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

NURS 6003 Discussion: Database in the Walden Library

NURS 6003 Discussion: Database in the Walden Library

https://nursingassignmentcrackers.com/nurs-6003-discussion-database-in-the-walden-library/

RE: Discussion – Week 6

Collapse

Scholarly writing varies from professional writing in that it requires evidence to support your thoughts and ideas (Laureate Education, 2018). Evidence is found by researching previous scholarly writings and studies completed on your topic. Finding this evidence can be overwhelming for many students, but Walden University has made it evidence discovery more accessible to its students with the many databases it provides through the online library.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 6003 Discussion: Database in the Walden Library

As a neonatal intensive care (NICU) nurse, I like to research different topics to continue to improve my unit’s care provided through evidence-based practice. For this discussion, I logged in to the Walden University online library and typed “parent education programs in the NICU”. Several articles came up and I chose one that pertained to my idea of starting a parent education series for our families. The article I chose was “Improving the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Parent Education in the Neonatal

NURS 6003 Discussion Database in the Walden Library

NURS 6003 Discussion Database in the Walden Library

Intensive Care Unit” (Gehl et al., 2020). This article had a “find at Walden” link that yielded the full article could be found on the Ovid database (Walden University Library, 2020). Following this link gave me access to the full article with complete information for APA citation. This process was easy to use and yielded many other journal entries I could review for further evidence. I did not find any difficulties with my search. The Walden University online library linked me to easily accessible, relevant possible evidence for my assignments I have written to date. In the past, I used another university’s online library for my bachelor’s degree program. It often linked to articles not found in the databases the university granted free access to its students, which often lead to frustration. I appreciate Walden’s vast resources available to its students.

I would recommend the Ovid database to my colleagues after frequently using articles found there. OVID has access to over 1,000 open access journals with full text entries (Ovid MEDLINE, n.d.). This is important for scholarly writing to be able to read the complete journal article and be able to correctly cite the research. In addition, Ovid offers up-to-the-minute access to over 5,600 biomedical and life science journals and ePub, which allows access before print (Ovid MEDLINE, n.d.). With new research being published daily, this is useful to anyone researching evidence-based practice improvement projects for their nursing units.

References:

Gehl, M., Alter, C., Rider, N., Gunther, L., & Russell, R. (2020). Improving the efficency and effectiveness of parent education in the neonatal intensive care unit. Advances in Neonatal Care, 20(1), 59-67. https://doi.org/10.1097/ANC.0000000000000644

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Introduction to Scholarly Writing: Tips for Success [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author

Ovid MEDLINE. (n.d.). Description. Retrieved on October 6, 2020, from https://www.ovid.com/product-details.901.html

Walden University Library. (n.d.). Databases A-Z: Nursing. Retrieved October 5, 2020, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?=19981

NURS 6003 Discussion: Database in the Walden Library

Where can you locate proof to substantiate your arguments and scholarly writing? Throughout your degree program, you will use research literature to investigate concepts, direct your thinking, and discover fresh perspectives. When conducting a literature search, it is critical to choose peer-reviewed and scholarly periodicals. You may already have a few favorite web resources and databases that you use or have previously found useful. You will conduct research for this Discussion by utilizing databases available through the Walden Library.

To Prepare:

  • Review the information presented in the Resources for using the Walden Library, searching the databases, and evaluating online resources.
  • Begin searching for a peer-reviewed article that pertains to your practice area and is of particular interest to you.

By Day 3

Post the following:
Using proper APA formatting, cite the peer-reviewed article you selected that pertains to your practice area and is of particular interest to you and identify the database that you used to search for the article. Explain any difficulties you experienced while searching for this article. Would this database be useful to your colleagues? Explain why or why not. Would you recommend this database? Explain why or why not

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 6003 Discussion: Database in the Walden Library

Support main post with 3 of more current, credible sources and cite source within content of posting and on a reference list in proper APA.

NURS 6003 Discussion: Database in the Walden Library

By Day 6

Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days, by offering suggestions/strategies for working with this database from your own experience, or offering ideas for use of alternative resources.

RE: Discussion – Week 6-response 2

Teresa,

I enjoyed reading your discussion this week. I commend you for your specialty focus in NICU. This field of nursing is forever changing and there is so much critical thinking involved in being a NICU nurse since your patients cannot verbally express what is happening to them. Your education and research on key clues will be invaluable to you and the care your departments gives. “Outcome evaluations are needed to ensure that health care professionals’ education programmes are designed so that patients, no just students benefit from the resources expanded”( Jordan, 2008). This is crucial for the work that you do in the NICU. I found this article in the Walden Library similarly to how you found your article, I typed in education and NICU and it sent me to this article and I clicked the “Find @ Walden” and it sent me to Wiley Online (Walden Library, 2020). I have also used OVID in the past and that is the data base my hospital prefers to use for research. You are right, it offers a vast amount of articles in APA citation format and is a strong database to use.

