NURS 8114 Introduction to the Science of Translation I Essay

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

NURS 8114 Introduction to the Science of Translation I Essay

NURS 8114 Introduction to the Science of Translation I Essay

From your experience, what are the roadblocks to change? What keeps stale practices in place when fresh approaches are needed? And when innovations are introduced, what influences how they are viewed and accepted? What conditions can create subpar results or mediocre outcomes?

NURS 8114 Introduction to the Science of Translation I Essay

When considering how to initiate and lead an evidence-based practice quality improvement project, these are not academic questions.

NURS 8114 Introduction to the Science of Translation I Essay

The success of an initiative can depend on understanding the variables involved in introducing a practice change. As science supports finding the evidence, other applications of theory provide insight into “the interrelationships and complex organizational dimensions that are relevant to the translation of research or new knowledge into practice” (White, Dudley-Brown, & Terhaar, 2019, p. 34)—and, importantly, routes to action.

This week you will explore translation frameworks and models, with the goal of identifying one that is the best fit for your Module 3 EBP QI project.

Learning Objectives

Students will:

Evaluate translation science frameworks and models for application to practice problems
Apply implementation science frameworks/models for evidence-based practice quality improvement projects

Learning Resources

Required Readings (click to expand/reduce)

White, K. M., Dudley-Brown, S., & Terhaar, M. F. (Eds.). (2019). Translation of evidence into nursing and healthcare (3rd ed.). Springer.

Chapter 2, “The Science of Translation and Major Frameworks” (pp. 27–58)
(Review from Week 4)
Chapter 3, “Change Theory and Models: Framework for Translation” (pp. 59–73)

Boehm, L. M., Stolldorf, D. P., & Jeffery, A. D. (2020). Implementation science training and resources for nurses and nurse scientists. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 52(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12510

(Review from Week 4)

Dunagan, P. B. (2017). The quality improvement attitude survey: Development and preliminary psychometric characteristics. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26(23–24), 5113–5120. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14054

(Review from Week 4)

Hammersla, M., Belcher, A., Ruccio, L. R., Martin, J., & Bingham, D. (2021). Practice and quality improvement leaders survey of expectations of DNP graduates’ quality improvement expertise. Nurse Educator [Epub ahead of print]. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000001009

(Review from Week 4)

Jones-Schenk, J., & Bleich, M. R. (2019). Implementation science as a leadership and doctor of nursing practice competency. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 50(11), 491–492. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20191015-03

(Review from Week 4)

Powell, B. J., Waltz, T. J., Chinman, M. J., Damschroder, L. J., Smith, J. L., Matthieu, M. M., Proctor, E. K., & Kirchner, J. E. (2015). A refined compilation of implementation strategies: Results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implementation Science, 10:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1

(Review from Week 4)

Rew, L., Cauvin, S., Cengiz, A., Pretorius, K., & Johnson, K. (2020). Application of project management tools and techniques to support nursing intervention research. Nursing Outlook, 68(4), 396–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2020.01.007

(Review from Week 4)

Shea, C. M., Jacobs, S. R., Esserman, D. A., Bruce, K., & Weiner, B. J. (2014). Organizational readiness for implementing change: A psychometric assessment of a new measure. Implementation Science, 9(7), 1–15.

(Review from Week 4)

Walden University Academic Skills Center. (n.d.). How do I create a strong PowerPoint presentation? https://academicanswers.waldenu.edu/faq/72804

(Review from Week 4)

Walden University Academic Skills Center. (n.d.). MS PowerPoint resources: Getting started. https://academicanswers.waldenu.edu/faq/330533

(Review from Week 4)

Document: College of Nursing PowerPoint Template (PPT document)

Document: Handout: Preparing for an EBP QI Presentation to Stakeholders at a Practice Site (Word document)

Required Media (click to expand/reduce)

Walden University. (2021). DNP glossary [Interactive media]. Walden University Blackboard. https://class.waldenu.edu

Optional Resources (click to expand/reduce)

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Webinars: Scholarly writing. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/webinars/scholarlywriting#s-lg-box-9094031

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Writing as a process. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/doctoral/capstone/preproposal/writingasaprocess

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8114 Introduction to the Science of Translation I Essay

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: NURS_8114_Week5_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

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

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8114 Introduction to the Science of Translation I Essay

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