Want create site? With Free visual composer you can do it easy.

HCM 440 8-2 Final Project: Submit Integrated Review Assignment

HCM 440 8-2 Final Project: Submit Integrated Review Assignment

 Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: HCM 440 8-2 Final Project: Submit Integrated Review Assignment

Description

HCM 440 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric Overview Healthcare administrators, managers, and executives are responsible for planning, directing, and coordinating health services at various levels for the populations they serve. Interpreting research is integral to the role of a healthcare professional, especially when conducting a needs assessment for program planning. In this course, you will choose a clinical area of interest related to healthcare administration and create an annotated bibliography. For your final assessment, you will compose an integrated review. In this review, you will discuss the criteria necessary for inclusion or exclusion in the research study, critique the quality of each study, and present a synthesis of the results. This integrated review will address the following course outcomes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Critique ethical issues in healthcare research for their influence on compliance with rules and regulations Evaluate basic research strategies applicable to healthcare settings for informing research proposals Assess the appropriateness of utilizing secondary databases in healthcare research as an alternative to conducting original research Justify the selection of specific data analysis methodology in published healthcare research for informing healthcare research methodology Select healthcare administration issues to research in validating the need for program evaluation Prompt Using the six peer-reviewed literature articles from your annotated bibliography, compose an integrated review that focuses on a clinical issue of interest. Ensure that the topic of this integrated review is viewed from the perspective of a healthcare professional who is looking to validate the need for program evaluation at your hospital, even if your annotated bibliography was not this focused. Specifically, your integrated review should focus on the following critical elements: I. Abstract Craft a well-drafted abstract. Be sure to adhere to the guidelines from the latest edition of the American Psychological Association’s style guide. Consider the appropriate length for your audience. II. Introduction a) State the purpose, aims, or objectives of the integrated review. What do you wish to achieve through the drafting of this review? Be explicit in your answer. b) Introduce the topic of interest. Why is this topic the focus of the review? c) What is the research question you are going to focus on? If you were to prepare a research proposal, what would your hypothesis be? Why? d) What variables are of interest to you? How will these variables help you throughout this integrated review? Be sure to label the types of variables each of these are. e) Discuss the background and significance of the problem to healthcare administration. III. Literature Search a) What keywords and combinations were used in the initial search? Which were the most effective? Explain why these keywords and combinations provided the most useful results. b) Which databases were searched? Why were these the chosen databases? Assess the characteristics that make these databases the most reliable. c) Evaluate the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the sample. How did you decide to narrow the search and focus the review? How was the final sample determined? Be sure to include your process. IV. Methodology Analysis a) What methodology was used in this research? Was it effective for the research question and hypothesis? Why or why not? Consider including improvements for the methodology. b) What statistical data analyses were employed in these articles? Were they appropriate for the research question and methodology? Why or why not? c) Evaluate the literature for any gaps that exist. Why do you think these gaps exist? Consider factors such as the location of the research, time the research was conducted, and so on. d) Evaluate the literature for inconsistencies that exist across the studies. Why do you think these inconsistencies exist? Consider factors such as the location of the research, time the research was conducted, and so on. V. Synthesis and Interpretation a) Create an evidence table of your results. Be sure to include the following criteria for each study: 1. Report citation 2. Design 3. Method 4. Sample 5. Data collection 6. Data analysis 7. Validity and reliability b) Compare and contrast the study findings. Be sure to include pertinent conclusions and statistical findings only. c) Evaluate the research strategies used in the articles, as applicable to healthcare programs. Was the research design appropriate for the study conducted? Was the statistical analysis employed the best choice for the research questions posed? d) What ethical issues are pertinent specifically to healthcare research? How can these issues influence the research strategies chosen to investigate clinical topics? Evaluate these research articles and consider how ethical concerns may have limited these clinical investigations. e) What patterns and trends exist in the research? What generalizations can you draw from the research? f) If secondary data was utilized, was the source biased or objective? Why? If original research was conducted, do you think the researchers were biased or objective? Why? Be sure to support your answer. g) Synthesize the main findings of the research articles. What were the hypotheses of the research studies? Did the research add any new scholarly information to the existing body of knowledge? h) Assess whether utilizing secondary data as an alternative to the researchers’ original research would have been a feasible option. If it had been an option, what resource(s) would be the most appropriate to use? What would be some of the strengths and limitations of using secondary data? i) Assess the literature for any ethical concerns that may be present. Consider things such as conflicts of interest between the researcher and the study sponsors, or the lack of an IRB approval for the study. VI. Conclusion a) What are the studies’ strengths? Are there patterns in the articles that you chose regarding their strengths? b) What are the studies’ limitations? Are there patterns in the articles that you chose regarding their limitations? c) Were the findings and conclusions reliable and valid? Why or why not? Logically support your answers. d) What are the implications of this research? How will it influence your topic in the overall large picture of healthcare research? Milestones Annotated Bibliography This milestone is due in Module Four. Submit a summary and analysis of six research articles relevant to the research problem that you have chosen. This milestone is graded with the Annotated Bibliography Rubric. Integrated Review The final project is due in Module Eight. Using the six peer-reviewed literature articles from your annotated bibliography, compose an integrated review that focuses on a clinical issue of interest. Ensure that the topic of this integrated review is viewed from the perspective of a healthcare professional who is looking to validate the need for program evaluation at your hospital. Remember to use APA