NURS 6003 Discussion Using the Walden Library
NURS 6003 Discussion Using the Walden Library
https://nursingassignmentgurus.com/nurs-6003-discussion-using-the-walden-library/
My goal as an MSN student is to one day become an Adult-Gerontology Acute Care Nurse Practitioner. The peer-review article I chose is titled “Acute Care Nurse Practitioner Students’ Perceptions of a Debriefing Experience After a Cardiac Emergency High-Fidelity Simulation: A Qualitative Study” (2021). This article can be found in AACN Advanced Critical Care, a journal published by the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (2021). As nurses advance their role to becoming acute care nurse practitioners, they need specialized training to prepare them. This study uses a qualitative approach to explore students’ perceptions on whether simulation on emergent situations and debriefing experiences would grow their leadership-related learning abilities (Ali et al., 2021).
Because online search databases typically contain only abstracts, I found it difficult to locate a peer-reviewed journal article in its entirety unless subscribed to that database. Also, after using Walden’s database, I had a hard time locating an article that was recently published, and pertinent to advanced practice nursing in a critical care setting. I am a member of AACN and I have utilized its evidence-based resources for many purposes throughout my career. Experts explain that evidence-based practice is the integration of individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research (Al-Jundi & Sakka, 2017). The AACN is a useful database for students and professionals because it is a professional organization that provides peer-reviewed research that is evidence-based as well as carefully evaluated healthcare information by the guidance of fully qualified experts. This database also includes research and data services that are centered around baccalaureate and graduate nursing programs.
The “AACN Scope and Standards for Acute Care Nurse Practitioner Practice” describes and measures the expected level of practice and professional performance for acute care nurse practitioners and offers a practical tool for students, educators, and advanced practice nurses caring for high acuity or critically ill patients and their families (AACN, 2021). Therefore, I would recommend this database to my colleagues who have a goal is becoming an acute care nurse practitioner one day.
References
Ali, A. A., Miller, E., Musallam, E., & Ballman, K. (2021). Acute care nurse practitioner students’ perceptions of a debriefing experience after a cardiac emergency high-fidelity simulation: A qualitative study. AACN Advanced Critical Care, 32(3), 264–274. https://doi.org/10.4037/aacnacc2021376
American Association of Critical Care Nurses. (2021). AACN Scope and Standards for Acute Care Nurse Practitioner Practice. https://www.aacn.org/nursing-excellence/standards/aacn-scope-and-standards-for-acute-care-nurse-practitioner-practice.
White, T., Kokiousis, J., Ensminger, S., & Shirey, M. (2017). Supplementing intensivist staffing with nurse practitioners. AACN Advanced Critical Care, 28(2), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.4037/aacnacc2017949
Discussion: Using the Walden Library
Where can you find evidence to inform your thoughts and scholarly writing? Throughout your degree program, you will use research literature to explore ideas, guide your thinking, and gain new insights. As you search the research literature, it is important to use resources that are peer-reviewed and from scholarly journals. You may already have some favorite online resources and databases that you use or have found useful in the past. For this Discussion, you explore databases available through the Walden Library.
Note: Unless otherwise noted, initial postings to Discussions are due on or before Day 3, and response postings are due on or before Day 6. You are required to participate in the Discussion on at least three different days (a different day for main post and each response). It is important to adhere to the weekly time frame to allow others ample time to respond to your posting. In addition, you are expected to respond to questions directed toward your own initial posting in a timely manner.
Initial Discussion Post – Week 4
Top of Form
I’ve decided to pursue a career as a psychiatric/mental health nurse practitioner. After 28 years of working as a mental nurse, I made the decision to advance my career. The peer-reviewed article used is entitled. “How PMHNP Program Directors Facilitate Psychotherapeutic Skill Acquisition by the authors Wesemann, Convoy, Goldstein, and Melino. I looked for this article by typing “PMHNP” into the Walden library tab. Next, I selected the “peer-reviewed” link on the left and entered the keyword “psychotherapeutic,” I then restricted my search. A list of articles from the Thoreau/EBSCO search engine appeared, and I chose this particular one.
Finding this peer-reviewed article was not difficult for me. The library database at Walden University is quite trustworthy. Yes, I would recommend this database, because it is accessible, and the full articles are available for usage. “A good database should begin with valuable metadata and data”, (Siyavula. n.d.). Criteria used for selecting a good database is using one that is a reliable monitoring and alerting system, (Guo, 2022). This database will be very helpful to my colleagues for the reasons stated above. My search was able to be limited by a large number of alternatives. The Walden library’s EBSCO database has excellent themes and a big selection of articles, therefore I would definitely recommend it.
