Provide a Summary of the Clinical Issue
Provide a Summary of the Clinical Issue
Provide a Summary of the Clinical Issue
The first step of the evidence-based practice process is to evaluate a nursing practice environment to identify a nursing problem in the clinical area. When a nursing problem is discovered, the nurse researcher develops a clinical guiding question to address that nursing practice problem.
For this assignment, you will create a clinical guiding question know as a PICOT question. The PICOT question must be relevant to a nursing practice problem. To support your PICOT question, identify six supporting peer-reviewed research articles, as indicated below. The PICOT question and six peer-reviewed research articles you choose will be utilized for subsequent assignments.
Use the “Literature Evaluation Table” to complete this assignment.
Select a nursing practice problem of interest to use as the focus of your research. Start with the patient population and identify a clinical problem or issue that arises from the patient population. In 200–250 words, provide a summary of the clinical issue.
Following the PICOT format, write a PICOT question in your selected nursing practice problem area of interest. The PICOT question should be applicable to your proposed capstone project (the project students must complete during their final course in the RN-BSN program of study).
The PICOT question will provide a framework for your capstone project.
Conduct a literature search to locate six research articles focused on your selected nursing practice problem of interest. This literature search should include three quantitative and three qualitative peer-reviewed research articles to support your nursing practice problem.
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: TProvide a Summary of the Clinical Issue
Note: To assist in your search, remove the words qualitative and quantitative and include words that narrow or broaden your main topic. For example: Search for diabetes and pediatric and dialysis. To determine what research design was used in the articles the search produced, review the abstract and the methods section of the article. The author will provide a description of data collection using qualitative or quantitative methods. Systematic Reviews, Literature Reviews, and Metanalysis articles are good resources and provide a strong level of evidence but are not considered primary research articles. Therefore, they should not be included in this assignment.
While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
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 not required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.
Attachments
NRS-433V -RS1-LiteratureEvaluationTable.do
PICOT Question and Literature Search – Rubric
Criteria Description
Summary of Clinical Issue
5. 5: Excellent
6 points
A clinical issue is thoroughly described. The issue relates to nursing practice.
4. 4: Good
5.64 points
A clinical issue is presented. The issue relates to nursing practice. Minor detail is needed for clarity.
3. 3: Satisfactory
4.98 points
A clinical issue is summarized. The issue generally relates to nursing practice.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
4.5 points
A clinical issue is partially presented. It is unclear how the clinical issue relates to nursing practice. Significant aspects are missing, or there are inaccuracies.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
A clinical issue is omitted or is not relevant to nursing practice.
Criteria Description
PICOT Question
5. 5: Excellent
12 points
A PICOT question is clearly presented. The PICOT question format is applied accurately and presents an answerable and researchable question.
4. 4: Good
11.28 points
A PICOT question is provided. The PICOT question format is applied accurately. Some detail is need for support or clarity.
3. 3: Satisfactory
9.96 points
A PICOT question is provided. The PICOT question format is generally applied. Some information or revision is needed.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
9 points
A PICOT question is provided but is incomplete. The PICOT question format is used incorrectly.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
A PICOT question is not included.
Criteria Description
APA-Formatted Article Citations With Permalinks
5. 5: Excellent
6 points
Article citations and permalinks are presented. Article citations are accurately presented in APA format.
4. 4: Good
5.64 points
Article citations and permalinks are presented. Article citations are presented in APA format. There are minor errors.
3. 3: Satisfactory
4.98 points
Article citations and permalinks are presented. Article citations are presented in APA format, but there are errors.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
4.5 points
Article citations and permalinks are presented. There are significant errors in the APA format. One or more links do not lead to the intended article.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Article citations and permalinks are omitted.
Criteria Description
Relationship of Articles to the PICOT Question
5. 5: Excellent
12 points
Each article clearly relates to the PICOT question. The articles provide strong support for the PICOT question.
4. 4: Good
11.28 points
Each article relates to the PICOT question. The articles provide support for the PICOT question.
3. 3: Satisfactory
9.96 points
At least one articles does not relate to the PICOT question. The remaining articles provide general support for the PICOT question. One or two different articles are needed to provide better support for the PICOT question.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
9 points
At least two articles do not relate to the PICOT question. The remaining articles provide a small degree of support for the PICOT question. Different articles are needed to provide better support for the PICOT question.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Three or more articles do not relate to the PICOT question.
Criteria Description
Quantitative and Qualitative Articles
5. 5: Excellent
12 points
Six research articles are presented. Each article meets the assignment criteria for a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed study. An ability to identify the different types of research design used in a study is consistently demonstrated.
4. 4: Good
11.28 points
Six research articles are presented. One article does not meet the assignment criteria for a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed study. A general ability to identify the type of research design used in a study is demonstrated.
3. 3: Satisfactory
9.96 points
Six research articles are presented. Two articles do not meet the assignment criteria for a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed study. Some ability to identify the type of research design used in a study is demonstrated.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
9 points
Six research articles are presented. Three articles do not meet the assignment criteria for a quantitative, qualitative
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Fewer than six research articles are presented. Four or more articles do not meet the assignment criteria for a quantitative, qualitative,
Criteria Description
Purpose Statements
5. 5: Excellent
6 points
Purpose statements are accurate and clearly summarized.
