NUR 590 Discussion EBP Project Proposal Evaluation Plan
NUR 590 Discussion: EBP Project Proposal: Evaluation Plan
Sample Answer for NUR 590 Discussion: EBP Project Proposal: Evaluation Plan Included
Capstone Change Project Evaluation Plan
The evaluation of evidence-based practice (EBP) capstone project is essential to ascertain the effectiveness of the intervention in improving patient safety. The evaluation entails a consideration of the developed strategic plan to implement the change proposal, the assessment of the objectives, and outcomes, and determining listed resources (Cameron et al., 2019). The purpose of this paper is to present the evaluation plan for the capstone change project on reducing patient falls in nursing homes among elderly residents through increasing nurses’ knowledge and interventions in the facility. The evaluation plan underscores the importance of data collected and effective tools to collect it as well as those responsible and its communication to the team.
Strategic Plan to Implement the Change Proposal, Objectives & Listed Resources
The strategic plan for the implementation of this project entails addressing the potential challenges and opportunities that will emanate based on the organizational culture in achieving the goals and objectives of the proposed interventions to prevent and reduce falls. The strategic plan will entail developing approaches that enhance the ability of nurses to deal with falls by increasing their knowledge and administrative actions and activities (Schoberer et al., 2022). The first step would be to survey falls in the facility, the level of awareness and knowledge about them by nurses, and managerial aspects that encourage best practices among patients. Secondly, analyzing the outcomes to determine gaps at various levels and engaging all stakeholders would be key to ensuring that the project attains its goals. The evaluation plan will focus on ascertaining these approaches and the involvement of all stakeholders through effective communication.
The core objectives of this capstone project are to reduce and prevent the occurrence of falls in the facility, increase nurses’ knowledge and collaboration to address the issue and enhance quality care outcomes for patients. These outcomes will include increased patient safety, effective reporting of falls, implementation of EBP interventions based on patient’s needs and concerns, and overall provider and patient satisfaction (Heng et al., 2022). Through these interventions, the project will attain better controls for the organization and ensure that nurses work collaboratively with other professionals and stakeholders to mitigate falls and their associated adverse effects like injuries and disabilities. Falls as a critical patient concern require interventions that are patient-centered and effective in improving nurses’ knowledge and the related change proposal implementation.
The listed resources for the project include human resources comprising of nurses in the facility and other healthcare providers, especially physicians and therapists. The second essential resource comprises equipment and materials like fall scales, charts, and systems integrated into the organization’s infrastructure like bed alarms and interventions like purposeful rounding by nurses Montero-Odasso et al., 20 For instance, the evaluation plan will determine the effectiveness of electronic health records (EHRs) system and patient charts to ensure that nurses not only understand but also can implement the recommended strategies to reduce falls in the facility.
Process of Evaluation of the Intervention
The evaluation process will entail focusing on the execution of the proposed project through the strategic plan and focusing on the effectiveness of the outcomes based on data collected and analyzed during the implementation. The intervention will run for six months after which the project will conduct a summative assessment based on collected data. The main data that would be collected include nurses’ perception of the training and knowledge provision in managing falls, patient data on falls and their prevalence for different cadres or categories of patients based on their health status and condition, and overall cost implication related to each patient and the facility (Heng et al., 2022). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) considers falls as never events despite their adverse effects on patients and healthcare facilities in terms of costs. Consequently, the CMS does not reimburse organizations for costs incurred in managing falls for patients under their value-based purchase (VBP) model. As such, the proposed capstone project must collect data before and after the implementation to assess the overall effectiveness of the proposed intervention.
The project will use different tools to collect the data. These include patient charts, the use of fall scales, and survey questionnaires for nurses to provide their experiences and how having the knowledge has enhanced their ability to care for patients (Montero-Odasso et al., 2021). The project will also collect data by recording falls at determined intervals. A core part will entail documenting all falls after the implementation and comparing the number to the situation before the intervention.
The team comprising informatics nurses and those from the information systems department will collect data about the intervention. The team will also comprise of data and compliance manager to ensure that all protocols on data compliance and laws like HIPAA and HITECH as well as the Affordable Care Act provisions are not breached (MacKay et al., 2021). The team will ensure that all data, especially the current data, is well-captured to determine the overall effectiveness of the project to meet the targeted audience.
