NR 505 Week 2 Assignment: Collaboration Cafe PICOT Question

NR 505 Week 2 Assignment: Collaboration Cafe PICOT Question

NR 505 Week 2 Assignment: Collaboration Cafe PICOT Question

PICOT Question

Collaboration Café

Purpose

The focus for Week 2 is the development of a PICOT question. Please view this short video on how to develop your PICOT question:

Remember- PICOT should focus on something you as an NP can implement and should focus on measurable health outcomes. Full-practice authority, burnout, satisfaction surveys, and anything that would require a policy or law change should not be used. Please view short video above to get a clearer understanding of requirements.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Good News For Our New customers . We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us

Using the area of interest identified in the Week 1 discussion, address the following:

Draft a PICOT question using the standard quantitative PICOT format.

Identify your practice question, being sure to include the following information and describe each part of the PICOT question in detail:

Population

Intervention

Comparison

Outcome

Time

In ________(Population) what is the effect of ___________(Intervention) in comparison to ___________ (Comparison) on _____________ (Outcome) to be completed over __________ (Time).

Review the PICOT questions of two of your peers. Provide substantive feedback and suggestions for improvement.

Provide substantive feedback and suggestions for improvement. For full credit, submit your initial post by Wednesday at 11:59 PM MT. Complete your two responses to peers by Sunday at 11:59 PM MT.

**To view the grading criteria/rubric, please click on the 3 dots in the box at the end of the solid gray bar above the discussion board title and then Show Rubric.

Hello, my name is Dr. Lynch. Hey, I’m an assistant professor at Chamberlain University College of Nursing. Today we’re gonna talk about pico questions and best practices and formulating these questions. There are five parts to a pico question, patient intervention, comparison, outcome in time. The slides subsequently will discuss each part of this question. The first ingredient for cooking up a pico question is population. Pick a broad topic, drill down, focus down so that then your population is very specific. Type two diabetic female patients age 30 to 40 who consume over 400 grams of carbohydrates per day. A much more specific population then patients with diabetes intervention. What intervention do you think will make a difference? Is that supported by the scholarly literature? What is being done in clinical practice today? Are there better alternatives? You must use an intervention based on scholarly literature? Remember the definition of scholarly literature is a US based peer reviewed journal article geared for clinicians published in the past five years, or the latest clinical practice guideline. Comparison. So what is the standard of care currently? Patients without the intervention, patients without a condition, patients without risk factor. This part defines another population who will be used as a comparison against the group receiving the intervention. What is your desired outcome? The outcome should relate directly to the intervention and outcomes should be measurable. Time. This is the specific time-frame to demonstrate the outcome. In quality improvement efforts. The timeframe has to be realistic and manageable. Not over years, may not be even over months, but it could be. But it is usually a short timeframe to make an improvement effort. Many students ask what the differences between pico research and quality improvement questions. This chart will help you understand the difference. The pico question used here is in postoperative kidney transplant adults aged 65 to 75, how does a health coach compared with no health coaching affect hospital readmission rates within 90 days of discharge? This is a perfect pico question compared to the research question or QI question that also could be asked about this matter. Here’s an example. In real life, you are a nurse practitioner working in a skilled nursing facility. The rate of falls is unacceptable and your care team has come together to discuss what should be done about this. Your pico question is, in elderly patients between age 65 and 75 residing in a SNF. How do fall prevention programs with risk assessment compared to fall prevention programs without risk assessment effect fall rates within 90 days after the intervention. So you can see how this question will guide how you view the literature on this topic. You will be looking for fall prevention with risk assessment in the scholarly literature to see what has worked in other places. What are the crucial ingredients in an outpatient fall prevention program? The literature holds the key, holds the answer to these questions. If you need further assistance, please contact your instructor directly. You can also contact the librarians at the Chamberlain library who can be accessed through many means, email, chat on real time. This material comes from Malbec and find out over hopes book evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare, a guide to best practice, which is a great addition to your library.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

NR505NP Collaboration Cafe Rubric

NR505NP Collaboration Cafe Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Quality of Initial Posting

• Addresses the collaboration café question in a thorough, substantive manner.

• Demonstrates application of course concepts.

• Discusses implications for advanced nursing practice.