References
Guo, L. (2022). How to efficiently choose the right database for your applications. PingCAP. Retrieved from https://www.pingcap.com/blog/how-to-efficiently-choose-the-right-database-for-your-applications/
Siyavula. (n.d.). Characteristics of a good database. Retrieved from https://www.siyavula.com/read/it/grade-12-it/database-design-concepts/02-database-design-concepts
Wesemann, D., Convoy, S., Goldstein, D., & Melino, K. (2022). How PMHNP Program Directors Facilitate Psychotherapeutic Skill Acquisition. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 10783903221091980. https://doi.org/10.1177/10783903221091980
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 6003 Discussion Using the Walden Library

To Prepare:
• Review the information presented in the Learning 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 interests you.
By Day 3 of Week 4
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.
By Day 6 of Week 6
Respond to at least two of your colleagues’ posts by offering suggestions/strategies for working with this database from your own experience, or offering ideas for using alternative resources.
NURS 6003 Discussion Using the Walden Library – nursingassignmentgurus
RE: Discussion – Week 4
Collapse
The most straightforward way to identify a peer-reviewed article is to use one of the University Library’s numerous databases that are available to students who are interested in scholarly research (Walden University Library, n.d.). In research and according to Walden University (n.d.) t is vital to find more peer-reviewed publications that have been validated and probed for originality and validity when seeking for articles for any scholarly writing or literature. It has always been my interest to apply using nursing diagnosis in the holistic treatment of mentally ill patients, which entails assessing their needs and producing a clear plan of care that includes establishing the diagnosis and building strategies to implement the planned care for improved outcomes.
The PubMed database which I used helped me to easily locate an article titled Nursing Diagnoses Related to Psychiatric Adult Inpatient Care by Frauenfelder et al. (2018), which taught me a lot more about evidence-based practice for the speciality I chose. I had no trouble finding it because the database (PubMed) allows for a search that involves using criteria to find an article based on publication date, article kind, text availability, and other factors. The researcher’s task of locating the right article for the intended analysis is made significantly easier as a result of this. I would recommend this database to my colleagues because it is simple to use and can provide the exact information that a researcher needs by using the available filters and limiters.
References:
Frauenfelder, F., van Achterberg, T., & Muller Staub, M. (2018). Nursing diagnoses related to psychiatric adult inpatient care. Journal of clinical nursing, 27(3-4), e463–e475. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13959
Walden University Library. (n.d.). Verify peer review. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/verifypeerreview
Walden University. (n.d.). Scholarly writing: Overview. https://academicguideswaldenu.edu/writingcenter/scholarly
Making Use of the Walden Library
Where can you look for evidence to support your ideas and scholarly writing? You will use research literature to explore ideas, guide your thinking, and gain new insights throughout your degree program. It is critical to use peer-reviewed and scholarly journal resources when searching the research literature. You may already have some favorite online resources and databases that you use or have previously found useful. For this Discussion, you will look into the databases available at the Walden Library.
Unless otherwise specified, initial Discussions postings are due on or before Day 3, and response postings are due on or before Day 6. You must take part in the Discussion on at least three different days (a different day for main post and each response). It is critical to stick to the weekly time frame so that others have enough time to respond to your posting. Furthermore, you are expected to respond to questions about your initial posting in a timely manner.
To Get Ready:
Examine the Learning Resources for information on using the Walden Library, searching databases, and evaluating online resources.
Begin your search for a peer-reviewed article that is relevant to your practice area and of interest to you.
By Week 4’s third day
Put up the following:
Cite the peer-reviewed article that pertains to your practice area and is of particular interest to you, using proper APA formatting, and identify the database that you used to search for the article. Describe any difficulties you encountered while looking for this article. Would your coworkers benefit from this database? Explain why you think this is the case or why you think it isn’t. Would you recommend this database to others? Explain why you think this is the case or why you think it isn’t.
By Week 4’s Day 6
Respond to at least two of your colleagues’ posts by providing suggestions/strategies for working with this database based on your own experience, or by suggesting alternative resources.
Click the Reply button to the right to reveal the textbox where you can enter your message. Then, to post your message, click the Submit button.
Name: NURS_6003_Module03_Week04_Discussion_Rubric
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 |
---|