Description
1) After working with your preceptor to assess organizational policies, create a list of measurable outcomes for your capstone project intervention. Write a list of three to five outcomes for your proposed intervention. Below each outcome, provide a two – three sentence rationale.
–
–
–
–
2) In nursing practice, accurate identification and application of research is essential to achieving successful outcomes. The ability to articulate research data and summarize relevant content supports the student’s ability to further develop and synthesize the assignments that constitute the components of the capstone project.
The assignment will be used to develop a written implementation plan.
For this assignment, provide a synopsis of the review of the research literature. Using the “Literature Evaluation Table,” determine the level and strength of the evidence for each of the eight research articles you have selected. The articles should be current (within the last 5 years) and closely relate to the PICOT question developed earlier in this course. The articles may include quantitative research, descriptive analyses, longitudinal studies, or meta-analysis articles. A systematic review may be used to provide background information for the purpose or problem identified in the proposed capstone project.
While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and in-text citations and references should be presented using APA documentation guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
–
–
–
–
3) Write a reflection journal (250-300 words) to outline what has been discovered about your professional practice, personal strengths and weaknesses, and additional resources that could be introduced in a given situation to influence optimal outcomes. Each week there will be a specific focus to use in your reflection. Integrate leadership and inquiry into the current practice. Please make sure to address all areas in your writing.
Topic Focus: Ethical Considerations in Health Care
While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
!
Literature Evaluation Table
Student Name:
Change Topic (2-3 sentences):
Criteria
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Author, Journal (PeerReviewed), and
Permalink or Working
Link to Access Article
Article Title and Year
Published
Research Questions
(Qualitative)/Hypothesis
(Quantitative)
Purposes/Aim of Study
Design (Type of
Quantitative, or Type of
Qualitative)
Setting/Sample
Methods: Intervention/
Instruments
Analysis
Key Findings
Recommendations
Explanation of How the
Article Supports EBP/
Capstone Project
© 2022. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Article 4
Criteria
Author, Journal (PeerReviewed), and
Permalink or Working
Link to Access Article
Article Title and Year
Published
Research Questions
(Qualitative)/Hypothesis
(Quantitative)
Purposes/Aim of Study
Design (Type of
Quantitative, or Type of
Qualitative)
Setting/Sample
Methods: Intervention/
Instruments
Analysis
Key Findings
Recommendations
Explanation of How the
Article Supports EBP/
Capstone
Article 5
Article 6
Article 7
Article 8
Collapse All
Literature Evaluation Table – Rubric
Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to
Access Article
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article
5. Target
2.5 points
Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article
section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. Accpetable
2.23 points
Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article
section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. Approaching
1.98 points
Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article
section is present.
2. Insufficient
1.88 points
Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article
section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article
section is not included.
Article Title and Year Published
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Article Title and Year Published
5. Target
2.5 points
Article title and year published section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed
with supporting details.
4. Accpetable
2.23 points
Article title and year published section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. Approaching
1.98 points
Article title and year published section is present.
2. Insufficient
1.88 points
Article title and year published section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Article title and year published section is not included.
Research Questions (Qualitative) or Hypothesis (Quantitative), and
Purposes or Aim of Study
Criteria Description
Research Questions (Qualitative) or Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes or Aim of
Study
5. Target
5 points
Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim
of study section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting
details.
4. Accpetable
4.45 points
Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim
of study section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. Approaching
3.95 points
Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim
of study section is present.
2. Insufficient
3.75 points
Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim
of study section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
5 points
Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim
of study section is not included.
Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)
5. Target
2.5 points
Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is comprehensive and
thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. Accpetable
2.23 points
Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is clearly provided and
well developed.
3. Approaching
1.98 points
Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present.
2. Insufficient
1.88 points
Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present, but it lacks
detail or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is not included.
Setting or Sample
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Setting or Sample
5. Target
2.5 points
Setting or sample section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with
supporting details.
4. Accpetable
Setting or sample section is clearly provided and well developed.
2.23 points
3. Approaching
1.98 points
Setting or sample section is present.
2. Insufficient
1.88 points
Setting or sample section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Methods: Intervention or Instruments
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Methods: Intervention or Instruments
5. Target
2.5 points
Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is comprehensive and thoroughly
developed with supporting details.
4. Accpetable
2.23 points
Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is clearly provided and well
developed.
3. Approaching
1.98 points
Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is present.