• Presents information using clear and concise language in an organized manner following rules of English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation

25 pts

Excellent

Fully meets all requirements

23 pts

Very Good

Most requirements fully met, but one requirement is superficial

21 pts

Satisfactory

All elements are addressed, but two items are covered in a superficial or limited manner

13 pts

Needs Improvement

All elements are addressed, but all are covered in a superficial or limited manner OR missing one element

0 pts

Unsatisfactory

Does not address the initial question(s) OR missing more than one element

25 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Quality of Responsive Postings

• Responds to 2 separate classmates with substantive dialogue that is collaborative in nature.

• Each of the 2 postings asks questions, offers new insights, applications, perspectives, information, or implications for practice

25 pts

Excellent

Fully meets all requirements

23 pts

Very Good

Most requirements fully met, but one requirement is superficial

21 pts

Satisfactory

All elements are addressed, but two items are covered in a superficial or limited manner

13 pts

Needs Improvement

All elements are addressed, but all are covered in a superficial or limited manner OR missing one element

0 pts

Unsatisfactory

No response post to another student.

25 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Late Penalty Deductions

A 10% late penalty will be imposed for discussions posted after the deadline on Wednesday, regardless of the number of days late. NOTHING will be accepted after 11:59pm MT on Sunday (i.e. student will receive an automatic 0)

0 pts

0 Points Deducted

A 10% late penalty will be imposed for discussions posted after the deadline on Wednesday, regardless of the number of days late. NOTHING will be accepted after 11:59pm MT on Sunday (i.e. student will receive an automatic 0)

0 pts

5.0 Points Deducted

0 pts

Total Points: 50

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

NR 505 Week 2: Collaboration Cafe PICOT Question

The identified area of NP interest is surgical site infections (SSIs). According to Walker (2023), SSIs are frequently reported healthcare-acquired infections (HAIs) that account for 14% − 25% of the total HAIs. One of the measures that have been proposed to reduce SSI rates is using chlorhexidine gluconate and alcohol-based skin preparation. Thus, my practice question is whether skin preparation with chlorhexidine in alcohol can reduce SSI rates in the clinical setting for patients undergoing surgical procedures.

PICOT Question: In preoperative patients (P), does chlorhexidine gluconate and alcohol-based skin preparation (I) compared to skin preparation with sterile saline (C) lower the risk of SSIs by 50% (O) within six months (T)?

Population: Pre-operative patients. The target population is pre-operative patients who face adverse effects of SSIs, as a well as prolonged hospitalization, high medical costs, high morbidity and mortality rates, and poor patient satisfaction. According to Seidelman et al. (2023), approximately 0.5%- 3% of patients undergoing surgery experience infection at or near the surgical incision site.

Intervention: Using chlorhexidine gluconate and alcohol-based skin preparation. Jalalzadeh et al. (2022) found that in adult patients undergoing a surgical procedure, skin preparation using 2·0–2·5% chlorhexidine in alcohol or 1·5% olanexidine is effective in preventing SSIs. 

Comparison: Skin preparation with sterile saline. Skin preparation with chlorhexidine gluconate and alcohol-based solution will be compared with sterile saline. Sterile saline does not have any antimicrobial activity (Droll et al., 2022).

Outcome: Lower the rate of SSIs by 50%. The expected outcome is to lower the rate of SSIs by 50%.

Time: Six months. The impact of the proposed intervention will be evaluated after six months.  

References

Droll, K. P., Abouassaly, M., Cullinan, C., Puskas, D., & Dubois, S. (2022). Efficacy of surgical skin preparation solutions in hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized trial. Canadian Journal of Surgery. Journal Canadien de Chirurgie, 65(6), E756–E762. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.017221

Jalalzadeh, H., Groenen, H., Buis, D. R., Dreissen, Y. E., Goosen, J. H., IJpma, F., Van der Laan, M. J., Schaad, R. R., Segers, P., Van der Zwet, W. C., Griekspoor, M., Harmsen, W., Wolfhagen, N., & Boermeester, M. A. (2022). Efficacy of different preoperative skin antiseptics on the incidence of surgical site Infections: A systematic review, GRADE assessment and network meta-analysis. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4047135

Seidelman, J. L., Mantyh, C. R., & Anderson, D. J. (2023). Surgical site infection prevention: a review. JAMA, 329(3), 244-252. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.24075

Walker, J. (2023). Reducing the risk of surgical site infections. Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain): 1987), 38(10), 77–81. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.2023.e12185