Assignment: Literature Evaluation Table

Assignment: Literature Evaluation Table

Assignment: Literature Evaluation Table

Student Name:

The correct identification and use of research is essential in achieving successful outcomes in nursing practice. The capability to obtain data and appraise the peer-reviewed articles appropriately in a scholarly is critical in supporting the potential and confidence in students to create and blend complicated assignments that the capstone projects focus on. The current literature evaluation table seeks to identify and synthesize synthesis peer-reviewed articles on the significance of patient education throughout their hospital stay and their understanding of it before and after discharge on a medical-surgical floor.

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

The PICOT Question

In patients admitted to a medical-surgical floor (P) does patient education throughout the hospital stay and after discharge (I) compared to lack of education (C) improve health outcomes (O) in 12 months (T).

Criteria	Article 1	Article 2	Article 3	Article 4
Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article	Tweed, T. T., Woortman, C., Tummers, S., Bakens, M. J., van Bastelaar, J., & Stoot, J. H. International Journal of Colorectal Disease. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-021-03948-0.	Refai, M., Andolfi, M., Gentili, P., Pelusi, G., Manzotti, F., & Sabbatini, A.   Journal of thoracic disease, DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2017.12.87.	van Diggele, C., Burgess, A., Roberts, C., & Mellis, C.   BMC Medical Education   https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02288-x	Burch, J., & Balfour, A.   Springer, Cham.   https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33443-7_5
Article Title and Year Published	Reducing hospital stay for colorectal surgery in ERAS setting by means of perioperative patient education of expected day of discharge. Published in 2021.	Enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery: patient information and care-plans Published in 2018.	Leadership in healthcare education.   Published in 2020	Preoperative patient education. In Enhanced Recovery after Surgery. Published in 2020
Research Questions (Qualitative)/Hypothesis (Quantitative)	Does the perioperative education with an expected discharge date (EDD) reduce the length of stay (LOS)?	Implicit: Does Preoperative patient counseling help in making the patient a potentially active participant and the main character of his/her recovery and enable them to positively impact themselves throughout the surgical and healing process?	Hypothesis: Effective leadership is highly valued component of healthcare education, increasingly recognised as essential to the delivery of high standards of education, research and clinical practice	Why educating patients prior to surgery is essential and how?  who should provide patient education?
Purposes/Aim of Study	To investigate possible reduction of length of stay (LOS) by perioperative education with an expected discharge date (EDD)	To evaluate patient information and care-plans in thoracic surgery, reviewing the available evidence on ERAS pathways, and demonstrating our ideal program as discussed and shared among the Italian Thoracic Surgery Units accredited in the video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) group.	To delve into the current theories of leadership and to explore leadership skills and roles within the context of healthcare education.	To determine why educating patients prior to surgery is essential and how and by whom it should be undertaken.
Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)	Quantitative study.	Qualitative study	Quantitative study	Qualitative study
Setting/Sample	578 patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer	The setting is the Italian Thoracic Surgery Units.	The setting is healthcare industry	Surgical units within the healthcare settings.
Methods: Intervention/Instruments	A single-centre retrospective cohort analysis	Descriptive research design.	Descriptive research design.	Descriptive research design.
Analysis	All statistical analyses were performed using the IBM SPSS statistics software pro- gram, version 25.0	Analysis involved methods such as surveys, observations, and case studies.	Use of methods such as literature review, observations, and surveys.	Observations and literature review.
Key Findings	It is possible to reduce LOS within the ERAS program, by better perioperative education and expectation management of patients with use of an EDD.	Preoperative patient counseling is essential to achieving the goal of the ERAS project, which is making the patient the main character of his/her recovery, which is crucial in creating positive impacts in the surgical and healing process.	The future of nursing belongs to healthcare education leaders who demonstrate excellence in teamwork, clinical skills, patient-centered care, and responsibly balance accountability with autonomy.	Patient education empowers patients to be involved in their surgical pathway, which potentially results in a shorter hospital stay with fewer complications in hospital and after discharge home.
Recommendations	It is recommended to provide perioperative education of the expected day of discharge to help in reducing the length of hospital stay after colorectal surgery.	There is need of a multidisciplinary team comprising surgeon, anesthesiologist, dedicated nurse practitioner and physiotherapist to give the patient a complete understanding of each aspect of his disease process and hospital stay.	Provision of opportunities for leadership development is crucial in improving education sectors and health services, and effecting change.	There is need for more research to provide more details on the specifics involved in undertaking preoperative education.
Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP/Capstone Project	This article supports the capstone change project by advocating for patient education after surgery.	This article supports the capstone change project by advocating for patient education through counseling in the surgical units.	This article supports the capstone change project by advancing the need for education in healthcare system.	This article supports the capstone change project by advancing the need for preoperative education in healthcare system.

