NURS 8114 Week 6 Assignment: Part 1 Key Project Elements

NURS 8114 Week 6 Assignment: Part 1 Key Project Elements

NURS 8114 Week 6 Assignment: Part 1 Key Project Elements

Part 1: Key Project Elements

Complete your paper of 6–8 pages, plus cover page and references page, explaining your investigation of three hypothetical practice sites for an EBP QI project.

Part 2: Implementation Science Presentation

Complete your PowerPoint presentation of 3–5 slides, plus cover and reference slides, to inform hypothetical stakeholders.

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

Reminder: The College of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references. The Sample Paper provided at the Walden Writing Center provides an example of those required elements (available at https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templates/general#s-lg-box-20293632Links to an external site.). All papers submitted must use this formatting.

BY DAY 7 OF WEEK 6

Submit Parts 1 and 2 of your Assignment (Word document and PowerPoint document).

SUBMISSION INFORMATION

Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.

1. To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as M3Assgn_LastName_Firstinitial
2. Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
3. Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.

NURS_8114_Module3_Assignment_Rubric

NURS_8114_Module3_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe Assignment: Part 1: Key Project Elements In a paper of 6–8 pages, plus cover page and references page, include the following:• Describe the three health care settings that you explored as proposed sites for an EBP QI project. For each health care setting, identify the following defining features: patient population, mission, public or private entity, single institution or member of a corporation, and others you identify as significant.	10 to >8.0 pts Excellent 90%–100% The response provides a clear, accurate, and detailed description of three health care settings that you explored as proposed sites for an EBP QI project, with a clear, accurate, and detailed identification of all defining features and others you identify as significant. 8 to >7.0 pts Good 80%–89% The response provides a clear and accurate description of three health care settings that you explored as proposed sites for an EBP QI project, with clear and accurate identification of all defining features; there may not be others identified as significant. 7 to >6.0 pts Fair 70%–79% The response provides a vague and/or inaccurate description of three health care settings that you explored as proposed sites for an EBP QI project, with vague and/or inaccurate identification of defining features and no others identified as significant. 6 to >0 pts Poor 0%–69% The response provides a vague and inaccurate description of three or fewer health care settings that you explored as proposed sites for an EBP QI project, with vague and inaccurate or missing identification of defining features and no others identified as significant.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome• Compare the settings for strengths and weaknesses as sites for an EBP QI project. Be specific and provide examples.	15 to >13.0 pts Excellent 90%–100% The response provides a clear, accurate, and detailed comparison of the settings for strengths and weaknesses as sites for an EBP QI project. … The response fully synthesizes and integrates at least three scholarly resources that fully support the comparison provided. 13 to >11.0 pts Good 80%–89% The response provides a clear and accurate comparison of the settings for strengths and weaknesses as sites for an EBP QI project. … The response synthesizes and integrates at least two scholarly resources that support the comparison provided. 11 to >10.0 pts Fair 70%–79% The response provides a vague and/or inaccurate comparison of the settings for strengths and weaknesses as sites for an EBP QI project. … The response somewhat synthesizes and integrates two scholarly resources that may support the comparison provided. 10 to >0 pts Poor 0%–69% The response provides a vague, inaccurate, or missing comparison of the settings for strengths and weaknesses as sites for an EBP QI project. … The response minimally and/or inaccurately synthesizes and integrates one or two scholarly resources or is missing resources.	15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome• Explain the practice problems that you explored based on your interests and identified needs of the health care settings you investigated.	10 to >8.0 pts Excellent 90%–100% The response provides a clear, accurate, and detailed explanation of the practice problems that you explored based on your interests, and identified needs of the health care settings you investigated. 8 to >7.0 pts Good 80%–89% The response provides a clear and accurate explanation of the practice problems that you explored based on your interests, and identified needs of the health care settings you investigated. 7 to >6.0 pts Fair 70%–79% The response provides a vague and/or inaccurate explanation of the practice problems that you explored based on your interests, and identified needs of the health care settings you investigated. 6 to >0 pts Poor 0%–69% The response provides a vague, inaccurate, or missing explanation of the practice problems that you explored based on your interests, and identified needs of the health care settings you investigated.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome• Explain why each problem is a potential focus for an EBP QI project. Be specific and provide examples.	15 to >13.0 pts Excellent 90%–100% The response provides a clear, accurate, and detailed explanation of why each problem is a potential focus for an EBP QI project. … The response fully synthesizes and integrates at least three scholarly resources that fully support the explanation provided. 13 to >11.0 pts Good 80%–89% The response provides a clear and accurate explanation of why each problem is a potential focus for an EBP QI project. … The response synthesizes and integrates at least two scholarly resources that support the explanation provided. 11 to >10.0 pts Fair 70%–79% The response provides a vague and/or inaccurate explanation of why each problem is a potential focus for an EBP QI project. … The response somewhat synthesizes and integrates two scholarly resources that may support the explanation provided. 10 to >0 pts Poor 0%–69% The response provides a vague, inaccurate, or missing explanation of why each problem is a potential focus for an EBP QI project. … The response minimally and/or inaccurately synthesizes and integrates one or two scholarly resources or is missing resources.	15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome• For each health care setting, describe the stakeholders whose approval would be required to initiate an EBP QI project and implement the results.	10 to >8.0 pts Excellent 90%–100% The response provides a clear, accurate, and detailed description of the stakeholders whose approval would be required to initiate an EBP QI project and implement the results. 