The team will analyze the data to communicate different areas with gaps in the nursing home that make the residents susceptible to falls. The communication of data to the team will be through effective reports, presentations, and a collaborative analysis by all critical members from different departments in the nursing home (Schoberer et al., 2022). Again, data communication will also entail having sessions for providers to analyze different aspects and themes emanating from the project.
NUR 590 Discussion EBP Project Proposal Evaluation Plan
Conclusion
The evaluation of the capstone project proposal is essential in nursing when implementing such initiatives. Evaluation allows healthcare providers to improve overall outcomes and prevent the issue under consideration like falls among elderly residents in a nursing home. The evaluation process in this case will entail a review of the strategic plan, outcomes, resources, project objectives, and data collection through an effective collaborative team.
NUR 590 Discussion: EBP Project Proposal: Evaluation Plan
Upcoming
Assessment Description
In 750-1,000 words, develop an evaluation plan to be included in your final evidence-based practice project proposal. You will use the evaluation plan in the Topic 8 assignment, during which you will synthesize the various aspects of your project into a final paper detailing your evidence-based practice project proposal.
Provide the following criteria in the evaluation, making sure it is comprehensive and concise:
Discuss the expected outcomes for your evidence-based practice project proposal.
Review the various data collection tools associated with your selected research design and select one data collection tool that would be effective for your research design. Explain how this tool is valid, reliable, and applicable.
Select a statistical test for your project and explain why it is best suited for the tool you choose.
Describe what methods you will apply to your data collection tool and how the outcomes will be measured and evaluated based on the tool you selected.
Propose strategies that will be taken if outcomes do not provide positive or expected results.
Describe the plans to maintain, extend, revise, and discontinue a proposed solution after implementation.
Refer to the “Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal – Assignment Overview” document for an overview of the evidence-based practice project proposal assignments.
You are required to cite a minimum of five peer-reviewed sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.
Complete the “APA Writing Checklist” to ensure that your paper adheres to APA style and formatting criteria and general guidelines for academic writing. Include the completed checklist as an appendix at the end of your paper.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines 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.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
Objectives:
Develop an evaluation plan for the evidence-based project proposal.
Identify gaps in the literature based on findings.
Evaluate evidence to determine and implement the best evidence for practice.
When reviewing the literature for your evaluation plan and different types of evidence for your project, what gaps in the findings did you encounter? How could these gaps influence other researchers?
Discuss the difference between statistically significant evidence and clinically significant evidence. How would each of these findings be used to advance an evidenced-based practice project?
Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Healthcare: A Guide to Best Practice
Read Chapter 4 and review Chapter 3 in Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Healthcare: A Guide to Best Practice.
View Resource
Advanced Practice Nursing: Essential Knowledge for the Profession
Review Chapter 20 in Advanced Practice Nursing: Essential Knowledge for the Profession.
View Resource
Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal: Evaluation Plan – Rubric
Expected Outcomes for Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal
Criteria Description
Expected Outcomes for Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal
5. 5: Excellent
14.4 points
Expected outcomes for the evidence-based practice project proposal are discussed. Thorough explanations and strong supporting research are provided.
4. 4: Good
13.25 points
Expected outcomes for the evidence-based practice project proposal are discussed. Some detail is needed for clarity or support.
3. 3: Satisfactory
12.67 points
Expected outcomes for the evidence-based practice project proposal are summarized. More information is needed.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
11.52 points
Some expected outcomes for the evidence-based practice project proposal are only partially outlined.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Expected outcomes for the evidence-based practice project proposal are not discussed.
Data Collection Tools
Criteria Description
Data Collection Tools
5. 5: Excellent
12 points
A data collection tool is selected and a well-supported explanation for why the tool is valid, reliable, and applicable and would be effective for the research design is presented.
4. 4: Good
11.04 points
A data collection tool is selected, and an explanation for why the tool would be effective for the research design is presented. An explanation for the tool is valid, reliable, and applicable. Some detail is needed for clarity or support.
3. 3: Satisfactory
10.56 points
A data collection tool is selected, and a summary for why the tool would be effective for the research design is presented. A general explanation for the tool is valid, reliable, and applicable, but more information and support are needed.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
9.6 points
A data collection tool is selected, but it is unclear why the tool would be effective for the research design. A valid, reliable, and applicable explanation for the tool is incomplete.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
A data collection tool is not discussed.