format. This final project is graded with the Final Project Rubric. Final Project Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Submit the integrated review as one complete document, including the title page, abstract, written components, references, and any necessary appendices. The written components of the review (excluding the title page, abstract, references, and appendices) should not exceed 12 pages, double-spaced, with one-inch margins. Be sure to adhere to formatting guidelines from the latest edition of the American Psychological Association (APA) reference manual. Critical Elements Abstract Exemplary (100%) Meets “Proficient” criteria, and abstract is appropriate in length for reader’s audience Proficient (85%) Crafts well-drafted abstract, adhering to guidelines from the latest edition of the APA style guide Introduction: Purpose Meets “Proficient” criteria, and purpose, aims, or objectives demonstrate a keen understanding of the integrated review process Meets “Proficient” criteria, and explanation is explicitly clear Explicitly states the purpose, aims, or objectives of the integrated review Introduction: Topic Introduction: Research Question Introduction: Variables Introduction: Background Explains why the topic is the focus of the review Needs Improvement (55%) Crafts abstract, but abstract is not well drafted or does not adhere to guidelines from the latest edition of the APA style guide States the purpose, aims, or objectives of the integrated review, but is not explicit in doing so Explains why the topic is the focus of the review, but explanation is cursory or weak Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Introduces the research question Introduces the research question research question demonstrates and hypothesis, including and hypothesis, including depth of understanding of explanation behind hypothesis explanation behind hypothesis, chosen topic but explanation is illogical, cursory, or weak Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Explains labeled variables of Explains variables of interest, but chosen variables of interest interest, including how these variables are not labeled and reflect true understanding of variables will be of help explanation of how variables will chosen topic of interest throughout the integrated help throughout integrated review review is illogical or weak Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Discusses the background of the Discusses the background of the discussion logically links research problem and significance of the problem and discusses question to healthcare problem to healthcare significance of the problem, but administration administration discussion is not thorough or does not relate significance to healthcare administration Not Evident (0%) Does not craft abstract Value 2.5 Does not state the purpose, aims, or objectives of the integrated review 3.8 Does not explain why the topic is the focus of the review 3.8 Does not introduce the research question and hypothesis 3.8 Does not explain variables of interest 3.8 Does not discuss the background of the problem and significance of the problem to healthcare administration 3.8 Literature Search: Keywords and Combinations Meets “Proficient” criteria, and explanation for most useful keywords and combinations demonstrates a nuanced understanding of research databases Evaluates which keywords and combinations used in the initial search provided the most useful results, including an explanation for why this is true Evaluates which keywords and Does not evaluate which combinations provided the most keywords and combinations used useful results, including an in the initial search provided the explanation for why this is true, most useful results but evaluation is not limited to initial search, or explanation for why this is true is illogical, weak, or cursory Literature Search: Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Assesses which databases were Assesses which databases were Does not assess which databases Databases assessment of characteristics chosen and what characteristics chosen and what characteristics were chosen and what shows keen insight into reliability make them the most reliable make them the most reliable, characteristics make them the of research databases but assessment is illogical, weak, most reliable or not comprehensive Literature Search: Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Comprehensively evaluates the Evaluates the inclusion and Does not evaluate the inclusion Inclusion and process of determining inclusion inclusion and exclusion criteria exclusion criteria for the sample, and exclusion criteria for the Exclusion or exclusion demonstrates ability for the sample but evaluation is not sample to logically evaluate research comprehensive Methodology Meets “Proficient” criteria and Logically evaluates the efficacy of Evaluates the efficacy of Does not evaluate the efficacy of Analysis: includes improvements for methodology used in the methodology used in the methodology used in the Methodology methodology research articles research, but evaluation is research illogical Methodology: Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Logically evaluates the Evaluates the appropriateness of Does not evaluate the Statistical Data explanations for appropriateness appropriateness of the statistical the statistical data analyses used appropriateness of the statistical Analyses of data analyses demonstrate a data analyses used in the in the research articles but the data analyses used in the nuanced understanding of research articles evaluation is not logically sound research articles statistical techniques Methodology: Gaps Meets “Proficient” criteria and Comprehensively evaluates the Evaluates the literature for any Does not evaluate the literature possible explanations for gaps in literature for any gaps that exist, gaps that exist, including possible for any gaps that exist literature take into consideration including possible explanations explanations for those gaps, but factors such as location and time for those gaps evaluation is not comprehensive or explanations are illogical or weak Methodology: Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Comprehensively evaluates the Evaluates the literature for any Does not evaluate the literature Inconsistencies possible explanations for literature for any inconsistencies inconsistencies that exist across for any inconsistencies that exist inconsistencies that exist across that exist across the studies, the studies, including possible across the studies the studies take into including possible explanations explanations for those consideration factors such as for those inconsistencies inconsistencies, but evaluation is location and time not comprehensive or explanations are illogical or weak 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 Synthesis and Interpretation: Evidence Table Synthesis and Interpretation: Compare and Contrast Meets “Proficient” criteria, and evidence table of results is organized and visually appealing Meets “Proficient” criteria, and comparisons and contrasts of study findings include only significant conclusions and statistically significant findings Synthesis and Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Interpretation: evaluation is focused on the Research Strategies appropriateness of the research strategies within healthcare programs Synthesis and Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Interpretation: evaluation considers how ethical Ethical Issues concerns may have limited clinical investigations specifically in the chosen clinical topic Synthesis and Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Interpretation: analysis demonstrates nuanced Patterns and Trends ability to interpret research findings Synthesis and Interpretation: Secondary Data Synthesis and Interpretation: Synthesize Creates a comprehensive evidence table of results Does not create an evidence table of results 3.8 Does not compare and contrast the study findings 3.8 Evaluates research strategies Does not evaluate research used in the articles, but research strategies used in the articles strategies do not apply to healthcare programs or evaluation is not comprehensive Evaluates research articles for Evaluates research articles for Does not evaluate research how possible ethical concerns how possible ethical concerns articles for how possible ethical may have limited clinical may have limited clinical concerns may have limited investigations investigations, but evaluation is clinical investigations limited, illogical, or weak Analyzes patterns and trends in Analyzes patterns and trends in Does not analyze patterns and the research, drawing the research and draws trends in the research generalizations from these generalizations from these patterns and trends patterns and trends, but analysis is cursory or generalizations are illogical Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Evaluates if sources or Evaluates if sources or Does not evaluate if sources or support for evaluation includes researchers were biased or researchers were biased or researchers were biased or specific examples objective, with support for objective and supports answer, objective answer but evaluation is not complete or support is illogical or weak Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Comprehensively synthesizes the Synthesizes the main findings of Does not synthesize the main synthesis of articles main findings of the research the research articles, but findings of the research articles demonstrates nuanced ability to articles synthesis is not comprehensive blend multiple articles to support research question 3.8 Compares and contrasts the study findings, including pertinent conclusions and statistical findings only Comprehensively evaluates research strategies used in the articles as applicable to a healthcare program Creates an evidence table of results, but does not include all required components Compares and contrasts the study findings, but includes superfluous information 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 Synthesis and Interpretation: Utilizing Meets “Proficient” criteria, and identification of strengths and limitations to using secondary data considers clinical topics in healthcare administration Synthesis and Interpretation: Ethical Concerns Assesses whether utilizing Assesses whether utilizing Does not assess whether utilizing secondary data is a feasible secondary data is a feasible secondary data is a feasible alternative to the researchers’ alternative to the researchers’ alternative to the researchers’ original research, including what original research, but assessment original research resources would be most is not comprehensive appropriate to use and the strengths and limitations to using secondary data Comprehensively assesses the Assesses the literature for ethical Does not assess the literature for literature for ethical concerns concerns, but assessment is not ethical concerns comprehensive Meets “Proficient” criteria, and assessment includes scenarios such as conflicts of interest between the researcher and study sponsor or the lack of an IRB approval for the study Conclusion: Strengths Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Thoroughly evaluates the studies evaluation of studies’ strengths for patterns in strengths demonstrates keen ability to read beyond superficial results of research articles Conclusion: Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Thoroughly evaluates the studies Limitations evaluation of studies’ limitations for patterns in limitations demonstrates keen ability to read beyond superficial results of research articles Conclusion: Findings Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Assesses the findings and assessment demonstrates conclusions for reliability and nuanced understanding of validity, logically supporting statistical principles answers Conclusion: Implications Meets “Proficient” criteria, and analysis of implications demonstrates a keen understanding of research topic overall Thoroughly analyzes the implications of the research, including how the research will influence the clinical topic in the overall picture of healthcare research 3.8 3.8 Evaluates the studies for patterns in strengths, but evaluation is not thorough Does not evaluate the studies for patterns in strengths 3.8 Evaluates the studies for patterns in limitations, but evaluation is not thorough Does not evaluate the studies for patterns in limitations 3.8 Assesses the findings and Does not assess the findings and conclusions for reliability and conclusions for reliability and validity and supports answers, validity but assessment is illogical or support is weak or illogical Analyzes the implications of the Does not analyze the research topic, including how the implications of the research topic research topic will influence the clinic topic, but analysis is cursory or weak or does not consider how research fits into the overall picture of healthcare research 3.8 3.8 Articulation of Response Submission is free of errors Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization spelling, syntax, or organization and is presented in a professional and easy-to-read format Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas Earned Total 2.5 100%
Purchase answer to see full attachment
      1. Information 5 3 2 0
        Cover Page Given in proper APA formatting Issues with spacing or missing information Issues with spacing and missing information APA formatting is not followed.
        Abstract Between 150 – 250 words Contains slightly more or less than required range. (+/- 10 Words) Contains more or less than range allowed Did not include an abstract
        Introduction Expanded on all points from the outline Expand on most points Expanded on some points Restated listed points on outline
        Thesis Statement Has a clear thesis statement in introduction Thesis statement either has errors and/or is not in the introduction Thesis statement is not in proper format No thesis statement present in the paper and/or is not in the introduction
        Body Contains proper information to back up the respective main point of the thesis statement Contains some information to back up the respective main point of the thesis statement but could use more Contains very little information to back up the respective main point of the thesis statement Contents goes off topic of what the thesis statement is discussing
        Conclusion Restates the thesis statement and wraps up the paper. Restates the thesis statement and/or wraps up the paper but with some loose ends Does not restate the thesis statement and/or has lots of loose ends in the paper Contains new information in the conclusion and/or does not summarize the paper
        Person Contains no First or Second person perspective Has an instance of First or Second person perspective  