8 to >7.0 pts Good 80%–89% The response provides a clear and accurate description of the stakeholders whose approval would be required to initiate an EBP QI project and implement the results. 7 to >6.0 pts Fair 70%–79% The response provides a vague and/or inaccurate description of the stakeholders whose approval would be required to initiate an EBP QI project and implement the results. 6 to >0 pts Poor 0%–69% The response provides a vague and inaccurate and/or missing descriptions of the stakeholders whose approval would be required to initiate an EBP QI project and implement the results.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome• Compare similarities and differences in stakeholder requirements across the settings.	15 to >13.0 pts Excellent 90%–100% The response provides a clear, accurate, and detailed comparison of similarities and differences in stakeholder requirements across the settings. 13 to >11.0 pts Good 80%–89% The response provides a clear and accurate comparison of similarities and differences in stakeholder requirements across the settings. 11 to >10.0 pts Fair 70%–79% The response provides a vague and/or inaccurate comparison of similarities and differences in stakeholder requirements across the settings. 10 to >0 pts Poor 0%–69% The response provides a vague and inaccurate, or missing, comparison of similarities and differences in stakeholder requirements across the settings.	15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome• Identify the one proposed health care setting/practice site and one proposed practice problem you have selected as the focus of a hypothetical presentation to stakeholders, and explain your choices.	10 to >8.0 pts Excellent 90%–100% The response provides a clear, accurate, and detailed identification of one proposed health care setting/practice site and one proposed practice problem as the focus of a hypothetical presentation to stakeholders; and a clear, accurate, and detailed explanation of those choices. 8 to >7.0 pts Good 80%–89% The response provides a clear and accurate identification of one proposed health care setting/practice site and one proposed practice problem as the focus of a hypothetical presentation to stakeholders; and a clear and accurate explanation of those choices. 7 to >6.0 pts Fair 70%–79% The response provides a vague and/or inaccurate identification of one proposed health care setting/practice site and one proposed practice problem as the focus of a hypothetical presentation to stakeholders; and a vague and/or inaccurate explanation of one or both choices. 6 to >0 pts Poor 0%–69% The response provides a vague and inaccurate, and/or missing identification of one proposed health care setting/practice site and/or one proposed practice problem as the focus of a hypothetical presentation to stakeholders; and a vague and inaccurate and/or missing explanation of one or both choices.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe Assignment: Part 2: Implementation Science Presentation In a PowerPoint presentation of 3–5 slides, plus cover and references slides, include the following:• Introduce the framework or model you have selected for the EBP QI project and your reasoning. (1–2 slides)	50 to >44.0 pts Excellent 90%–100% The response provides a clear, accurate, and detailed introduction of the framework or model you selected for the EBP QI project and clear, accurate, and detailed reasoning. 44 to >39.0 pts Good 80%–89% The response provides a clear and accurate introduction of the framework or model you selected for the EBP QI project and clear and accurate reasoning. 39 to >34.0 pts Fair 70%–79% The response provides a vague or inaccurate introduction of the framework or model you selected for the EBP QI project and vague or inaccurate reasoning. 34 to >0 pts Poor 0%–69% The response provides a vague and inaccurate or missing introduction of the framework or model you selected for the EBP QI project and vague, inaccurate, or missing reasoning.	50 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome• Present a draft of the proposed practice problem. Include notes for each slide describing points you would make to the assembled stakeholders to obtain their approval or buy-in for the EBP QI project. (2–3 slides)	50 to >44.0 pts Excellent 90%–100% The response provides a clear, accurate, and detailed presentation of a draft of the proposed practice problem, including clear, accurate, and detailed notes for each slide describing points to make to the assembled stakeholders to obtain their approval or buy-in for the EBP QI project. 44 to >39.0 pts Good 80%–89% The response provides a clear and accurate presentation of a draft of the proposed practice problem, including mostly clear and accurate notes for each slide describing points to make to the assembled stakeholders to obtain their approval or buy-in for the EBP QI project. 39 to >34.0 pts Fair 70%–79% The response provides a vague or inaccurate presentation of a draft of the proposed practice problem, including some vague or inaccurate notes for each slide describing points to make to the assembled stakeholders to obtain their approval or buy-in for the EBP QI project. 34 to >0 pts Poor 0%–69% The response provides a vague and inaccurate presentation of a draft of the proposed practice problem, with vague and inaccurate and/or mostly or completely missing notes for each slide describing points to make to the assembled stakeholders to obtain their approval or buy-in for the EBP QI project.	50 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting: Paragraph/Sentence StructureParagraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are clearly structured and carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance.	5 to >4.0 pts Excellent 90%–100% Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity, and clarity. 4 to >3.0 pts Good 80%–89% Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. 3 to >2.0 pts Fair 70%–79% Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. 2 to >0 pts Poor 0%–69% Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.	5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting: English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.	5 to >4.0 pts Excellent 90%–100% Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 to >3.5 pts Good 80%–89% Contains a few (1–2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3.5 to >3.0 pts Fair 70%–79% Contains several (3–4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 to >0 pts Poor 0%–69% Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.	5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting: The assignment contains parenthetical/in-text citations, and at least three evidence-based references are listed.	5 to >4.0 pts Excellent 90%–100% Contains parenthetical/in-text citations and at least three evidence-based references are listed. 4 to >3.5 pts Good 80%–89% Contains parenthetical/in-text citations and at least two evidence-based references are listed. 3.5 to >3.0 pts Fair 70%–79% Contains parenthetical/in-text citations and at least one evidence-based references are listed. 3 to >0 pts Poor 0%–69% Contains one or no parenthetical/in-text citations and no evidence-based references are listed.	5 pts
Total Points: 200

