NUR 699 Grand Canyon University Healthcare Quality Improvement Paper Work through the reference list from Section B: problem description assignment 2. appr

NUR 699 Grand Canyon University Healthcare Quality Improvement Paper Work through the reference list from Section B: problem description assignment 2. appraise each resource using the rapid critical appraisal checklist from the appendix in the textbook. develop a research table write a narrative of 750-1000 words not including title page and references to support the projects problem and proposed solution. include a description of the search method (databases, key words, criteria for inclusion and exclusion, and number of studies that fit your criteria) Summarize all of the research studies used as evidence. include scientific merit, including study strengths and limitations, incorporate a description of the validity of the internal and external research.

it is essential to make sure the research support for the proposed solution is sufficient, compelling, relevant and peer-reviewed professional journals articles.

make these checklists now, but put them as an appendix format to use in the final paper. APA guidelines. All references must be less than 5 years old.

Subject: does mentoring new graduate nursing increase nurse retention.

I just don’t know how to set this thing up. If you have an example, I would love to see it. RAPID CRITICAL APPRAISAL QUESTIONS FOR
EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE (EBP) IMPLEMENTATION
OR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT (QI) PROJECTS
Indicate the extent to which the item is met in the published report of the EBP or QI project.
Validity of Evidence Synthesis (i.e., good methodology)
1 No
2 A Little
3 Somewhat
4 Quite a Bit
5 Very Much
1. The title of the publication identifies the report/ project as an EBP implementation or QI
project.
2. The project report provides a structured summary that includes, as applicable, data
to establish the existent and background of the clinical issue; inclusion and exclusion
criteria and source(s) of evidence; evidence synthesis, objective(s), and setting of the
EBP or QI project; project limitations; results/ outcomes; and recommendation
And implications for policy.
3. Report includes existing internal evidence to adequately describe the clinical issue.
4. Provides an explicit statement of the question being addressed with reference to
participants or population/intervention/ comparison/outcome (PICO).
5. Explicitly describes the search method (i.e., was it systematic), inclusion and exclusion
criteria, and rationale for search strategy limits.
6. Describes multiple information sources (e.g., databases, contact with study authors
to identify additional studies, or any other additional search strategies) included in the
search strategy, and date. 7. States the process for title, abstract, and article screening for
selecting studies.
8. Describes the method of data extraction (e.g., independently or process for validating
data from multiple reviewers).
9. Includes conceptual and operational definitions for all variables for which data were
abstracted (e.g., define blood pressure as systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood
pressure, ambulatory blood pressure, automatic cuff blood pressure, or arterial blood
pressure).
10. Describes methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including
specification of whether this was done at the
study or outcome level).
Validity of Evidence Synthesis (i.e., good methodology)
1 No
2 A Little 3 Somewhat
4 Quite a Bit
5 Very Much
States the principal summary measures
(e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
12. Describes the method of combining results of studies, including quality, quantity, and
consistency of evidence.
13. Specifies assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g.,
publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
14. Describes appraisal procedure and conflict resolution.
15. Provides number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the
review, with reasons for exclusion at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
16. For each study, presents characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size,
design, method, follow-up period) and provides citations.
17. Presents data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome-level
assessment.
18. For all outcomes considered (benefit or harms), includes a table with summary data
for each intervention group, effect estimates, and confidence intervals, ideally with
a forest plot.
19. Summarizes the main findings, including the strength of evidence for each main outcome;
considering their relevance to key groups (i.e., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
20. Discusses limitations at study and outcome levels (e.g., risk of bias) and at review level
(e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
21. Provides a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and
implications for further research, practice, or policy changes.
Validity of Implementation (i.e., well-done project)
1. Purpose of project flows from evidence synthesis
2. Stakeholders (active and passive) are identified and communication with them is described
project)
1. Purpose of project flows from evidence synthesis
2. Stakeholders (active and passive) are identified and communication with them is
Described
3. Implementation protocol is congruent with evidence synthesis (fidelity of the
intervention)
4. Implementation protocol is sufficiently detailed to provide for replication among project