2. Insufficient
1.88 points
Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is present, but it lacks detail or is
incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is not included.
Analysis
5 points
Criteria Description
Analysis
5. Target
5 points
Analysis section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting
details.
4. Accpetable
4.45 points
Analysis section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. Approaching
3.95 points
Analysis section is present.
2. Insufficient
3.75 points
Analysis section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Analysis section is not included.
Key Findings
5 points
Criteria Description
Key Findings
5. Target
5 points
Key findings section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting
details.
4. Accpetable
4.45 points
Key findings section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. Approaching
3.95 points
Key findings section is present.
2. Insufficient
3.75 points
Key findings section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
Key findings section is not included.
0 points
Recommendations
5 points
Criteria Description
Recommendations
5. Target
5 points
Recommendations section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with
supporting details.
4. Accpetable
4.45 points
Recommendations section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. Approaching
3.95 points
Recommendations section is present.
2. Insufficient
3.75 points
Recommendations section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Recommendations section is not included.
Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP or Capstone
5 points
Criteria Description
Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP or Capstone
5. Target
5 points
Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is comprehensive
and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. Accpetable
4.45 points
Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is clearly provided
and well developed.
3. Approaching
3.95 points
Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is provided.
2. Insufficient
3.75 points
Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is present, but it
lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is not included.
Presentation
5 points
Criteria Description
Presentation
5. Target
5 points
The work is well presented and includes all required elements. The overall
appearance is neat and professional.
4. Accpetable
4.45 points
The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor flaws or missing
elements.
3. Approaching
3.95 points
The overall appearance is general, and major elements are missing.
2. Insufficient
3.75 points
The work is not neat and includes minor flaws or omissions of required elements.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The piece is not neat or organized, and it does not include all required elements.
Mechanics of Writing
Criteria Description
Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence
structure, etc.
5 points
5. Target
5 points
No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence
structure are used throughout.
4. Accpetable
4.45 points
Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence
structure are used.
3. Approaching
3.95 points
Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally
appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.
2. Insufficient
3.75 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language
choice or sentence structure are recurrent.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language
h i
t
t t
f
d th
h t
Format/Documentation
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level;
documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc.,
appropriate to assignment and discipline.
5. Target
2.5 points
No errors in formatting or documentation are present.
4. Accpetable
2.23 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.
3. Approaching
1.98 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious
errors.
2. Insufficient
1.88 points
Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors
in documentation of sources are evident.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.
Total 50 points
Professional Capstone and Practicum Reflective Journal – Topic 4 – Rubric
Professional Practices
Collapse All
2 points
Criteria Description
Professional Practices
5. Target
2 points
Personal reflection is based on important learning events throughout the course
and practicum is thorough.
4. Acceptable
1.78 points
Personal reflection is based on important learning events throughout the course
and practicum is detailed.
3. Approaching
1.58 points
Personal reflection is based on important learning events throughout the course
and practicum is present.
2. Insufficient
1.5 points
Personal reflection is based on important learning events throughout the course
and practicum is present but lacks details or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Personal reflection is based on important learning events throughout the course
and practicum is not present.
Personal Strengths and/or Weaknesses
2 points
Criteria Description
Personal Strengths and/or Weaknesses
5. Target
2 points
Evidence to support reflection on personal strengths and/or weaknesses is
thorough.
4. Acceptable
1.78 points
Evidence to support reflection on personal strengths and/or weaknesses is detailed.
3. Approaching
1.58 points
Evidence to support reflection on personal strengths and/or weaknesses is present.
2. Insufficient
1.5 points
Evidence to support reflection on personal strengths and/or weaknesses is present
but lacks details or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Evidence to support reflection on personal strengths and/or weaknesses is not
present.
Leadership
2 points
Criteria Description
Leadership
5. Target
2 points
Leadership skills detailed in reflection is thorough.
4. Acceptable
1.78 points
Leadership skills detailed in reflection is detailed.
3. Approaching
1.58 points
Leadership skills detailed in reflection is present.
2. Insufficient
1.5 points
Leadership skills detailed in reflection is present but lacks details or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Leadership skills detailed in reflection is not present.
Inquiry Into Current Practices
Criteria Description
2 points
Inquiry Into Current Practices
5. Target
2 points
Inquiry into current practices is thorough.
