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

NURS 6052 Where in the World Is Evidence-Based Practice?

NURS 6052 Where in the World Is Evidence-Based Practice?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends cloth face coverings in community-based transmission areas during the U.S. novel coronavirus pandemic. Recent research suggests that asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic patients may transmit the virus without symptoms. The CDC suggests using household items to allow people to wear masks.

The CDC also states that approved fabric face covers are not surgical masks or N-95 respirators. These are essential resources that must remain reserved for healthcare staff and other first responders, as suggested by existing CDC guidelines. (CDC, 2020) Due to changes in existing government guidelines, fabric face coverings were not recommended to avoid virus transmission. In March, the government forced the CDC to publish new and revised coronavirus guidelines.

In 2007, the CDC issued evidence-based practice guidelines and a summary of infection control recommendations to prevent infectious disease transmissions such as SARS, including respiratory protection such as face shield, mask, and goggles as well as gloves and gowns. NURS 6052 Where in the World Is Evidence-Based Practice?

The information I have learned does not reflect evidence-based procedures that nurses have relied on for decades but represents our government’s lack of preparedness and understanding, which in effect seems extremely dangerous.

References

(n.d.). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).(2007). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings (2007). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/isolation/index.htm

Sun, L. (2020, March 19). The Washington Post. CDC, the top U.S. public health agency, is sidelined during coronavirus pandemic. Retrieved June 1, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/19/cdc-top-us-public-health-agency-is-sidelined-during-coronavirus-pandemic/

RE: Discussion – Week 1

Great topic Shawn. Preventing healthcare-associated infections are always a hot topic. Where I work, it’s not a common thing to discuss on a constant basis, however, most of my friends at other hospitals tell me that they constantly have a staff meeting where this issue is mentioned. What I try to focus on a lot at work is hand-washing as this is a global preventative act and a very important step in avoiding the transferring of any infection, even if it’s just a simple cold. RFID are enabled hand sanitizers which are supposed to warn health care workers if they don’t wash their hands before treating a patient. The hand sanitizing dispensers will have a sensor that

scans the employee’s badge then transmits the date, time, id and location to the computer. An article I read on RFID- enabled hand sanitizers say there is also sensors that can be put close to the patient’s bed so if the healthcare worker did not sanitize their hands within a certain amount of time before approaching the bedside it would alarm (Swedberg, 2007). They have been using these systems in Europe for quite some time; I am interested to see if this new process will aid in hand hygiene compliance for healthcare providers in the United States. Nonetheless, basic hand washing goes a long way and it’s important to constantly remind staff of just how dangerous it can be if we avoid this since the truth is that we can get lazy. A study done in Nigeria revealed that nurses in the study setting had good knowledge of infection control, but not fully reflected in the level of their practice of infection control (Eqwuenu & Okanlawan, 2014). I see this all the time at work where I will go into the staff bathroom after an employee and notice that the sink is dry and wasn’t used. I’ve had my encounters after having to address this with them, which hasn’t always been pleasant but it’s my responsibility to ensure I keep prevention a priority. NURS 6052 Where in the World Is Evidence-Based Practice?

NURS 6052 Where in the World Is Evidence-Based Practice

NURS 6052 Where in the World Is Evidence-Based Practice

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:NURS 6052 Where in the World Is Evidence-Based Practice?

Reference:

Eqwuenu, S., & Okanlawan, F. (2014). Infection control: nurses’ knowledge and practice of universal precaution in Delta State, Nigeria. African Journal Medical Science43(2), 127-134. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25474987

Swedberg, C. (2007). Patient-safety center tests RFID-enabled hand sanitizers. Retrieved from RFID Journal: http://www.rfidjournal.com/articles/view?5142/2

RE: Discussion – Week 1

Sia, thank you for your informative post. Before reading, I honestly had no idea that the RFID enabled hand sanitizers existed. It would be interesting to see the cost vs benefit analyses on utilizing them in health care facilities. According to an article I found, an “electronic hand hygiene system with monitoring and reminding device was reported to be able to increase the hand hygiene compliance up to 60%,” (Wan et al., 2014). Increasing the compliance of hand hygiene may justify the cost of installing and utilizing this technology. Our health care facility utilizes reminder signs on the doors and conduct patient surveys, of course this has some disadvantages. At my facility, the infection control nurse handed out surveys to each patient to complete with questions asking whether the provider and nurse washed or sanitized their hands in front of the patient. Patients weren’t completing them and most used them as a patient complaint form to address other issues. My thought is that using this technology would be far more accurate than surveys that rely on honest participation. Great post!

References

Y. Wan, T. S. Stombaugh and N. Wang, “Human-subject tracking and localization for a hand hygiene monitoring system,” 2014 Ubiquitous Positioning Indoor Navigation and Location Based Service (UPINLBS), Corpus Christ, TX, 2014, pp. 128-132, doi: 10.1109/UPINLBS.2014.7033719.

