Kitson, a., Harvey, G., McCormack, B., (1998). Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework. Quality in Health Care, 7, 149-158. doi: 10.1136/qshc.7.3.149…
Howland, R. (2008, January). How are drugs approved? Part 1: the evolution of the Food and Drug Administration. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 46(1), 15-19. Retrieved from Retrieved from EBSCOhost…
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) aligns up with my Lab series because it talks about health which is something that is looked at when an ACE Study is done. The NIH (2016) evaluates many areas when looking if they want to fund a study or not. They look at technical criteria, cost, past performance of the people/person and the advantages/disadvantages of the study. My modification would be much unless I had a lot of change about my study in order to meet NHI regulation for proposal for a grant. Grants have a lot of requirement and regulation that need to be meant. If I had to make any modifications it would be so my information fits in the regulation more.…
Nasogastric (NG) tube placement is a common procedure done in pediatric and neonatal patient care settings. However, there is little research that exists in today’s vast amount of medical information that conclusively proves the safest and most accurate way to verify placement. Although there have been several research and antidotal studies done, dating back as early as the 1980’s that have questioned the safety of solely using the auscultation of air in the abdomen to verify correct placement it is still considered the gold standard of practice, and the vast majority of clinical nurses utilize this practice everyday in practice. In 2009, the Pediatric Nursing Journal published an article authored by Michelle Farrington and Cheryl Lang titled, “Nasogastric Tube Placement and Verification in Pediatric and Neonatal Patients.” This article reports an evidence-based practice project using the Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice in Midwestern Children’s hospital to implement standards of care and avoid future inconsistencies in nursing practice to provide the best patient outcomes.…
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered as the best research design for decisions about the effect of different interventions but randomization does not apply to many clinical issues related to real world setting. The current scenario of clinical research indicates some major challenges associated with traditional clinical trials and patient care. The foremost challenges being most researchers consider RCTs as the mainstay of clinical research, which instead are slow and expensive. They rarely produce findings, which can be easily adopted into routine clinical practice. The second challenge is that traditional trials are not relevant to routine clinical practice. This is because traditional RCTs determine the effectiveness of treatments delivered to carefully selected populations under ideal conditions. As a result, this creates difficulties in translating the results to the real world. The third challenge is the evidence paradox, which shows that although hundreds of RCTs have been performed so…
A study by UCLA of Spitak victims found that PTSD was more common in Armenians who carried two particular genetic abnormalities associated with depression (Healey, 2012). The study showed that women were likelier than men to experience PTSD, along with older people, people who had lost family members, and people who had experienced a traumatic even before the earthquake hit…
The purpose of a systematic review is to attempt to find, evaluate and synthesize high quality research relevant to the research question. A systematic review uses carefully developed data collection and sampling procedures that are put in place in advance as a protocol. (Polit, 2012). A systematic review must contain the following: a clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, an explicit search strategy, systematic coding and analysis of included studies, and a meta-analysis if possible. (Hemingway & Brereton, 2009). Systematic reviews are conducted by nurse researchers to avoid reaching incorrect or misleading conclusions that could arise from a biased study. Systematic reviews are perceived by many as the cornerstone of evidence-based practice. (Polit, 2012).…
Sample Evidence: Student use of graphic organizers; focus on essential question and focusing questions for lesson (e.g. written on white board)…
1.|Which of the following approaches is best for a nurse seeking an answer to a clinical question related to patient care?|…
Taylor, C., & Zeng, H. (2011). Case study in threats of workplace violence form a non-…
The rationale of an allocation concealment, was to ensure that researchers and participants were unaware of the upcoming assignments until the participant has been accepted into the trial (Straus et al., 2011). This is an important factor in reducing allocation bias, which usually occurred if there was a systematic difference between the participants that were allocated to treatment (Sedgwick, 2013). However, PAL is responsible in assigning the allocation, therefore, this may lead to an allocation bias in the study.…
In this class, you will be asked to review one another's writing as a regular, graded assignment. You will be provided with a series of questions to guide you as you read and respond to one another's drafts. In this handout, we address some general concerns many students have about reviewing classmates’ work. If you have these concerns, you are not alone.…
Because of the Critiquing I received from my classmates I have been able to do several things. This harsh Criticism has allowed me to accept that my work will never be perfect and that others will always find flaws, it’s is just up to me to accept these comments, make changes, and continue to excel. The second thing that this Peer review has allowed me to realize is that everyone has a unique and helpful perspective from which they critique work, this allows me to make my work appeal everyone from all angles, and it also broadens my imagination hearing all these different, yet equally interesting points.…
A growing number of pedagogical and practical arguments support the use of peer-assessment in higher education (e.g. Falchikov 1995; Magin & Helmore 2001; and see Hughes 2001 for an overview of potential benefits). For example, one study showed many Australian graduates to consider evaluating other people’s work to be an important graduate skill, but dido not believe their university helped them to acquire such skills (Boud & Falchikov 1989). Classes where students mark a colleague’s assignment may initiate skills of self-evaluation and reflection leading to a greater understanding of tutor requirements (Stefani 1994). Classes to support peer-assessment can be interactive sessions with detailed reflection on recently completed assignments, leading to improved understanding. Such assessment necessitates an open marking system (so each assessor knows what is required and how to improve the work in front of them) and provides an opportunity to see standards set, and mistakes made, by peers.…
Considering the most integral part of one’s paper, the data and information provided has to be well founded. That is why the research portion is the most important part. Anyone, can form an opinion, in which in the individual’s point of view might drown out the factual evidence. Secondly, what good is legitimate factual information, if it is interpreted badly. Therefore, one must have an open mind, and see all sides of the topic before making irrational statements. The editor differs from the peer reviewer in the sense that the editor basically has the final call. The editor has the final call on what is submitted for publication. The peer review provides the early insights to the author for correct data and strength of argument.…