Statistical Test for Project
Criteria Description
Statistical Test for Project
5. 5: Excellent
12 points
A statistical test is selected, and a well-supported explanation for why the test is best suited for the tool is clearly presented.
4. 4: Good
11.04 points
A statistical test is selected, and an explanation for why the test is best suited for the tool is presented. Some detail is needed for clarity or support.
3. 3: Satisfactory
10.56 points
A statistical test is selected, and a summary for why the test is best suited for the tool is presented. More information or support is needed.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
9.6 points
A statistical test is selected, but it is unclear why the test is best suited for the tool.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
A statistical test is omitted.
Methods Applied to Data Collection Tool
Criteria Description
Methods Applied to Data Collection Tool
5. 5: Excellent
12 points
Methods that will be applied to the data collection are thoroughly discussed. A discussion of how the outcomes will be measured and evaluated based on the tool selected are presented.
4. 4: Good
11.04 points
Methods that will be applied to the data collection are discussed. A discussion of how the outcomes will be measured and evaluated based on the tool selected is presented. Some detail is needed for clarity or support.
3. 3: Satisfactory
10.56 points
Methods that will be applied to the data collection are outlined. A summary of how the outcomes will be measured and evaluated based on the tool selected is presented. More information or support is needed.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
9.6 points
Methods that will be applied to the data collection tool partially discussed. It is unclear how the outcomes will be measured and evaluated based on the tool selected.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Methods that will be applied to the data collection tool are not discussed.
Strategies for Outcomes That Are Nonpositive
Criteria Description
Strategies for Outcomes That Are Nonpositive
5. 5: Excellent
14.4 points
Strategies for nonpositive outcomes are presented. Some detail is needed for clarity or support.
4. 4: Good
13.25 points
Clear and well-supported strategies for nonpositive outcomes are presented.
3. 3: Satisfactory
12.67 points
General strategies for nonpositive outcomes are presented. More information and support are needed.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
11.52 points
Strategies for nonpositive outcomes are incomplete.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Strategies for nonpositive outcomes are not discussed.
Plans to Maintain, Extend, Revise, and Discontinue Proposed Solution
Criteria Description
Plans to Maintain, Extend, Revise, and Discontinue Proposed Solution
5. 5: Excellent
13.2 points
Detailed and well-supported plans to maintain, extend, revise, and discontinue a proposed solution after implementation are presented.
4. 4: Good
12.14 points
Plans to maintain, extend, revise, and discontinue a proposed solution after implementation are presented. Some detail is needed for clarity or support.
3. 3: Satisfactory
11.62 points
General plans to maintain, extend, revise, and discontinue a proposed solution after implementation are presented. More information and support are needed.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
10.56 points
Plans to maintain, extend, revise, and discontinue a proposed solution after implementation are incomplete.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Plans to maintain, extend, revise, and discontinue a proposed solution after implementation are not discussed.
Required Sources
Criteria Description
Required Sources
5. 5: Excellent
6 points
Number of required resources is met. Sources are current, and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.
4. 4: Good
5.52 points
Number of required sources is met. Sources are current, but not all sources are appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.
3. 3: Satisfactory
5.28 points
Number of required sources is met, but sources are outdated or inappropriate.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
4.8 points
Number of required sources is only partially met.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Sources are not included.
Thesis Development and Purpose
Criteria Description
Thesis Development and Purpose
5. 5: Excellent
8.4 points
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
4. 4: Good
7.73 points
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
3. 3: Satisfactory
7.39 points
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
6.72 points
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
Argument Logic and Construction
Criteria Description
Argument Logic and Construction
5. 5: Excellent
9.6 points
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
4. 4: Good
8.83 points
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
3. 3: Satisfactory
8.45 points
Argument is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
7.68 points
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
5. 5: Excellent
6 points
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
4. 4: Good
5.52 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
5.28 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
4.8 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 used.
Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
Criteria Description
Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
5. 5: Excellent
6 points
Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
4. 4: Good
5.52 points
Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.
3. 3: Satisfactory
5.28 points
Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
4.8 points
All format elements are correct.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
Documentation of Sources
Criteria Description
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
5. 5: Excellent
6 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
4. 4: Good
5.52 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
3. 3: Satisfactory
5.28 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
4.8 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Sources are not documented.