         

         

         

         

         

        Contains more than one instance of First or Second Person perspective
        Max: 35

         

        Student Earned:

         

         

         

         

        Structure 10 5 3 0
        Formatting Paper follows all guidelines as stated in the syllabus, Paper is in full APA formatting Contains 1-2 Errors Contains 3-5 Errors Did not proofread or Edit paper
        Mechanics & Grammar No errors 3-5 Errors 6-8 Errors Did not edit or proofread.
        Max 20 Student Earned:
        APA Style 15 10 5 0
        Paper Length 5-7 Pages not including Cover page, Abstract, References, etc. 4 pages not including CP, Abs, and Ref 3 pages not including CP, Abs, and Ref 2 or less pages of content OR contains more than 8 Pages
        Reference No errors Has few to little errors Has many errors Not in APA Format, contains less than 7 references, or has any amount of references older than 10 years
        In-text Citations No errors Has few to little errors Has many errors Not in APA Format or missing two or more in-text citations
        Max 45 Student Earned:
        Totals from Each Section:
        Section 1: Section 2: Section 3: Final Grade:

        uNotice: Each day that the assignment is late there is a 5 point reduction on the overall grade.

        uWhen error is stated it is in reference to the instances of the error not the type of error.  Example: In-text citation for multiple authors occurs for two of the references that counts as two errors not one.

        uAny mention of the paper within the paper will result in a FIVE (5) point deduction per instance. Example: “In this paper…; In conclusion….; In summary…; In this essay….;

        Also Read: 3- peptide ,Protein organization worksheet Assignment

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.