Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected by completing the Evaluation Table within the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Choose a total of four peer- reviewed articles that you selected related to your clinical topic of interest in Module 2 and Module 3.

Note: You can choose any combination of articles from Modules 2 and 3 for your Critical Appraisal. For example, you may choose two unfiltered research articles from Module 2 and two filtered research articles (systematic reviews) from Module 3 or one article from Module 2 and three articles from Module 3. You can choose any combination of articles from the prior Module Assignments as long as both modules and types of studies are represented.

Part 3B: Critical Appraisal of Research

Based on your appraisal, in a 1-2-page critical appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research.

                                                             USE  ANY 4 FROM  THESE STUDIES 

  

Kampiatu, P., & Cozean, J. (2015). A controlled, crossover study of a  persistent antiseptic to reduce hospital-acquired infection. African journal of infectious diseases, 9(1),69. https://doi.org/10.4314/ajid.  v9i1.2.

  Ho, H. J., Poh, B. F., Choudhury, S., Krishnan, P., Ang, B., & Chow, A. (2015).  Alcohol handrubbing and chlorhexidine handwashing are equally effective in removing methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from  health care workers’ hands: A randomized controlled trial. American journal of infection control, 43(11), 1246–1248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic  .2015.06.005.

  Saito, H., Inoue, K., Ditai, J., Wanume, B., Abeso, J., Balyejussa, J., & Weeks,  A. (2017). Alcohol-based hand rub and incidence of healthcare-associated infections in a rural regional referral and teaching hospital in  Uganda (‘WardGel’ study). Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 6, 129. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-017-0287-8.

 Kritsotakis, E. I., Kontopidou, F., Astrinaki, E., Roumbelaki, M., Ioannidou,  E., & Gikas, A. (2017). Prevalence, incidence burden, and clinical impact of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial resistance:  a national prevalent cohort study in acute care hospitals in  Greece. Infection and drug resistance, 10, 317–328.https://doi.org/10.  2147/IDR. S147459 

  Sadule-Rios, N., & Aguilera, G. (2017). Nurses’ perceptions of reasons for persistent low rates in hand hygiene compliance. Intensive & critical care nursing, 42, 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2017.02.005

  New technology—and the application of existing technology—only appears in healthcare settings after careful and significant research. The stakes are high, and new clinical systems need to offer evidence of a positive impact on outcomes or efficiencies.

Nurse informaticists and healthcare leaders formulate clinical system strategies. As these strategies are often based on technology trends, informaticists and others have then benefited from consulting existing research to inform their thinking.

In this Assignment, you will review existing research focused on the application of clinical systems. After reviewing, you will summarize your findings.

To Prepare:

• Review the Resources and reflect on the impact of      clinical systems on outcomes and efficiencies within the context of      nursing practice and healthcare delivery.
• Conduct a search for recent (within the last 5 years)      research focused on the application of clinical systems. The research      should provide evidence to support the use of one type of clinical system      to improve outcomes and/or efficiencies, such as “the use of personal      health records or portals to support patients newly diagnosed with      diabetes.”
• Identify and select 4 peer-reviewed research articles from your research.
• For information about annotated bibliographies,      visit https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/assignments/annotatedbibliographies

The Assignment: ( 5-6 pages not including the title and reference page)

In a 5-6 page paper, synthesize the peer-reviewed research you reviewed. Format your Assignment as an Annotated Bibliography. Be sure to address the following:

• Identify the 4 peer-reviewed research articles you reviewed, citing each in APA format.
• Include an introduction explaining the purpose of the paper.
• Summarize each study, explaining the improvement to outcomes, efficiencies, and lessons learned from the application of the clinical system each peer-reviewed article described. Be specific and provide examples.
• In your conclusion, synthesize the findings from the 4      peer-reviewed research articles.
• Use APA format and include a title page.

1)  Identify the 4 peer-reviewed articles, citing each in APA format, 

2)  Summarize each study explaining:

a) improvements to outcomes,

b) efficiencies (to staff, patient, facility as a result of implementing the clinical system/clinical technology described in the article), and 

c) lessons learned from the application of the clinical system/clinical technology. Be specific AND provide examples., and

3) in your conclusion, synthesize the findings from the 4 peer-reviewed research articles. 

McGonigle, D., & Mastrian, K. G. (2017). Nursing informatics and the foundation of knowledge (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

· Chapter 14, “The Electronic Health Record and Clinical Informatics” (pp. 267–287)

· Chapter 15, “Informatics Tools to Promote Patient Safety and Quality Outcomes” (pp. 293–317)

· Chapter 16, “Patient Engagement and Connected Health” (pp. 323–338)

· Chapter 17, “Using Informatics to Promote Community/Population Health” (pp. 341–355)

· Chapter 18, “Telenursing and Remote Access Telehealth” (pp. 359–388)

Dykes, P. C., Rozenblum, R., Dalal, A., Massaro, A., Chang, F., Clements, M., Collins, S. …Bates, D. W. (2017). Prospective evaluation of a multifaceted intervention to improve outcomes in intensive care: The Promoting Respect and Ongoing Safety Through Patient Engagement Communication and Technology Study. Critical Care Medicine, 45(8), e806–e813. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000002449

HealthIT.gov. (2018c). What is an electronic health record (EHR)? Retrieved from 

https://www.healthit.gov/faq/what-electronic-health-record-ehr

Rao-Gupta, S., Kruger, D. Leak, L. D., Tieman, L. A., & Manworren, R. C. B. (2018). Leveraging interactive patient care technology to Improve pain management engagement. Pain Management Nursing, 19(3), 212–221. 

