NUR 550 Discuss the role of the Institutional Review Board

Sample Answer for NUR 550 Discuss the role of the Institutional Review Board Included After Question

NUR 550 Discuss the role of the Institutional Review Board

Topic 3 DQ 2

Description:

Discuss the role of the Institutional Review Board. Discuss ethical research considerations specific to population health. How is respect for the persons, potential benefits and burdens of the research, and justice kept in balance? Provide an example.

Description

Objectives:

1. Discuss ethical guidelines for conducting translational research.

NUR 550 Discuss the role of the Institutional Review Board
NUR 550 Discuss the role of the Institutional Review Board

2. Examine ethical considerations related to translating research into practice.
3. Examine legal considerations related to translating research into practice.
4. Discuss ethical research considerations specific to population health.

Advanced Practice Nursing: Essential Knowledge for the Profession

Description:

Read Chapter 26 in Advanced Practice Nursing: Essential Knowledge for the Profession.

Population Health: Creating a Culture of Wellness

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NUR 550 Discuss the role of the Institutional Review Board

Description:

Read Chapter 10 in Population Health: Creating a Culture of Wellness.

A Few Ethical Issues in Translation Research for Gene and Cell Therapy

Description:

Read “A Few Ethical Issues in Translation Research for Gene and Cell Therapy,” by Riva and Petrini, from Journal of Translational Medicine (2019).

The Underappreciated and Misunderstood PICOT Question: A Critical Step in EBP Process

Description:

Read “The Underappreciated and Misunderstood PICOT Question: A Critical Step in EBP Process,” by Gallagher-Ford and Melnyk, from Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing (2019).

Life After PICOT: Taking the Next Step in a Clinical Inquiry Project

Description:

Read “Life After PICOT: Taking the Next Step in a Clinical Inquiry Project,” by Granger, from AACN Advanced Critical Care (2020).

Description:

Read “The Belmont Report,” by The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, located on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website (1979).

PICO: A Model for Evidence-Based Research

Description:

View “PICO: A Model for Evidence-Based Research,” by Binghamton University Libraries, located on YouTube (2017).

What is Evidence-Based Practice?

Description:

View “What is Evidence-Based Practice?” by Lippincott NursingCenter.com, located on YouTube (2016).

NUR 550 Discuss the role of the Institutional Review Board Grading Rubric Guidelines

Performance Category 10 9 8 4 0
Scholarliness

Demonstrates achievement of scholarly inquiry for professional and academic decisions.

  • Provides relevant evidence of scholarly inquiry clearly stating how the evidence informed or changed professional or academic decisions
  • Evaluates literature resources to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis.
  • Uses valid, relevant, and reliable outside sources to contribute to the threaded discussion
  • Provides relevant evidence of scholarly inquiry but does not clearly state how the evidence informed or changed professional or academic decisions.
  • Evaluates information from source(s) to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis.
  • Uses some valid, relevant, reliable outside sources to contribute to the threaded discussion.
  • Discusses using scholarly inquiry but does not state how scholarly inquiry informed or changed professional or academic decisions.
  • Information is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/evaluation, but not enough to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis.
  • Little valid, relevant, or reliable outside sources are used to contribute to the threaded discussion.
  • Demonstrates little or no understanding of the topic.
  • Discusses using scholarly inquiry but does not state how scholarly inquiry informed or changed professional or academic decisions.
  • Information is taken from source(s) without any interpretation/evaluation.
  • The posting uses information that is not valid, relevant, or reliable
  • No evidence of the use of scholarly inquiry to inform or change professional or academic decisions.
  • Information is not valid, relevant, or reliable
Performance Category  10 9 8 4 0
Application of Course Knowledge –

Demonstrate the ability to analyze, synthesize, and/or apply principles and concepts learned in the course lesson and outside readings and relate them to real-life professional situations

  • Posts make direct reference to concepts discussed in the lesson or drawn from relevant outside sources;
  • Applies concepts to personal experience in the professional setting and or relevant application to real life.
  • Posts make direct reference to concepts discussed in the lesson or drawn from relevant outside sources.
  • Applies concepts to personal experience in their professional setting and or relevant application to real life
  • Interactions with classmates are relevant to the discussion topic but do not make direct reference to lesson content
  • Posts are generally on topic but do not build knowledge by incorporating concepts and principles from the lesson.
  • Does not attempt to apply lesson concepts to personal experience in their professional setting and or relevant application to real life
  • Does not demonstrate a solid understanding of the principles and concepts presented in the lesson
  • Posts do not adequately address the question posed either by the discussion prompt or the instructor’s launch post.
  • Posts are superficial and do not reflect an understanding of the lesson content
  • Does not attempt to apply lesson concepts to personal experience in their professional setting and or relevant application to real life
  • Posts are not related to the topics provided by the discussion prompt or by the instructor; attempts by the instructor to redirect the student are ignored
  • No discussion of lesson concepts to personal experience in the professional setting and or relevant application to real life
Performance Category  5 4 3 2 0
Interactive Dialogue

Replies to each graded thread topic posted by the course instructor, by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week, and posts a minimum of two times in each graded thread, on separate days.