 

Criteria	Article 5	Article 6	Article 7	Article 8
Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article	Adugbire, B. A., & Aziato, L.   BMC nursing.   https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-018-0299-6	Gröndahl, W., Muurinen, H., Katajisto, J., Suhonen, R., & Leino-Kilpi, H. BMJ open.   http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023108	Kang, E., Tobiano, G. A., Chaboyer, W., & Gillespie, B. M. Journal of Advanced Nursing.     https://publons.com/publon/10.1111/jan.14379	Steves, S. L., & Scafide, K. N.   European Journal of Oncology Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2021.101981
Article Title and Year Published	Surgical patients’ perspectives on nurses’ education on post-operative care and follow up in Northern Ghana. Published in 2018	Perceived quality of nursing care and patient education: A cross-sectional study of hospitalised surgical patients in Finland. Published in 2019	Nurses’ role in delivering discharge education to general surgical patients: A qualitative study. Published in 2020	Multimedia in preoperative patient education for adults undergoing cancer surgery: A systematic review Published in 2021.
Research Questions (Qualitative)/Hypothesis (Quantitative)	The study hypothesized that nurses’ education on post-operative care and follow up are critical in improving health outcomes.	Implicit: Does patient education lead to the quality of surgical nursing care in patients?	Implocit: Does provision of discharge education to general surgical patients improve the quality of life and health outcomes?	The study hypothesized that multimedia technology in the preoperative education of adult cancer patients could improve their health outcomes.
Purposes/Aim of Study	To explore surgical patients’ experiences of discharge planning and home care in the Northern part of Ghana.	To analyze the relationship between patient education and the quality of surgical nursing care as perceived by patients.	To explore nurses’ perceived role and experience in providing discharge education to general surgical patients.	To determine whether adequate research evidence exists to support utilizing multimedia technology in the preoperative education of adult cancer patients.
Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)	Exploratory and descriptive qualitative approach	A cross-sectional descriptive correlational study with surgical patients	Qualitative study using focused groups	Qualitative study
Setting/Sample	15 participants aged between 23 and 65 years from a referral hospital located at the Northern part of Ghana	480 hospitalized surgical patients.	Semi-structured interviews of 21 nurses involved in delivering postoperative discharge education from August 2018 – July 2019.	9 studies obtained from database search.
Methods: Intervention/Instrument	All the interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim.	The data were collected using two structured instruments: One measuring the perceived quality of nursing care experienced by patients (Good Nursing Care Scale) and one measuring the received knowledge of hospital patients (RKhp)	Semi-structured interviews involving three focus groups and four individual interviews.	A systematic search of Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO databases.
Analysis	The principles of thematic content analysis according to were used to analyze data.	Data were analysed statistically using descriptive and inferential statistics to describe the sample and study variables. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were used to analyse the association between the scales.	Interview data were analysed using inductive content analysis.	The research quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool specific to the study design.
Key Findings	Nurses are better placed to educate discharged patients on how to manage their health at home.	The quality of nursing care and patient education are interconnected. Thus, by improving patient education, the quality of nursing care can also be improved.	Assuming responsibility for patient education without proper discharge communication; supporting patients to participate in self-management after hospitalization; variability in the resources, content and delivery of discharge education; and meeting operational demands compromises the quality of patients’ discharge education.	Healthcare providers play a prominent role in both multimedia and traditional interventions, revealing the strong influence of the interpersonal connection in the delivery of preoperative education.
Recommendations	Nurses should improve communication and attitude to enhance care.	There is need to improve collaboration with family members and patients’ own management strategies as well as the multidimensionality of educational knowledge.	There is need to develop an understanding of nurses’ role in discharge education can inform policies and nursing practice to improve patients’ well-being and reduce the potential for unplanned and emergency care.	There is need to investigate whether to more interactive technology could improve patient outcomes.
Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP/Capstone	This article supports the capstone project by advancing the need of nurses’ education on post-operative care and follow up.	This article supports the capstone project by supporting surgical patient education.	This article supports the capstone project by supporting discharge education in emergency care.	This article supports the capstone project by supporting preoperative education.

