of reporting, and generalizability to the population of interest. Limitations should be apparent from the team’s appraisals using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tools (Appendices E and F). It can be helpful to consider the reasons an article did not receive a “high” quality rating because these reasons are limitations identified by the team.Evidence level and quality:Using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal tools (Appendices E and F), record the level (I-V) and quality (A, B or C) of the evidence. When possible, at least two reviewers should determine the level and quality.Notes to team:The team uses this section to keep track of items important to the EBP process not captured elsewhere on this tool. Consider items that will be helpful to have easy reference to when conducting the evidence synthesis.© 2021 Johns Hopkins Health System/Johns Hopkins School of Nursing Page |1© 2022 Johns Hopkins Health System/Johns Hopkins School of Nursing Page |3image1.jpegEvaluationResults.pdfThis file is too large to display.View in new windowAppendixHSynthesisandRecommendations.docxThis file is too large to display.View in new windowAppendixFNonresearchEvidenceAppraisal.docxThis file is too large to display.View in new windowDNPProjectProcessGuide1.pdfThis file is too large to display.View in new windowAppendixEResearchEvidenceAppraisal.docxThis file is too large to display.View in new windowP2S1Assgn_CHERRY_T_Staff_Education_Project_Docs.zipThis file is too large to display.View in new window123456789Bids(53)Miss DeannaDr. Ellen RMEmily ClareDr. Aylin JMMISS HILLARY A+abdul_rehman_Prof Double RDoctor.NamiraSTELLAR GEEK A+ProWritingGurugrA+de plusSheryl HoganDr. Adeline ZoeMukul5078firstclass tutorDr M. Michellesherry proffCreative GeekWIZARD_KIMPremiumShow All Bidsother Questions(10)Command and Natural Languagehomework for just Prof Daisy Mgroup practice managementUse the following data set that compares age to averageList 5 considerations, in order of priority, which will influence your decision in selection of routing and switching devices.EDU 657 Week 6 Final Paper ASHneed help in my homeworkWorkload organization and managementS&J Plumbing, Inc.’s 2010 income statement shows a net profit before tax of $468, whereas the balance sheet that the company’s equity for the fiscal year-end 2010 is $1,746.HCA 430 Week 2 Assignment

Needs help with similar assignment?

We are available 24x7 to deliver the best services and assignment ready within 3-4 hours? Order a custom-written, plagiarism-free paper

Get Answer Over WhatsApp Order Paper Now