RE: Discussion – Week 1 Peer Response

Thank you for your insights into the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations on the use of face masks to decrease the spread of COVID-19. I wanted to highlight the importance of the CDC and their role in guiding national policy and other health related initiatives.  The CDC’s mission is to protect Americans from a wide range of health threat categories through the use of critical science and provision of health information (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019). This is done through extensive research and review of health care practices, health risk behaviors, and outcomes, etc.  Many health care organizations, accrediting institutions and reimbursement bodies base their own policies on CDC recommendations.  However, there are still gaps between what has been proven to be effective through research and what is actually being implemented.  In order to address the need for ongoing surveillance of public health practices, the CDC has developed Prevention Status Reports (PSR) which is a performance evaluation system to highlight state and federal level implementation of policies that are evidenced based, and use the results to encourage further improvements (Young, Lowry, Mumford & Graaf, 2018).  States are graded and compared, with the intent to push for further modifications of policy to better reflect evidence-based practices. NURS 6052 Where in the World Is Evidence-Based Practice?

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Mission, role and pledge.  Retrieved June 3,

2020 from https://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm

Young, A. C., Lowry, G., Mumford, K., & Graaf, C. (2018). CDC’s Prevention Status Reports:

Monitoring the Status of Public Health Policies and Practices for Improved Performance

and Accountability. Journal of Public Health Management & Practice, 24(2), 121–128.

https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000507

RE: Discussion – Week 1 (2nd response)

Collapse

Hi ,

     It is good to know that you are already a member of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP) and using them as one of the resources. It is also relevant to really dig into how they conduct research or may have implemented additional research on the competencies of practicing Advanced Practitioners (AP).

     Evidence-based practice (EBP) is an essential component of professional nursing, a crucial competency for healthcare providers, and a basic force in Magnet hospitals and results in better patient outcomes and higher levels of nursing autonomy. Fostering EBP within organizations requires strong infrastructure, including nursing leadership and human and material resources. (Newhouse, Dearholt, Poe, Pugh, & White, 2007).

     On the other hand, although it is widely known that evidence-based practice (EBP) improves healthcare quality, reliability, and patient outcomes as well as reduces variations in care and costs, it is still not the standard of care delivered by practicing clinicians across the globe. Adoption of specific EBP competencies for nurses and advanced practice nurses (APN) who practice in real-world healthcare settings can assist institutions in achieving high-value, low-cost evidence-based health care. The aim of this study was to develop a set of clear EBP competencies for both practicing registered nurses and APNs in clinical settings that can be used by healthcare institutions in their quest to achieve high performing systems that consistently implement and sustain EBP. National EBP leaders developed an initial set of competencies for practicing registered nurses and APNs through a consensus-building process. Linking evidence to action incorporation of these competencies into healthcare system expectations, orientations, job descriptions, performance appraisals, and clinical ladder promotion processes could drive higher quality, reliability, and consistency of healthcare as well as reduce costs. Research is now needed to develop valid and reliable tools for assessing these competencies as well as linking them to clinician and patient outcomes. (Melnyk, Gallagher-Ford, Long, & Fineout-Overholt, 2014).

                                                                                                References

Newhouse, R. P., Dearholt, S., Poe, S., Pugh, L. C., & White, K. M. (2007). Organizational change strategies for evidence-based practice.

          Journal of Nursing Administration, 37(12), 552-557. DOI:0.1097/01.NNA.0000302384.91366.8f.

Melnyk, B. M., Gallagher-Ford, L., Long, L. E., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2014). The establishment of evidence-based practice competencies for

          practicing registered nurses and advanced practice nurses in real-world clinical settings: Proficiencies to improve healthcare quality,

          reliability, patient outcomes, and costs. Worldview on Evidence-Based Nursing, 11(1), 5-15. DOI:10.1111/wvn.12021.

Name:  Discussion Rubric

  Excellent

90–100

Good

80–89

Fair

70–79

Poor

0–69

Main Posting:

Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s).

Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three current credible sources.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to most of the Discussion question(s).

Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible references.

31 (31%) – 34 (34%)

Responds to some of the Discussion question(s).

One to 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.

Cited with fewer than two credible references.

0 (0%) – 30 (30%)

Does not respond to the Discussion question(s).

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 references.

Main Posting:

Writing

6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely.

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Written concisely.

May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors.

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Written somewhat concisely.

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.

0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

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 Posting:

Timely and full participation

9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts main Discussion by due date.

8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts main Discussion by due date.

7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Posts main Discussion by due date.

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation.

Does not post main Discussion by due date.

First Response:

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.

9 (9%) – 9 (9%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Responds to questions posed by faculty.

The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.

7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

First Response:

Writing

6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are fully 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.

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.

Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.

Response is written in standard, edited English.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

Response to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

First Response:

Timely and full participation

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts by due date.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts by due date.

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date.

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation.

Does not post by due date.

Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Responds to questions posed by faculty.

The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.

7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Second Response:
Writing
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are fully 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.

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.

Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.

Response is written in standard, edited English.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

Response to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response:
Timely and full participation
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts by due date.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts by due date.

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date.

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation.

Does not post by due date.

Total Points: 100

Name:  Discussion Rubric

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