PreviousNext

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

A Sample Of This Assignment Written By One Of Our Top-rated Writers

NURS 8114 Week 6 Assignment Part 1 

Evidence-based practice (EBP) quality improvement (QI) projects employ systematic change methods and strategies to enhance patient experience and outcome. The change agent should define the outcome that needs improvement, identify how the process outcome will be measured, and create a plan for implementing the intervention and collecting data before and after the intervention. The purpose of this paper is to describe my research of three hypothetical practice sites for an EBP QI project.

The Three Health Care Settings That I Explored As Proposed Sites For an EBP QI Project

The three healthcare settings I explored for an EBP QI project are A crisis stabilization unit, a Mental health unit, and a Medical-surgical unit. The crisis stabilization unit has a patient capacity of 12 beds. It provides 24/7 intensive, short-term stabilization for patients with a mental health emergency willing to receive services. The average stay in a crisis stabilization unit is usually three days. The mission of the Crisis Stabilization Unit is to provide high-quality, short-term, community-based supportive care and treatment for persons in psychiatric or psychosocial crises at risk of hospitalization. In this setting, patients are managed by a multidisciplinary team of mental healthcare professionals, who develop a plan that assists patients in managing and resolving the crisis. The Crisis Stabilization Unit is under a private entity hospital that is a not-for-profit organization.

            The Mental health unit has a bed capacity of 40 patients. The unit seeks to assist individuals and the community by offering mental health, special education, and community support through direct mental health services, policy advocacy, and outreach. It provides quality mental health services and supports through direct outreach, referral, and partnerships. The mission of the Mental health unit is to promote mental health awareness individual empowerment, and improve access to treatment and services for individuals living with mental health conditions. The mental health unit is in a medium-sized State hospital with 250 beds. The hospital is also a teaching hospital that seeks to offer critical educational experiences to students while meeting the medical care and treatment needs of patients and the community.

The Medical Surgical Unit has a 50-bed capacity. It provides medical and surgical services to all adult patients across the lifespan. The unit’s mission is to provide exceptional patient care through compassion and interprofessional collaboration. An interdisciplinary team manages the patients in the unit to ensure patients are provided holistic care. The unit is within a medium not-for-profit hospital with a 250-bed capacity. The hospital is also a research hospital that commits its efforts to researching cures for various conditions as well as treating illnesses, diseases, injuries, and various healthcare conditions.