Nursing practice is fluid and constantly changing. Nurses are in a profound situation to change the outcomes of the patients they take care of. By allowing researches open access to their information and observing care they can develop new protocols and procedures that will benefit families and patients. If this is not done with caution and an open mind then nurses will be quick to not allow researches to review their work. We take a great deal of pride in our work and constructive criticism does not always go well for some nurses.  OVID is a validated research database that allows us to change healthcare using peer reviewed, vetted data to invoke positive change in healthcare which is essential in all areas of nursing for optimal outcomes.

NURS 6003 Discussion: Database in the Walden Library

References

Jordan, S., (2008) Educational input and patient outcomes: exploring the gap. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(2), 461-471. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/doi/full/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01279.x

Walden University Library (n.d.). Evaluating resources: Journals. Retrieved on October 4th, 2019 https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/evaluating/resource-types/journals

Be sure to offer support from at least 2 current, credible sources in each required response to classmates’ main post and cite per APA.

Submission and Grading Information

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 4 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6

To participate in this Discussion:

Week 4 Discussion

Module 4 (Weeks 6-7): Scholarship and Nursing Practice

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Scholarship [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). The Walden Journey to a Masters in Nursing: Scholarship [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Learning Objectives
Students will:

Analyze research databases for identifying peer-reviewed articles
Analyze peer-reviewed research
Justify the use of peer-reviewed research in professional practice
Analyze strategies for finding peer-reviewed research

Due By
Assignment
Week 6, Days 1–4
Read the Learning Resources.
Begin to compose Part 4 of your Assignment.
Week 6, Days 1–2
Read the Learning Resources.
Compose your initial Discussion post.
Week 6, Day 3
Post your initial Discussion post.
Begin to compose Part 4 of your Assignment.
Week 6, Days 4-5
Review peer Discussion posts.
Compose your peer Discussion responses.
Continue to compose Part 4 of your Assignment.
Week 6, Day 6
Post two peer Discussion responses.
Week 6, Day 7
Wrap up discussion.
Week 7, Days 1-6
Continue to compose Part 4 of your Assignment.
Week 7, Day 7
Deadline to submit Part 4 of your Assignment.

Learning Resources

Required Readings

Al-Jundi, A., & Sakka, S. (2017). Critical appraisal of clinical research. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research: JCDR, 11(5), JE01–JE05. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2017/26047.9942

Shellenbarger, T. (2016). Simplifying synthesis. Nurse Author & Editor, 26(3). Retrieved from http://naepub.com/reporting-research/2016-26-3-3/

Walden University Library. (n.d.). Databases A-Z: Nursing. Retrieved October 4, 2019 from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981

Walden University Library. (n.d.). Evaluating resources: Journals. Retrieved October 4, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/evaluating/resource-types/journals

Walden University Library. (n.d.). Instructional media: Fundamentals of library research. Retrieved October 4, 2019 from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/instructionalmedia/researchfundamentals

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Retrieved November 14, 2018, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/home

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Common assignments: Synthesizing your sources. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/assignments/literaturereview/synthesizing

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Scholarly writing: Overview. Retrieved November 14, 2018, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/scholarly

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Webinars: Technical information. Retrieved November 14, 2018, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/webinars/technical

Document: Academic Success and Professional Development Plan Template (Word document)

Document: Introduction to Scholarly Writing: Tips for success (PDF)

Required Media

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Introduction to Scholarly Writing: Purpose, Audience, and Evidence [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Introduction to Scholarly Writing: Tips for Success [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Discussion:

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6003_Module04_Week06_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View
List View

Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting
Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Post is cited with two credible sources.

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Contains only one or no credible sources.

Not written clearly or concisely.

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Post: Timeliness
Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response
Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.
Second Response
Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.
Participation
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6003_Module04_Week06_Discussion_Rubric

Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting
45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. 

Supported by at least three current, credible sources. 

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. 

Supported by at least three credible sources. 

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s). 

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. 

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. 

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 

Post is cited with two credible sources. 

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. 

Contains some APA formatting errors.

(0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately. 

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. 

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. 

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 

Contains only one or no credible sources. 

Not written clearly or concisely. 

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. 

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Main Post: Timeliness
10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.
(0%) – 0 (0%)
(0%) – 0 (0%)
(0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response
17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

(0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. 

Responses to faculty questions are missing. 

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

(0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. 

Responses to faculty questions are missing. 

No credible sources are cited.

Participation
(5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
(0%) – 0 (0%)
(0%) – 0 (0%)
(0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100
Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.