NRS 493 Improve Care for Patients Capstone Change Project

Course Code NRS-493 Class Code NRS-493-IO9210 Criteria Content Percentage 80.0% Objectives 25.0% Rationale for How Findings Relate to the Topic and Proposed Intervention 30.0% Rationale for How Proposed Project and Objectives Advocate for Autonomy and Social Justice for Individuals and Diverse Populations (C1.5) 25.0% Organization and Effectiveness 15.0% Thesis Development and Purpose 5.0% Argument Logic and Construction 5.0% Criteria 3Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0% Format 5.0% Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 2.0% Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 3.0% Total Weightage 100% Assignment Title Benchmark – Capstone Change Project Objectives 1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%) A list of objectives for the proposed intervention is omitted. Fewer than three objectives are presented. Rationale for each objective is omitted. Rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is omitted. Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. NRS 493 Improve Care for Patients Capstone Change Project

Sources are not documented. Total Points 5.0 2: Less Than Satisfactory (75.00%) NA Rationale is incomplete. There are omissions. Rationale provided does not explain the relationship of findings to the topic and proposed intervention. Incomplete rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is presented. Advocacy is not established. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present. Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. 3: Satisfactory (79.00%) NA General rationale is provided for each objective and generally summarizes the relationship of most findings to the topic and proposed intervention. There are some inaccuracies or minor omissions. Rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is summarized. Some advocacy is established. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. 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. Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. 4: Good (89.00%) NA Rationale is provided for each objective and explains the relationship of findings to the topic and proposed intervention. Some detail is needed for clarity. Rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is presented. Advocacy is generally established. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. 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. Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. 5: Excellent (100.00%) Three to five objectives are presented. Rationale is clearly provided for each objective and thoroughly explains the relationship of the findings to the topic and proposed intervention. Well-supported rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is presented. Advocacy for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is clearly established. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. Comments All format elements are correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. Points Earned Benchmark – Capstone Change Project Objectives Review your problem or issue and the cultural assessment. Consider how the findings connect to your topic and intervention for your capstone change project. Write a list of three to five objectives for your proposed intervention. Below each objective, provide a one or two sentence rationale. After writing your objectives, provide a rationale for how your proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations. 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. Benchmark Information This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies: RN to BSN 1.5: NRS 493 Improve Care for Patients Capstone Change Project

Advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations. The next step in developing an evidence-based practice change proposal for the capstone project is to conduct a thorough review of the literature pertaining to the chosen topic. In this topic, students will examine the research literature and utilize library resources to locate quality, peer-reviewed sources to support their chosen topic and solution. Students will use the PICOT question process to create a PICOT question for their topic. Objectives: 1. Critique evidence-based research to support the development of the capstone project change proposal. 2. Create a PICOT question incorporating an evidence-based nursing practice intervention. 3. Create objectives for an evidence-based nursing practice change proposal. 4. Integrate reflective practice into the practicum reflective journal. 5. Demonstrate interprofessional collaboration during the creation of the capstone project change proposal. SOURCES Read “Translating Research for Evidence-Based Practice,” by Bowen and Forrest, from Access (2017). URL: https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=120577496 &site=ehost-live&scope=site Read “The Effect of Translating Research Into Practice Intervention to Promote Use of Evidence-Based Fall Prevention Interventions in Hospitalized Adults: A Prospective Pre-Post Implementation Study in the U.S.,” by Titler et al., from Applied Nursing Research (2016). URL: https://www-sciencedirect-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S0897189715002384 Read “Selecting the Best Theory to Implement Planned Change,” by Mitchell, from Nursing Management (2013). URL: http://home.nwciowa.edu/publicdownload/Nursing%20Department%5CNUR310%5CSelecting%20the%20Best%20Theo ry%20to%20Implement%20Planned%20Change.pdf Read “Science of Improvement: Testing Changes,” located on the Institute for Healthcare Improvement website. URL: http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/HowtoImprove/ScienceofImprovementTestingChanges.aspx Read “Asking Focused Questions,” located on the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine website. URL: http://www.cebm.net/asking-focused-questions/ Read “Formulating a Researchable Question: A Critical Step for Facilitating Good Clinical Research,” by Aslam and Emmanuel, from Indian Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and AID (2010). URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3140151/ Read “Research Questions, Hypotheses and Objectives,” by Farrugia, Petrisor, Farrokhyar, and Bhandari, from Canadian Journal of Surgery (2010). URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2912019/ Explore Nursing Theory website. This website provides information on leading nursing theories. URL: http://nursing-theory.org/ Explore the Nursing Theories page of the Current Nursing website. This website provides information on leading nursing theories. URL: http://currentnursing.com/nursing_theory/ …