4. Acceptable
1.78 points
Inquiry into current practices is detailed.
3. Approaching
1.58 points
Inquiry into current practices is present.
2. Insufficient
1.5 points
Inquiry into current practices is present but lacks details or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Inquiry into current practices is not present.
Additional Resources
0.5 points
Criteria Description
Additional Resources
5. Target
0.5 points
Additional resources that could be introduced in each situation to influence optimal
outcomes is thorough.
4. Acceptable
0.45 points
Additional resources that could be introduced in each situation to influence optimal
outcomes is detailed.
3. Approaching
0.4 points
Additional resources that could be introduced in each situation to influence optimal
outcomes is present.
2. Insufficient
0.38 points
Additional resources that could be introduced in each situation to influence optimal
outcomes is present but lacks details or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Additional resources that could be introduced in each situation to influence optimal
i
Ethical Considerations In Health Care
1 points
Criteria Description
Ethical Considerations In Health Care
5. Target
1 points
Information regarding ethical considerations in health care is present, complete,
and incorporates additional relevant details and critical thinking to engage the
reader.
4. Acceptable
0.89 points
Information regarding ethical considerations in health care is present and
complete. The submission provides the basic information required.
3. Approaching
0.79 points
Information regarding ethical considerations in health care is present. Some minor
details or elements are missing, but the omissions do not impede understanding.
2. Insufficient
0.75 points
Information regarding ethical considerations in health care is present, but it is
incomplete or otherwise lacking in required detail.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Information regarding ethical considerations in health care is not present.
Mechanics of Writing
0.5 points
Criteria Description
Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence
structure, etc.
5. Target
0.5 points
No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence
structure are used throughout.
4. Acceptable
0.45 points
Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence
structure are used.
3. Approaching
0.4 points
Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally
appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.
2. Insufficient
0.38 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language
choice or sentence structure are recurrent.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language
choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.
Total 10 points
PICOT Question
Neil Patel
Grand Canyon University (GCU)
NRS-493-O504
Professor Martinez
October 1, 2023
“In the context of patients in acute care settings (P), does the utilization of a urinary
catheter (I) in comparison to the absence of a urine catheter (C) serve as a preventive measure
against catheter-associated urinary tract infections (O) (CAUTI) over six months (T)?”
PICOT Problem
The healthcare problem of CAUTI has drastic consequences for patients and hospitals.
This is because it causes greater morbidity, increasing the need for medical attention and
extended hospital stays (Broskway et al., 2022). It also strains the available scarce resources in
the medical field, resulting in more complexities. Treatment for CAUTI is also costly for patients
and institutions, thus the need to address this issue.
Patient safety must be at the forefront of medical treatment; subsequently, prevention of
CAUTI becomes imperative. However, urinary catheters can be necessary for some individuals
but pose infection risks (Gauhar et al., 2022). This paradox emphasizes the necessity to fully
assess whether urinary catheters prevent CAUTI compared to not using one. In acute care, this
PICOT question guides evidence-based nursing practice, revealing catheterization’s pros and
cons. Resolving this issue is paramount, as it holds the potential to significantly enhance both
patient safety and the overall quality of healthcare. Addressing Catheter-Associated Urinary
Tract Infections (CAUTIs) is of utmost importance, as these infections can lead to serious
consequences for patients and strain healthcare systems in various ways.
Nursing Intervention
Nurses will use a patient-centered approach during the intervention to determine urinary
catheterization needs. They will assess urine retention, surgical procedures, and vital sign
monitoring. If cauterization is required, nurses will perform evidence-based aseptic insertion
procedures. During catheterization, nurses will prioritize hygiene, secure the catheter, and be
vigilant in aseptic care. Additionally, nurses will get ongoing training on limiting catheter use
and keeping catheters in place for as long as necessary. Intermittent catheterization or noninvasive bladder ultrasonography will also be suggested for urine output management.
Patients in the comparison group will obtain urinary catheters based on routine practice.
Implementation of this change process will take six months. Such time provides an opportunity
to develop standardized protocols, comprehensive staff training, and continuous monitoring
(Gauhar et al., 2022). With this, healthcare practitioners can perfect the implementation of
evidence-based catheterization practices over an extended period and monitor compliance
similarly. Generally, this nursing intervention aims to promote a balance between essential
patient care and preventing complications arising from unnecessary catheterization.