Compare The Settings For Strengths And Weaknesses As Sites For an EBP QI Project

The three proposed EBP sites have strengths and weaknesses that may facilitate or hinder the implementation of EBP. The Crisis stabilization unit has facilitators to EBP like leadership support, organizational culture, and access to resources. The hospital’s leadership team encourages the staff to engage in EBP and be innovative to identify interventions that can improve the delivery of care and patient outcomes in all hospital units. Besides, the organization has cultivated a culture that fosters innovation among employees, which can facilitate the implementation of an EBP QI project. Furthermore, there is access to resources facilitating EBP, like computers, the Internet, online education materials, and online databases. However, the Crisis stabilization unit has barriers like inadequate staffing, limiting providers from engaging in EBP activities. Besides, the unit lacks a person to strongly advocate for EBP, including staff training on EBP, and the management barely rewards the staff for evidence-based innovation, which lowers their morale.

Similar to the Crisis stabilization unit, the Mental health unit has a culture that values the use of research evidence in clinical decision-making. Research evidence is constantly incorporated into the decision-making process of patient care planning, implementation, and evaluation. In addition, the staff in the unit have access to online education materials related to EBP as well as access to computers, the Internet, and online databases for EBP. Nonetheless, the unit does not offer EBP training, and there is insufficient staff to support EBP implementation in the unit.

The Medical Surgical Unit is in a research hospital that greatly embraces EBP. The charge nurse is a strong advocate for EBP in the unit, and the nurses get support from their immediate supervisors and senior leadership to engage in EBP. Moreover, the hospital has adopted a reward system for staff engaging in evidence-based innovation and has a policy for paid time at work to review EBPs. Like the mental health unit, research evidence in the med-surg unit is always integrated into the decision-making process related to planning, implementing, and evaluating patient care. However, high nursing workload, fatigue, and burnout limit the nurses from fully engaging in EBP activities.

The Practice Problems That I Explored Based On My Interests And Identified Needs Of The Health Care Settings I Investigated

The practice problems I explored are homelessness, suicide, and opioid abuse and addiction. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), there were about 582,000 Americans facing homelessness in 2022, which accounts for about 18 per 10,000 persons in the US. This has increased by about 2,000 people since 2020 (USAFacts, 2023). The increasing population of homeless individuals in many towns and cities in the US can be linked to high drug abuse and addiction rates. People experiencing homelessness are at relatively high risk for medical and psychiatric chronic illnesses. Homelessness is linked with various physical and mental disorders, and homeless persons are susceptible to chronic illnesses.

According to CDC statistics, the suicide rate in the U.S. reached an all-time high in 2022. There were approximately 49,449 deaths by suicide in 2022, which is an estimated 3% increase from 2021. The risk factors for suicide include earlier suicide attempts, mental disorders, co-occurring mental alcohol and substance abuse disorders, and a family history of suicide (Favril et al., 2022). Furthermore, individuals facing hopelessness and those with impulsive and aggressive tendencies are at risk of suicide.

Opioid abuse and addiction have been declared a public health epidemic in the US. They significantly impact the health and well-being of individuals and communities in the country. The US is one of the largest consumers of opioids globally, and it is approximated that about 2.1 million Americans have abused opiates (Ahmed et al., 2022). Taking opioids for over three months increases the risk of addiction by 15-fold.  

Why Each Problem Is A Potential Focus For an EBP QI Project

The problem of homelessness is a potential focus for an EBP QI project since homeless persons encounter poor access to health care. This leads to delayed clinical presentation, increased reliance on emergency departments, and high hospitalization rates, especially for preventable diseases. Bedmar et al. (2022) explain that homeless individuals frequently suffer from poor health and premature death due to limited access to healthcare services and being deprived of basic human and social rights. Besides, many homeless persons usually have a history of mental illnesses and high rates of drug and alcohol abuse. Thus, an EBP QI project can focus on improving access to healthcare for homeless persons and identify if increasing access to preventive care can lower morbidity and mortality rates in this population.

Suicide is also a potential focus for an EBP QI project since the issue results from mental health problems. Besides, the issue can be mitigated by promoting mental health awareness and care among individuals across the lifespan. Individuals who face barriers to accessing mental health treatment and those reluctant to seek help due to the stigma attached to mental and substance abuse disorders and suicidal thoughts are at risk of suicidal behavior (Favril et al., 2022). Thus, an EBP intervention can help lower suicide rates by increasing mental health awareness to reduce social stigma and increasing individuals’ access to mental health preventive, curative, and rehabilitative services.