4. 4: Good
5.64 points
Purpose statements summarized. There are some minor inaccuracies in some.
3. 3: Satisfactory
4.98 points
Purpose statements are presented. There are minor omissions in some areas, or major inaccuracies.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
4.5 points
Purpose statements are referenced but are incomplete in some areas.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Purpose statements are omitted or are incomplete overall.
Criteria Description
Research Questions
5. 5: Excellent
6 points
Research questions are accurate and capture the fundamental question posed by the researchers in each study.
4. 4: Good
5.64 points
Research questions are presented. Minor detail is needed for clarity in some areas.
3. 3: Satisfactory
4.98 points
Research questions are presented. The research question has been misidentified or misinterpreted for one of the articles. Some detail is needed to fully illustrate the research question for one or two articles.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
4.5 points
Research question is presented for each article. The research question has been misidentified or misinterpreted for at least two of the articles. Additional information is needed to fully illustrate the research question for several of the articles.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Research questions are omitted or are incomplete overall.
Criteria Description
Outcome
5. 5: Excellent
6 points
Research outcomes are accurate and described in detail for each article.
4. 4: Good
5.64 points
Research outcomes are presented. Minor detail is needed for clarity in some areas.
3. 3: Satisfactory
4.98 points
Research outcomes are presented. The research outcome has been misidentified or misinterpreted for one of the articles. Some detail is needed to fully illustrate the research outcomes for one or two articles.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
4.5 points
Research outcome is presented for each article. The research outcome has been misidentified or misinterpreted for at least two of the articles. Additional information is needed to fully illustrate the research outcomes for several of the articles.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Research outcomes are omitted or are incomplete overall.
Criteria Description
Setting
5. 5: Excellent
6 points
The setting in which the researcher conducted the study is detailed and accurate for each article.
4. 4: Good
5.64 points
The setting is indicated for each article. Some detail is needed to fully illustrate the physical, social, or cultural site in which the researcher conducted the study.
3. 3: Satisfactory
4.98 points
The setting is indicated for each article. The setting described for one article is inaccurate or incomplete.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
4.5 points
The setting is indicated for each article. The setting described for two of the articles is inaccurate or incomplete.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
The setting is omitted for one or more of the articles. The setting described for three or more articles is inaccurate or incomplete.
Criteria Description
Sample
5. 5: Excellent
6 points
The sample is indicated and accurate for each article.
4. 4: Good
5.64 points
The sample is indicated for each article. Minor detail is needed for accuracy.
3. 3: Satisfactory
4.98 points
The sample is indicated for each article. The sample described for one article is inaccurate or incomplete.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
4.5 points
The sample is indicated for each article. The sample described for at least two of the articles is inaccurate or incomplete.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
The sample is omitted for one or more of the articles. The sample described for three or more articles is inaccurate or incomplete.
Criteria Description
Method
5. 5: Excellent
6 points
A thorough discussion on the method of study for each article is presented.
4. 4: Good
5.64 points
A discussion on the method of study for each article is presented.
3. 3: Satisfactory
4.98 points
The method of study for each article is presented. Some key aspects are missing for one or two articles, or there are some inaccuracies for the methods reported.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
4.5 points
The method of study is partially presented for each article. Key information is consistently omitted. Overall, the methods reported contain inaccuracies.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Method of study for one or more articles is omitted. Overall, the methods of study are incomplete.
Criteria Description
Key Findings of the Study
5. 5: Excellent
6 points
Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is thorough with relevant details and extensive explanation.
4. 4: Good
5.64 points
Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is complete and includes relevant details and explanation.
3. 3: Satisfactory
4.98 points
Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is generally presented for each article. Overall, the discussion includes some relevant details and explanation.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
4.5 points
A summary of the study results includes findings and implications for nursing practice but lacks relevant details and explanation. There are some omissions or inaccuracies.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is incomplete.
Criteria Description
Recommendations of the Researcher
5. 5: Excellent
6 points
Researcher recommendations accurate are thoroughly described for each article.
4. 4: Good
5.64 points
Researcher recommendations for each article are accurately presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy.
3. 3: Satisfactory
4.98 points
Researcher recommendations for each article are presented. Researcher recommendations described for one article are inaccurate or incomplete.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
4.5 points
Researcher recommendations are indicated for each article. The researcher recommendations described for two of the articles are inaccurate or incomplete.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Researcher recommendations are omitted for one or more of the articles. The recommendations described for three or more articles are inaccurate or incomplete.
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
5. 5: Excellent
12 points
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
4. 4: Good
11.28 points
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.
3. 3: Satisfactory
9.96 points
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.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
9 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.
Criteria Description
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
5. 5: Excellent
12 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
4. 4: Good
11.28 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
3. 3: Satisfactory
9.96 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
9 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Sources are not documented.
Total 120 points