Skiba, D. (2017). Evaluation tools to appraise social media and mobile applications. Informatics, 4(3), 32–40. 

Required Media

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Public Health Informatics [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author. –Downloads– Download Video w/CC Download Audio Download Transcript 

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Electronic Records and Managing IT Change [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

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 5, “Critically Appraising Quantitative Evidence for Clinical Decision Making” (pp. 124–188)

· Chapter 6, “Critically Appraising Qualitative Evidence for Clinical Decision Making” (pp. 189–218)

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010a). Evidence-based practice step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part I. American Journal of Nursing, 110(7), 47–52. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000383935.22721.9c

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010b). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part II: Digging deeper—examining the “keeper” studies. American Journal of Nursing, 110(9), 41–48. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000388264.49427.f9

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010c). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part III: The process of synthesis: Seeing similarities and differences across the body of evidence. American Journal of Nursing, 110(11), 43–51. doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000390523.99066.b5

Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Critical appraisal of qualitative evidence. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 15(3), 202–207. doi:10.1177/1078390309338733

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Appraising the Research [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

 

The Assignment:

Examine Case 2: You will be asked to make three decisions concerning the diagnosis and treatment for this client. Be sure to consider co-morbid physical as well as mental factors that might impact the client’s diagnosis and treatment.

At each Decision Point, stop to complete the following:

• Decision #1: Differential Diagnosis
  • Which Decision did you select?
  • Why did you select this Decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
  • What were you hoping to achieve by making this Decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
  • Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #1 and the results of the Decision. Why were they different?
• Decision #2: Treatment Plan for Psychotherapy
  • Why did you select this Decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
  • What were you hoping to achieve by making this Decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
  • Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #2 and the results of the Decision. Why were they different?
• Decision #3: Treatment Plan for Psychopharmacology
  • Why did you select this Decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
  • What were you hoping to achieve by making this Decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
  • Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #3 and the results of the decision. Why were they different?
• Also include how ethical considerations might impact your treatment plan and communication with clients and their families.

Note: Support your rationale with a minimum of three academic resources. While you may use the course text to support your rationale, it will not count toward the resource requirement.

Rubric:

 

Quality of Work Submitted: The extent of which work meets the assigned criteria and work reflects graduate-level critical and analytic thinking.–

Excellent 27 (27%) – 30 (30%)Good 24 (24%) – 26 (26%)Fair 21 (21%) – 23 (23%)Poor 0 (0%) – 20 (20%)

Quality of Work Submitted: The purpose of the paper is clear.–

Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Assimilation and Synthesis of Ideas: The extent to which the work reflects the student’s ability to:

Understand and interpret the assignment’s key concepts.–

Excellent 9 (9%) – 10 (10%)Good 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)Fair 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)Poor 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Assimilation and Synthesis of Ideas: The extent to which the work reflects the student’s ability to:

Apply and integrate material in course resources (i.e., video, required readings, and textbook) and credible outside resources.–

Excellent 18 (18%) – 20 (20%)Good 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)Fair 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)Poor 0 (0%) – 13 (13%)

Assimilation and Synthesis of Ideas: The extent to which the work reflects the student’s ability to:

Synthesize (combines various components or different ideas into a new whole) material in course resources (i.e., video, required readings, textbook) and outside, credible resources by comparing different points of view and highlighting similarities, differences, and connections.–

Excellent 18 (18%) – 20 (20%)Good 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)Fair 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)Poor 0 (0%) – 13 (13%)

Written Expression and Formatting
Paragraph and Sentence Structure: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are clearly structured and carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance.–

Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Written Expression and Formatting
English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.–

Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Written Expression and Formatting
The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.–

Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) 

 REQUIREMENTS:

APA FORMAT

LESS THAN 20% PLAGIARISM

400 WORDS

AT LEAST 2 CITATIONS & 2 REFERENCES

DQ 1:

·      Select one question as your DQ 1

·      Follow the discussion questions participation and submission guidelines.

·      Follow the 3 x 3 rule: minimum three paragraphs per DQ, with a minimum of three sentences each paragraph.

·      All answers or discussions comments submitted must be in APA format according to Publication Manual American Psychological Association (APA) (6th ed.) 2009 ISBN: 978-1-4338-0561-5

·      Minimum of two references, not older than 2015.

Chapter 3: Philosophy of Nursing

1.  Where do you see yourself and your understanding of truth on the continuum of realism and idealism?

2.  How would you define person? Look at the following attributes given to a person: (1) the ability to think and conceptualize, (2) the capacity to interact with others, (3) the need for boundaries, and (4) the use of language (Doheny, Cook, & Stopper, 1997). Would you agree? What about Maslow’s description of humanness in terms of a hierarchy of needs with self-actualization at the top? Another possibility is that persons are the major focus of nursing. Do you see humans as good or evil?

3.  Where do you see yourself and your understanding of truth on the continuum of realism and idealism?

4.  What are your beliefs about the major concepts in nursing—person, environment, health, nursing?

5.  Do you believe there is more than one right answer to situations? How do you value the whole individual? What barriers prevent us from responding to the contextual needs of our patients?

6.  Do I believe in health care for everyone? Does health care for everyone have value to me as a person? Does it have value to me as a nurse? What value does universal health care have to my patients?

7.  How does my personal philosophy fit with the context of nursing? Does it fit? What areas, if any, need assessing?