Evidence Based Practice Paper Guidelines and Rubric
The objectives of the paper are to:
- Explain the role of evidence in determining best clinical practices
- Compare and contrast evidence-based practice (EBP) with actual practice
- Value the concept of EBP as integral to determining best clinical practice (see QSEN pre-licensure KSAs)
- Develop/demonstrate scholarly writing skills
- Seek necessary resources related to clinical practice topics and guidelines.
You will select a nursing intervention (ideally one you have performed or seen performed) in the clinical setting. Locate and make a copy of the policy, procedure, or standard available from the clinical setting related to the intervention observed in that department. Seek out at least 3 current (within 5 years) published evidence related to the intervention observed. Write a scholarly paper (APA format) that describes the policy and procedure, synthesizes the best found evidence, compares and contrasts the written policy/standards with the current evidence found, any difficulties in locating evidence, and anticipated challenges implementing the best evidence found, or how barriers were overcome to improve the policy if recently changed/updated.
This paper is to be no longer than 5 pages, no less than 3 pages. Part of scholarly writing involves the ability to synthesize information into succinct and clear writing “making a case” in your written discussion. APA format is required. The paper is worth 50 points and is due April 7th.
|Introduction & Background(10)||Intervention selected is clear. Strong introduction. Background explains the interest in the intervention and what has been done or has changed in the history of the practice/intervention.||Intervention selected is clear. Introduction limitedly compelling. Background explains the interesting the intervention and the history.||Intervention selected is initially unclear or difficult to identify quickly. Introduction is not well organized or not compelling. Background is limited.||Intervention selected is unclear. Introduction is poorly organized and not enough information is given to explain the background.|
|EBP Research & Policy(10)||Used reliable resources for EBP support of current or recommended practices. Actual policy (image or copy) was included. Valuable discussion related to resources selected.||Used reliable resources for EBP support of current or recommended practices, but limitedly related to actual policy or policy was not included.||Resources were mostly from reliable resources for EBP support, or were vaguely related to the policy.||Articles selected are greater than 5 years old and/or do not clearly related to the selected intervention. Resources are limited or not valid sites.|
|Synthesis of evidence(10)||Current research articles are discussed in cohesive manner, and well organized to present the findings supporting the discussion.||Research articles are presented but lack organization to synthesize the information well.||Research articles are limitedly presented and not well synthesized. Articles do not completely relate to discussion.||Research articles were not synthesized and/or did not specifically relate to policy or discussion.|
|Compare and contrast practice to evidence(10)||Elements are discussed with in depth evaluation comparing and contrasting the practice observed, policy, and evidence.||The discussion comparing and contrasting the practice and evidence is presented but not in depth.||The discussion is missing key elements of the compare and contrast discussion, not linking evidence well to practice.||The compare and contrast discussion is limited, poorly related to the other elements of the paper and/or missing.|
|Challenges and Conclusions(10)||Challenges are presented related to the evidence and the practice with suggestions for improving practices and/or the purpose of continuing to use current evidence based practice.Strong conclusion.||Challenges are presented, but there are limited or no suggestions about the intervention. Conclusion summarizes findings.||Challenges are presented, but there are limited or no suggestions about the intervention. The conclusion is limited or lacking a link to the discussion.||Challenges are not discussed. Conclusions are not supported by the rest of the writing in the paper.|