participants
5. Education of project participants and other stakeholders is clearly described
6. Outcomes are measured with measures supported in the evidence synthesis
Reliability of Implementation Project (i.e., I can learn from or implement project
results)
1. Data are collected with sufficient rigor to be reliable for like groups to those participants
of the project
2. Results are evidence implementation and are clinically meaningful (statistics are interpreted
as such)
Application of Implementation (i.e., this project is useful for my patients)
1. How feasible is the project protocol?
2. Have the project managers considered/ included all outcomes that are important to my work?
3. Is implementing the project safe (i.e., low risk of harm)?
Summary Score
Recommendations with consideration of this type of level IV intervention evidence:
• 32–64: consider evidence with extreme caution
• 65–128: consider evidence with caution
• 128–160: consider evidence with confidence
RAPID CRITICAL APPRAISAL QUESTIONS FOR CASE STUDIES
VALIDITY
1. Are the results of the study valid?
• Is the study question/issue clearly articulated? Yes No Unknown
• Is the researcher’s perspective clearly described and taken into account?
Yes No Unknown
• Are the methods for collecting data clearly described? Yes No Unknown
• Are the methods for analyzing the data likely to be valid and reliable?
Yes No Unknown
• Are quality control measures used?
Yes No Unknown
Comments
RELIABILITY
2. What are the results?
• Are the results credible, and if so, are they relevant for practice?
Yes No Unknown
Comments
APPLICABILITY
3. Will the results help me in caring for my patients?
• Are the conclusions drawn justified by the results? Yes No Unknown
• Are the findings of the study transferable to other settings? Yes No Unknown
Comments
Would you use the study results in your practice to make a difference in patient outcomes?
• If yes, how?
• If yes, why?
• If no, why not?
Additional Comments/Reflections:
Recommendation for article use within a body of evidence:
RAPID CRITICAL APPRAISAL QUESTIONS FOR LITERATURE
REVIEW (LEVEL VII)
VALIDITY
1. Are the results of the review valid?
A. Are the designs of the articles in the review identified? Yes No Unknown
B. Does the review include a detailed description of the search strategy to find all relevant
studies and was it systematic?
No Yes Unknown
C. Do the reviewers use standard criteria to describe the validity of the individual studies (e.g.,
criteria about methodological quality)?
Yes No Unknown
D. Were the results consistent across studies? Yes No Unknown
RELIABILITY
2. What were the results?
A. Were the results described across the studies or were the findings described study by study?
(Hint: Were there synthesis tables?) Yes No Unknown
B. What are sources of bias within the report that make the literature review unreliable? (See
validity questions above.)
C. Does the bias within the literature review methodology make the results as described nusable?
(if so, stop here.) Yes No Unknown
APPLICABILITY
3. Will the results assist me in caring for my patients?
A. Are my patients similar to the ones included in the review? Yes No Unknown
B. Is it feasible to implement the findings in my practice setting? Yes No Unknown
C. Were all clinically important outcomes considered, including risks and benefits of the
treatment? Yes No Unknown
D. What is my clinical assessment of the patient and are there any contraindications or
circumstances that would inhibit me from implementing the treatment? Yes No Unknown
E. What are my patient’s and his or her family’s preferences and values about the treatment that
is under consideration?
Would you use the study results in your practice to make a difference in patient
outcomes?
• If yes, how?
• If yes, why?
• If no, why not?
Additional Comments/Reflections:
Recommendation for article use within a body of evidence:
RAPID CRITICAL APPRAISAL QUESTIONS FOR
EVIDENCE-BASED GUIDELINES
CREDIBILITY
1. Who were the guideline developers?
2. Were the developers representative of key stakeholders in this specialty (interdisciplinary)?
Yes No Unknown
3. Who funded the guideline development?
4. Were any of the guidelines developers funded researchers of the reviewed studies?
Yes No Unknown
5. Did the team have a valid development strategy?
Yes No Unknown
6. Was an explicit (how decisions were made), sensible, and impartial process used to identify,
select, and combine evidence?
Yes No Unknown
7. Did the developers carry out a comprehensive, reproducible literature review within the past
12 months of its publication/ revision? Yes No Unknown
8. Were all important options and outcomes considered?
Yes No Unknown
9. Is each recommendation in the guideline tagged by the level/ strength of evidence upon which
it is based and linked with the scientific evidence? Yes No Unknown
10. Do the guidelines make explicit recommendations (reflecting value judgments about
outcomes)?
Yes No Unknown
11. Has the guideline been subjected to peer review and testing? Yes No Unknown
APPLICABILITY/GENERALIZABILITY
12. Is the intent of use provided (e.g., national, regional, local)? Yes No Unknown
13. Are the recommendations clinically relevant? Yes No Unknown
14. Will the recommendations help me in caring for my patients? Yes No Unknown
15. Are the recommendations practical/feasible (e.g., resources— people and equipment—
available)? Yes No Unknown
16. Are the recommendations a major variation from current practice? Yes No Unknown
17. Can the outcomes be measured through standard care? Yes No Unknown

Purchase answer to see full
attachment