NUR 590 Discussion: EBP Project Proposal: Evaluation Plan 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 590 Discussion: EBP Project Proposal: Evaluation Plan
Title: NUR 590 Discussion: EBP Project Proposal: Evaluation Plan
Section F: Evaluation of Process
Rationale for Methods Used on Collecting Outcome Data
The collection of data for this survey occurred through repeat observational surveys since it is a mixed study. The purpose of using the methodology is due to the fact that a large sample population was going to be elected for the study as most of the post-operation patients will be recruited. The rationale for using this methodology entails the fact that the sample population will be studies as it is. The researchers in the present project will simply observe the subjects and collect the data using survey forms without influencing the population or intervening in the study (Baylé, Tessier, Bouju, & Misdrahi, 2015). In other words, the researchers will simply collect data on the prevalence of pressure ulcers after the institution of the various pressure ulcer prevention algorithm protocols. Therefore, the usage of the present tool to collect outcome data was informed by the fact that it does not influence the variables of the study.
Achieving Project Objectives
The outcome measures of the present project comprise the reduction of pressure ulcers after the adoption of the researched pressure ulcer prevention algorithm protocols. The project objective was to ensure that the integrity of the in-patient skin was maintained after the application of the evidence-based protocols through the reduction of prevalence and incidences of pressure ulcers development. The outcome evaluation data will be compared to the pre-test data in order to determine the association between the prevalence of PU and the PU prevention algorithms (Fabbruzzo-Cota et al., 2016). Therefore, if the prevalence of pressure ulcers as determined by the skin assessment tool as well as incidences as determined by the Chi-Square analysis reduced, then the project will have shown progress.
Measuring and Evaluation of Outcomes
The measuring of the outcomes for this project will occur in two phases. In the first phase, observational skin assessment will be conducted to assess the prevalence of the project. Six months after the initiation of the project, the same skin assessment tool will be used to show the prevalence of pressure ulcers at that point. The second assessment is expected to demonstrate a reduction of the prevalence of pressure ulcers amongst the study population. Further, a Chi-square test will be conducted to illustrate the correlation between the adoption of PU prevention algorithms and reduced PU incidences.
The validity and reliability of the project in an American hospital was compromised by the application of a shortened version of the Beeckman et al.’s (2010) 26‐item knowledge assessment tool. The reason for this was that the questions forming pre-test and post-test scores were comprehensively reviewed in order to highlight difficult and easy questions for future application. However, the data could yet be applicable due to the rigorous nature of the data collection methodologies applied. The adequacy of the data samples in both the incidence and prevalence surveys makes it applicable in a health care setting.
Strategies if Outcomes Do Not Yield Positive Results
The pressure ulcers prevention algorithms comprise several protocols that can either be applied singularly or in combination. Therefore, it becomes pertinent to evaluate the outcomes on a three-month basis. In the event that they do not produce the desired results, they protocol should be replaced by more effective ones after analyzing the literature (Cato et al.,2019). Moreover, a combination strategy may be applied so as to ensure that effectiveness is achieved.
Implications for Practice and Future Research
If the evidence-based project produces the desired effects, the solution will be integrated into current protocol so as to prevent the development of pressure ulcers at the hospital. Further, personnel education will need to be initiated so as to ensure that nurses have appropriate competencies to implement the solution. In terms of the future research, researchers will need to examine the effectiveness of combining the protocols identified by the study to see if the prevalence and incidences of pressure ulcers will reduce further.
References
Baylé, F. J., Tessier, A., Bouju, S., & Misdrahi, D. (2015). Medication adherence in patients with psychotic disorders: an observational survey involving patients before they switch to long-acting injectable risperidone. Patient preference and adherence, 9, 1333.
Beeckman, D., Vanderwee, K., Demarre, L., Paquay, L., Van Hecke, A., & Defloor, T. (2010). Pressure ulcer prevention: Development and psychometric validation of a knowledge assessment instrument. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(4), 399–410. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.08.010
Cato, K. D., Sun, C., Carter, E. J., Liu, J., Rivera, R., & Larson, E. (2019). Linking to Improve Nursing Care and Knowledge: Evaluation of an Initiative to Provide Research Support to Clinical Nurses. Jona: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 49(1), 48-54.
Fabbruzzo-Cota, C., Frecea, M., Kozell, K., Pere, K., Thompson, T., Thomas, J. T., & Wong, A. (2016). A clinical nurse specialist–led interprofessional quality improvement project to reduce hospital-acquired pressure ulcers. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 30(2), 110-116.
