EBP Project Paper
For this Assignment
Review the following:
Walden paper template.
Submit a 3- to 4-page paper (not including the title page, and reference list) on your EBP project including:
A brief statement of the topic and the PICO clinical question with a purpose statement
Recommended change in practice citing high-level evidence to support your suggested change in practice.
Explain the recommended EB change including the setting, health care consumers affected, and the rationale for the change
Include how the recommended change would be implemented, who will be involved, and how information/change will be provided to those involved, supporting your responses with scholarly literature
Evaluation strategies and outcome measures
Describe how outcomes will be measured and how data will be collected to clearly identify if the plan once implemented has had a positive, negative, or neutral impact, supporting your responses with scholarly literature
Conclude your paper with a summary
Use at least 5 sources of evidence from the following categories: (a) systematic reviews, (b) national clinical guidelines and/or (c) peer-reviewed quantitative / qualitative studies.
Paraphrase, avoid direct quotes, and use your own words supported by evidence to exhibit scholarly writing. Do not use articles older than 5 years unless they have been confirmed as seminal articles by your Instructor. At least 5 sources of evidence are required for your paper.
Brown, S. J. (2018). Evidence-based nursing: The research-practice connection (4th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Pages 48–51 and 251–253.
Gray, J. R, & Grove, S. K. (2021). Burns and Grove’s the practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence (9th ed.). Elsevier.
“Evidence Synthesis and Strategies for Implementing Evidence-Based Practice” (pp. 551–605)
Excellent Proficient Basic Needs Improvement
Required Content: Introduction: Included a brief statement of the topic, the EBP question clearly stated in the PICO format and include a purpose statement.
18 (9%) – 20 (10%)
Provided a fully developed brief statement of the topic and the PICO format question with a purpose statement related to the identified PICO issue.
16 (8%) – 17 (8.5%)
Provided a developed brief statement of the topic and the PICO format question with a purpose statement mostly related to the identified PICO issue.
14 (7%) – 15 (7.5%)
Provided a minimally developed brief statement of the topic and the PICO format question with a purpose statement minimally related to the identified PICO issue.
0 (0%) – 13 (6.5%)
Provided an underdeveloped brief statement of the topic and the PICO format question with a purpose statement with little or no relation to the identified PICO issue.
Recommended Change in Practice: Clearly explained the recommended evidence-based change including the setting, health care consumers affected, and the rationale for the change. Included how the recommended change will be implemented, who will be involved, and how information/change will be provided to those involved. Provided support from the literature.
54 (27%) – 60 (30%)
Provided a fully developed recommended EB change including all aspects of the EBP change as described in the instructions and support from the literature with insightful analysis of concepts and related issues.
48 (24%) – 53 (26.5%)
Provided a developed recommended EB change including all aspects of the EBP change as described in the instructions and support from the literature with reasonable analysis of concepts and related issues.
42 (21%) – 47 (23.5%)
Provided a minimally developed recommended EB change including all aspects of the EBP change as described in the instructions and support from the literature with limited analysis of concepts and related issues.
0 (0%) – 41 (20.5%)
Provided an under-developed recommended EB change including all aspects of the EBP change as described in the instructions and support from the literature with little or no analysis of concepts and related issues.
Evaluation Strategies: Describe how outcomes will be measured and how data will be collected to clearly identify if the plan once implemented has had a positive negative or neutral impact. Provide support from the literature.
36 (18%) – 40 (20%)
Provided a fully developed plan for evaluation of effectiveness of the recommended EVP change including the data to be collected and how it will determine effectiveness with insightful analysis of concepts and related issues.
32 (16%) – 35 (17.5%)
Provided a developed plan for evaluation of effectiveness of the recommended EVP change including the data to be collected and how it will determine effectiveness with reasonable analysis of concepts and related issues.
28 (14%) – 31 (15.5%)
Provided a minimally developed plan for evaluation of effectiveness of the recommended EVP change including the data to be collected and how it will determine effectiveness with limited analysis of concepts and related issues.
0 (0%) – 27 (13.5%)
Provided an under developed plan for evaluation of effectiveness of the recommended EVP change including the data to be collected and how it will determine effectiveness with little or no analysis of concepts and related issues.
Required Content: Conclusion: Summarize the key points of the paper.
18 (9%) – 20 (10%)
Provided a fully developed summary of the key points of the recommended EBP change.
16 (8%) – 17 (8.5%)
Provided a developed summary of the key points of the recommended EBP change.
14 (7%) – 15 (7.5%)
Provided a minimally developed summary of the key points of the recommended EBP change.
0 (0%) – 13 (6.5%)
Provided an under-developed summary of the key points of the recommended EBP change.
Professional Writing: Clarity, Flow, and Organization
18 (9%) – 20 (10%)
Content is free from spelling, punctuation, and grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates very well-formed sentence and paragraph structure. Content presented is completely clear, logical, and well-organized.
16 (8%) – 17 (8.5%)
Content contains minor spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates appropriate sentence and paragraph structure. Content presented is mostly clear, logical, and well-organized.
14 (7%) – 15 (7.5%)
Content contains moderate spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates adequate sentence and paragraph structure and may require some editing. Content presented is adequately clear, logical, and/or organized, but could benefit from additional editing/revision.
0 (0%) – 13 (6.5%)
Content contains significant spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing does not demonstrate adequate sentence and paragraph structure and requires additional editing/proofreading. Key sections of presented content lack clarity, logical flow, and/or organization.
Professional Writing: Context, Audience, Purpose, and Tone
18 (9%) – 20 (10%)
Content clearly demonstrates awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is highly professional, scholarly, and free from bias, and style is appropriate for the professional setting/workplace context.
16 (8%) – 17 (8.5%)
Content demonstrates satisfactory awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is adequately professional, scholarly, and/or free from bias, and style is consistent with the professional setting/workplace context.
14 (7%) – 15 (7.5%)
Content demonstrates basic awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is somewhat professional, scholarly, and/or free from bias, and style is mostly consistent with the professional setting/workplace context.
0 (0%) – 13 (6.5%)
Content minimally or does not demonstrate awareness of context, audience, and/or purpose. Writing is not reflective of professional/scholarly tone and/or is not free of bias. Style is inconsistent with the professional setting/workplace context and reflects the need for additional editing.
Professional Writing: Originality, Source Credibility, and Attribution of Ideas
18 (9%) – 20 (10%)
Content reflects original thought and writing and proper paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates full adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references in proper APA formatting.
16 (8%) – 17 (8.5%)
Content adequately reflects original writing and paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates adequate adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references. There are one or two minor errors in APA formatting.
14 (7%) – 15 (7.5%)
Content somewhat reflects original writing and paraphrasing. Writing somewhat demonstrates adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references. There are two or three minor errors in APA formatting.
0 (0%) – 13 (6.5%)
Content does not adequately reflect original writing and/or paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates inconsistent adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and reference. There are numerous and/or significant errors in APA formatting.
Total Points: 200
Name: NURS_4100_Week_5_Assignment_Rubric