(5 points possible per graded thread)

  • Exceeds minimum post requirements
  • Replies to each graded thread topic posted by the course instructor, by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week, and posts three or more times in each graded thread, over three separate days.
  • Replies to a post posed by faculty and to a peer
  • Summarizes what was learned from the lesson, readings, and other student posts for the week.
  • Replies to each graded thread topic posted by the course instructor, by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week, and posts a minimum of two times in each graded thread, on separate days
  • Replies to a question posed by a peer

Summarizes what was learned from the lesson, readings, and other student posts for the week.

  • Meets expectations of 2 posts on 2 different days.
  • The main post is not made by the Wednesday deadline
  • Does not reply to a question posed by a peer or faculty
  • Has only one post for the week
  • Discussion posts contain few, if any, new ideas or applications; often are a rehashing or summary of other students’ comments
  • Does not post to the thread
  • No connections are made to the topic
  Minus 1 Point Minus 2 Point Minus 3 Point Minus 4 Point Minus 5 Point
Grammar, Syntax, APA

Note: if there are only a few errors in these criteria, please note this for the student in as an area for improvement. If the student does not make the needed corrections in upcoming weeks, then points should be deducted.

Points deducted for improper grammar, syntax and APA style of writing.

The source of information is the APA Manual 6th Edition

  • 2-3 errors in APA format.
  • Written responses have 2-3 grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors.
  • Writing style is generally clear, focused, and facilitates communication.
  • 4-5 errors in APA format.
  • Writing responses have 4-5 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors.
  • Writing style is somewhat focused.
  • 6-7 errors in APA format.
  • Writing responses have 6-7 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors.
  • Writing style is slightly focused making discussion difficult to understand.
  • 8-10 errors in APA format.
  • Writing responses have 8-10 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors.
  • Writing style is not focused, making discussion difficult to understand.
  • Post contains greater than 10 errors in APA format.
  • Written responses have more than 10 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors.
  • Writing style does not facilitate communication.
  • The student continues to make repeated mistakes in any of the above areas after written correction by the instructor
0 points lost       -5 points lost
Total Participation Requirements

per discussion thread

The student answers the threaded discussion question or topic on one day and posts a second response on another day. The student does not meet the minimum requirement of two postings on two different days
Early Participation Requirement

per discussion thread

The student must provide a substantive answer to the graded discussion question(s) or topic(s), posted by the course instructor (not a response to a peer), by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT of each week. The student does not meet the requirement of a substantive response to the stated question or topic by Wednesday at 11:59 pm MT.

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: NUR 550 Discuss the role of the Institutional Review Board

Title: NUR 550 Discuss the role of the Institutional Review Board

Topic 3 DQ 2 

An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is an administrative body established to approve research studies before their commencement. The core mandate of IRBs is to ensure the protection of rights and the welfare of human research participants. The IRB also supervises research studies associated with their institution. The IRB has a responsibility to review and revise, prior to their initiation, all research studies that involve human subjects (Lapid et al., 2019). The review board protects the rights and privacy of human research subjects as they have the power to approve or not approve, monitor and ask for certain alterations or changes in all activities within their jurisdiction as spelt out by the federal regulations and institutional policies. The board ascertains that research studies carried within their mandates adhere to or comply with set regulations and ethical and legal parameters like the biomedical principles. These boards review continuing research studies to ensure that they do not cause harm to the participating human subjects. They also ensure that legal provisions like confidentiality, informed consent, and privacy are not violated by the researchers.  

Ethical research consideration particular to certain population health entail respect for individuals or persons, justice, beneficence and not doing any harm or non-maleficence.  The ethical considerations assist in the protection of human subjects in population health. For instance, researchers should respect the subjects by giving correct information about the effects of their studies while beneficence requires them to ensure that findings from their studies benefit populations (Clapp et al., 2017). The implication is that researcher can balance respect for persons, possible benefits and negative effects and justice by ascertaining that they comply with all ethical provisions due to their important role that they play in research studies. For example, respect for persons is critical and requires researchers to demonstrate fairness in their activities and provide necessary information about their research studies. 

 

References 

Clapp, J. T., Gleason, K. A., & Joffe, S. (2017). Justification and authority in institutional review  

board decision letters. Social Science & Medicine, 194, 25-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.10.013 

Lapid, M. I., Clarke, B. L., & Wright, R. S. (2019, March). Institutional review boards: What  

clinician researchers need to know. In Mayo Clinic Proceedings (Vol. 94, No. 3, pp. 515-525). Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.01.020.