Summary of Clinical Problem and Patient Outcome
The approach aims to reduce the immediate urgency of CAUTI that might occur among
patients who need the use of a urine catheter within an acute setting. There are several adverse
consequences of CAUTI to patients as it undermines their recovery and imposes significant
healthcare expenses (Wanat et al., 2020). However, these challenges can be addressed by
evidence-based nursing intervention that modifies catheterization. Such an approach advocates
painstaking clinical judgment about what constitutes the true need for catheterization, confining
the use of this invasive procedure only to those cases where it is necessary. It also calls for strict
adherence to aseptic protocols during catheterization, reducing the chance of CAUTI.
Therefore, if the project works perfectly, CAUTI rates in acute care settings will decrease
substantially. Such an outcome is likely beneficial in many ways, including minimizing patient
harm, reducing the time patients spend at a facility, controlling medical costs, and promoting
high standards of care (Wanat et al., 2020). Through evidence-based nursing practice and
promoting better catheter management, the intervention will help acute care hospitals offer safe,
effective, and patient-centered services that lead to improved patient outcomes and enhanced
efficiency of the health system.
Assignment 3: Reflection
The focus on healthcare delivery and clinical systems taught me about the intricate
dynamics of our healthcare system and showed me where I stand in it. Healthcare delivery is a
complex mosaic encompassing administrative, logistical, and clinical operations. The
comprehensive vision of this paper emphasizes cooperation among healthcare providers,
communication, and collaboration in health provision. Therefore, I will refine my teamwork and
multidisciplinary communication skills by identifying my strengths and weaknesses.
In terms of strengths and deficits, I can say that my organizing and analytical skills came
in handy in navigating across complicated healthcare delivery systems. I have a good knowledge
of providing good management care, patient safety, and resource use. However, I also suffer
from several challenges. One is that I struggle to adapt to the dynamic healthcare landscape.
Also, I have time management issues. Nonetheless, I realize I must be more flexible to
effectively respond to the dynamic health scenario. I can improve my weaknesses by embracing
technology and evidence-informed methods to improve patient outcomes.
Besides that, healthcare informatics has played an important role as a reliable resource
site. It has taught me the advantages of making data-based decisions for best results. I will use
data analytics and technology to enhance healthcare delivery and clinical systems. This function
helps find ways to improve, rationalize practices, and improve patient care (Gupta & Gupta,
2016). In this concept, leadership refers to driving technology adoption, clinical innovation, and
constant improvement culture. In the future, I believe that outcomes will not be improved due to
the enhanced use of healthcare informatics and data-driven decisions
References
Brockway, P., Hill, D. M., Moll, V., Stanton, K., Malbrain, M. L., & Velamuri, S. R. (2022). A
retrospective, observational study of catheter-associated urinary tract infection events
post-implementation of a novel urinary catheter system with active drain line clearance
and automated intra-abdominal pressure monitoring. Life, 12(12), 1950. https://doi.org/
10.3390/life12121950
Gauhar, V., Castellani, D., Teoh, J., Nedbal, C., Chiacchio, G., Gabrielson, A., Heldwein, F.,
Wroclawski, M., De la Rosette, J., Donalisio da Silva, R., Galosi, A., & Somani, B.
(2022). Catheter-associated urinary infections and consequences of using coated versus
non-coated urethral catheters—Outcomes of a systematic review and meta-analysis of
randomized trials. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(15), 4463. https://doi.org/10.3390/
jcm11154463
Gupta, V., & Gupta, V. (2016). Using technology, bioinformatics, and health informatics
approaches to improve learning experiences in optometry education, research and
practice. Healthcare, 4(4), 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare4040086
Sillero, A. S., & Buil, N. (2021). Enhancing interprofessional collaboration in perioperative
setting from the qualitative perspectives of physicians and nurses. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(20), 10775. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph182010775
Wanat, M., Borek, A. J., Atkins, L., Sallis, A., Ashiru-Oredope, D., Beech, E., Butler, C. C.,
Chadborn, T., Hopkins, S., Jones, L., McNulty, C. A., Roberts, N., Shaw, K., Taborn, E.,
& Tonkin-Crine, S. (2020). Optimizing interventions for catheter-associated urinary tract
infections (CAUTI) in primary, secondary, and care home settings. Antibiotics, 9(7),
419. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics9070419
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