Conclusion

The literature evaluation table played a crucial role in providing summaries of the needed eight peer-reviewed articles. The summary of the articles entailed determination of the author, journal, working link to access article, article title, year published, research question, purpose, design, sample/setting, methodology, analysis, key findings, recommendations, and how the study supports the proposed capstone project.

References

Adugbire, B. A., & Aziato, L. (2018). Surgical patients’ perspectives on nurses’ education on post-operative care and follow up in Northern Ghana. BMC nursing, 17(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-018-0299-6

Burch, J., & Balfour, A. (2020). Preoperative patient education. In Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (pp. 37-49). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33443-7_5

Gröndahl, W., Muurinen, H., Katajisto, J., Suhonen, R., & Leino-Kilpi, H. (2019). Perceived quality of nursing care and patient education: A cross-sectional study of hospitalised surgical patients in Finland. BMJ open, 9(4), e023108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023108

Kang, E., Tobiano, G. A., Chaboyer, W., & Gillespie, B. M. (2020). Nurses’ role in delivering discharge education to general surgical patients: A qualitative study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76(7), 1698-1707. https://publons.com/publon/10.1111/jan.14379

Refai, M., Andolfi, M., Gentili, P., Pelusi, G., Manzotti, F., & Sabbatini, A. (2018). Enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery: patient information and care-plans. Journal of thoracic disease, 10(Suppl 4), S512. DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2017.12.87

Steves, S. L., & Scafide, K. N. (2021). Multimedia in preoperative patient education for adults undergoing cancer surgery: A systematic review. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 52, 101981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2021.101981

Tweed, T. T., Woortman, C., Tummers, S., Bakens, M. J., van Bastelaar, J., & Stoot, J. H. (2021). Reducing hospital stay for colorectal surgery in ERAS setting by means of perioperative patient education of expected day of discharge. International Journal of Colorectal Disease, 36(7), 1535-1542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-021-03948-0

van Diggele, C., Burgess, A., Roberts, C., & Mellis, C. (2020). Leadership in healthcare education. BMC Medical Education, 20(2), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02288-x

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Assessment Description
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.
TOPIC: The significance of patient education throughout their hospital stay and their understanding of it before and after discharge. (on a medical-surgical floor)

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.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

Literature Evaluation Table Rubric

Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article assessment

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. 5: Excellent

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. 4: Good

2.23 points

Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

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. 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 assessment

Article Title and Year Published

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Article Title and Year Published

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Article title and year published section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Article title and year published section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Article title and year published section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Article title and year published section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 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 assessment

Research Questions (Qualitative) or Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes or Aim of Study

5 points

Criteria Description

Research Questions (Qualitative) or Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes or Aim of Study

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

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. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 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) assessment

Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is not included.

Setting or Sample assessment

Setting or Sample

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Setting or Sample

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Setting or sample section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Setting or sample section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Setting or sample section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Setting or sample section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Setting or sample section is not included.

Methods: Intervention or Instruments assessment

Methods: Intervention or Instruments

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Methods: Intervention or Instruments

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is not included.

Analysis assessment

Analysis

5 points

Criteria Description

Analysis

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

Analysis section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Analysis section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Analysis section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Analysis section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Analysis section is not included.

Key Findings assessment

Key Findings

5 points

Criteria Description

Key Findings

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

Key findings section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Key findings section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Key findings section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Key findings section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Key findings section is not included.

Recommendations assessment

Recommendations

5 points

Criteria Description

Recommendations

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

Recommendations section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Recommendations section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Recommendations section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Recommendations section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Recommendations section is not included.

Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP or Capstone assessment

Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP or Capstone

5 points

Criteria Description

Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP or Capstone

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is provided.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is not included.

Presentation assessment

Presentation

5 points

Criteria Description

Presentation

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

The work is well presented and includes all required elements. The overall appearance is neat and professional.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor flaws or missing elements.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

The overall appearance is general, and major elements are missing.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

The work is not neat and includes minor flaws or omissions of required elements.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

The piece is not neat or organized, and it does not include all required elements.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use) assessment

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)

5 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.

Documentation of Sources assessment

Documentation of Sources

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Sources are not documented.