Opioid abuse and addiction can be a focus for an EBP QI project to help address the opioid epidemic in the country. According to Sureshkumar et al. (2021), opioid addiction has one of the highest relapse rates because of the rapid rate at which opioid tolerance builds compared with other substances. It is estimated that about 91% of persons recovering from opiate abuse will experience a relapse. Furthermore, opioid overdose deaths increased by 519.38% from 1999 to 2019. Thus, an EBP QI project would be crucial to prevent Opioid abuse and addiction and prevent relapse for persons on treatment for opioid addiction.

Stakeholders Whose Approval Would Be Required To Initiate An EBP QI Project And Implement The Results

Stakeholder approval will be fundamental to implementing an EBP QI project in the proposed sites. Since the Crisis Stabilization Unit is under a private entity, approval by the hospital’s owners and investors will be a requisite. The facility owners and administrators must approve the EBP project to be implemented in the institution since they decide the budget, manage finances, and ensure the hospital and the staff comply with various codes and regulations linked with medical care.

The Mental health unit is in a state hospital; thus, the EBP project will need approval by the hospital’s management board. The board coordinates, supervises, and monitors health service delivery in the state hospital. The Hospital Management Committee (HMC) will also need to approve the project since it helps manage the hospitals. The HMC comprises heads of departments in the hospital that are well-informed of the QI needs. The Medical-surgical unit is under a not-for-profit hospital, and EBP project approval will be required from the hospital’s management committee and the administration team.

Similarities And Differences In Stakeholder Requirements Across The Settings

Stakeholders in the private entity, like the Crisis Stabilization Unit, will require that the EBP project helps to increase profits for the hospital and solve a financial problem directly or indirectly. This is because a share of the hospital’s profits goes to the investors. The stakeholders for the state hospital will require the EBP project to provide an educational experience to the staff and students in the hospital and meet the medical care and treatment needs of patients and the community. Lastly, the stakeholders for the not-for-profit organization will require the project to be community-focused and meet specific needs in the community.

One Proposed Health Care Setting/Practice Site And One Proposed Practice Problem Selected As The Focus Of A Hypothetical Presentation To Stakeholders

The Mental health unit has been selected as the practice site for the EBP project, and the proposed practice problem is suicide. The mental health unit was selected because it is under a teaching hospital that seeks to offer critical educational experiences to students while meeting the medical care and treatment needs of patients and the community. Therefore, my EBP project will align with the hospital’s mission since it will help me in my education experience. Suicide was selected because it is the second leading cause of mortality among persons aged 10–25 years. Suicide is preventable through screening and early interventions. Therefore, there is a need to identify evidence-based interventions that will mitigate suicide by identifying individuals at risk of suicide and providing necessary interventions. Providers in the mental health unit can apply these interventions to help lower mortalities from suicide in the community.

Conclusion

The proposed sites for an EBP QI project are a crisis stabilization unit, Mental health unit, and Medical surgical unit. The identified practice issues are homelessness, suicide, and opioid abuse and addiction. The mental health unit has been proposed as an ideal practice site since it supports student research. Suicide has been selected as the focus problem for an EBP QI project since it is preventable through screening and early interventions.

References

Ahmed, S., Sarfraz, Z., & Sarfraz, A. (2022). Editorial: A Changing Epidemic and the Rise of Opioid-Stimulant Co-Use. Frontiers in psychiatry, 13, 918197. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.918197

Bedmar, M. A., Bennasar-Veny, M., Artigas-Lelong, B., Salvà-Mut, F., Pou, J., Capitán-Moyano, L., … & Yáñez, A. M. (2022). Health and access to healthcare in homeless people: Protocol for a mixed-methods study. Medicine, 101(7), e28816-e28816. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000028816

Favril, L., Yu, R., Uyar, A., Sharpe, M., & Fazel, S. (2022). Risk factors for suicide in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological autopsy studies. Evidence-based mental health, 25(4), 148–155. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2022-300549

Sureshkumar, K., Dalal, P. K., Kailash, S. Z., & Rudhran, V. (2021). Relapse in opioid dependence: Role of psychosocial factors. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 63(4), 372. https://doi.org/10.4103/psychiatry.IndianJPsychiatry_383_20

USAFacts. (2023, March 16). How many homeless people are in the US? What does the data miss? https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-homeless-people-are-in-the-us-what-does-the-data-miss/