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