Evaluate dissemination strategies

NURS 6052 Evidence-Based Decision Making Essay

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Evidence-based Decision Making [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Due By Assignment
Week 8, Days 1-7 Read the Learning Resources.
Week 9, Days 1-2 Read the Learning Resources.
Week 9, Day 3 Post your initial Discussion post.
Week 9, Days 4-5 Compose your peer Discussion reponses.
Week 9 Day 6 Post two peer Discussion responses.
Week 9, Day 7 Wrap up Discussion.
Learning Objectives

Evaluate dissemination strategies
Recommend strategies to overcome barriers to dissemination of evidence-based practice changes
Learning Resources

Note: To access this module’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.

Chapter 10, “The Role of Outcomes on Evidence-based Quality Improvement and enhancing and Evaluating Practice Changes” (pp. 293–312)
Chapter 12, “Leadership Strategies for Creating and Sustaining Evidence-based Practice Organizations” (pp. 328–343)
Chapter 14, “Models to Guide Implementation and Sustainability of Evidence-based Practice” (pp. 378–427)
Gallagher-Ford, L., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Stillwell, S. B. (2011). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Implementing an evidence-based practice change. American Journal of Nursing, 111(3), 54–60. doi:10.1097/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000395243.14347.7e. Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/ajnonline/Fulltext/2011/03000/Evidence_Based_Practice,_Step_by_Step_.31.aspx

Newhouse, R. P., Dearholt, S., Poe, S., Pugh, L. C., & White, K. M. (2007). Organizational change strategies for evidence-based practice. Journal of Nursing Administration, 37(12), 552–557. doi:0.1097/01.NNA.0000302384.91366.8f

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M. (2012). Achieving a high-reliability organization through implementation of the ARCC model for systemwide sustainability of evidence-based practice. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 127–135. doi:10.1097/NAQ.0b013e318249fb6a

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Gallagher-Ford, L., & Stillwell, S. B. (2011). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Sustaining evidence-based practice through organizational policies and an innovative model. American Journal of Nursing, 111(9), 57–60. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000405063.97774.0e

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Giggleman, M., & Choy, K. (2017). A test of the ARCC© model improves implementation of evidence-based practice, healthcare culture, and patient outcomes. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 14(1), 5–9. doi:10.1111/wvn.12188

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

NURS 6052 Evidence-Based Decision Making Essay
NURS 6052 Evidence-Based Decision Making Essay

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Gallagher-Ford, L., & Stillwell, S. B. (2011). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Sustaining evidence-based practice through organizational policies and an innovative model. American Journal of Nursing, 111(9), 57–60. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000405063.97774.0e

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 6052 Evidence-Based Decision Making Essay
Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Content

Name: NURS_6052_Module05_Week09_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View
List View
Novice Competent Proficient New Column4
Main Posting Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Post is cited with two credible sources.

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Contains only one or no credible sources.

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 Post: Timeliness Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.

First Response Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Participation Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

Total Points: 100