DNP 801 Topic 8 PICOT-D Final Draft GCU

Grand Canyon University DNP 801 Topic 8 PICOT-D Final Draft GCU-Step-By-Step Guide

This guide will demonstrate how to complete the DNP 801 Topic 8 PICOT-D Final Draft GCU assignment based on general principles of academic writing. Here, we will show you the A, B, Cs of completing an academic paper, irrespective of the instructions. After guiding you through what to do, the guide will leave one or two sample essays at the end to highlight the various sections discussed below.

How to Research and Prepare for DNP 801 Topic 8 PICOT-D Final Draft GCU

Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Grand Canyon University DNP 801 Topic 8 PICOT-D Final Draft GCU depends on the preparation done beforehand. The first thing to do once you receive an assignment is to quickly skim through the requirements. Once that is done, start going through the instructions one by one to clearly understand what the instructor wants. The most important thing here is to understand the required format—whether it is APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.

After understanding the requirements of the paper, the next phase is to gather relevant materials. The first place to start the research process is the weekly resources. Go through the resources provided in the instructions to determine which ones fit the assignment. After reviewing the provided resources, use the university library to search for additional resources. After gathering sufficient and necessary resources, you are now ready to start drafting your paper.

How to Write the Introduction for DNP 801 Topic 8 PICOT-D Final Draft GCU

The introduction for the Grand Canyon University DNP 801 Topic 8 PICOT-D Final Draft GCU is where you tell the instructor what your paper will encompass. In three to four statements, highlight the important points that will form the basis of your paper. Here, you can include statistics to show the importance of the topic you will be discussing. At the end of the introduction, write a clear purpose statement outlining what exactly will be contained in the paper. This statement will start with “The purpose of this paper…” and then proceed to outline the various sections of the instructions.

How to Write the Body for DNP 801 Topic 8 PICOT-D Final Draft GCU

After the introduction, move into the main part of the DNP 801 Topic 8 PICOT-D Final Draft GCU assignment, which is the body. Given that the paper you will be writing is not experimental, the way you organize the headings and subheadings of your paper is critically important. In some cases, you might have to use more subheadings to properly organize the assignment. The organization will depend on the rubric provided. Carefully examine the rubric, as it will contain all the detailed requirements of the assignment. Sometimes, the rubric will have information that the normal instructions lack.

Another important factor to consider at this point is how to do citations. In-text citations are fundamental as they support the arguments and points you make in the paper. At this point, the resources gathered at the beginning will come in handy. Integrating the ideas of the authors with your own will ensure that you produce a comprehensive paper. Also, follow the given citation format. In most cases, APA 7 is the preferred format for nursing assignments.

How to Write the Conclusion for DNP 801 Topic 8 PICOT-D Final Draft GCU

After completing the main sections, write the conclusion of your paper. The conclusion is a summary of the main points you made in your paper. However, you need to rewrite the points and not simply copy and paste them. By restating the points from each subheading, you will provide a nuanced overview of the assignment to the reader.

How to Format the References List for DNP 801 Topic 8 PICOT-D Final Draft GCU

The very last part of your paper involves listing the sources used in your paper. These sources should be listed in alphabetical order and double-spaced. Additionally, use a hanging indent for each source that appears in this list. Lastly, only the sources cited within the body of the paper should appear here.

Stuck? Let Us Help You

Completing assignments can sometimes be overwhelming, especially with the multitude of academic and personal responsibilities you may have. If you find yourself stuck or unsure at any point in the process, don’t hesitate to reach out for professional assistance. Our assignment writing services are designed to help you achieve your academic goals with ease.

Our team of experienced writers is well-versed in academic writing and familiar with the specific requirements of the DNP 801 Topic 8 PICOT-D Final Draft GCU assignment. We can provide you with personalized support, ensuring your assignment is well-researched, properly formatted, and thoroughly edited. Get a feel of the quality we guarantee – ORDER NOW.

Sample Answer for DNP 801 Topic 8 PICOT-D Final Draft GCU

When conducting research, it is important to use a variety of methods in order to get a well-rounded understanding of the topic at hand. Quantitative research uses numerical data to come to conclusions, whereas qualitative research relies on observations and interviews to produce findings. Both types of research have their own strengths and weaknesses, and it is important to understand the difference between them when drawing conclusions. Quantitative research is often better at measuring cause and effect relationships, as well as making generalizations about groups of people. However, it can be difficult to interpret the results of quantitative studies without knowing the mathematical theories behind them. Qualitative research is better at exploring feelings and individual experiences, but can be less reliable when trying to make generalizations. When beginning a research project, it important to first determine the type of information you need. This can be done by doing a literature review to get an idea of what has already been studied in a specific field and to find specific articles that can help in answering the research question. The purpose of this assignment is to analyze two quantitative and qualitative articles identified in topic 1 and 2.

Nursing Practice Problem and PICOT Question

The identified nursing practice problem under consideration is hypertension among African Americans. Although the incidence of hypertension (high blood pressure) is higher among African Americans than Caucasians, the good news is that it can be effectively managed. There are a number of lifestyle changes that can help to lower blood pressure, including eating a healthy diet, maintaining a healthy weight, getting regular exercise, and managing stress. In addition, there are several medications available that can effectively manage hypertension. If one has been diagnosed with hypertension, it is important to work with appropriate healthcare team to develop a plan for treatment and management. With proper treatment and care, one can live a healthy life despite having this condition.

PICOT Question: In African American Adults diagnosed with hypertension, does daily home blood pressure monitoring compared to blood pressure monitoring only during healthcare visits, improve medication compliance in six months?

Background

Qualitative articles considered in this analysis include article I, “Patient barriers and facilitators to ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring” by Carter et al. (2018) and article II, “Implementation of home blood pressure monitoring among French GPs: A long and winding road” by Dugelay et al. (2019). Qualitative article I emphasizes nurses’ understanding of ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring services. The main problem identified in the article is blood pressure and the home-based approaches that can be applied in the management process (Carter et al., 2018). The article is significant to nursing because it provides different strategies that can be applied in the management of patients suffering from high blood pressure. The purpose of the study was to investigate Patient barriers and facilitators to ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring. The objective of the study was to determine some of the best home blood pressure monitoring approaches. The main research question is: what are the possible patient barriers and facilitators to ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring services?

Qualitative article II highlighted a significant reluctance of GPs concerning a regular application of HBPM and the appropriate approaches in the management of hypertension under home-based care. The purpose of the article was to explore the perception of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) by general practitioners (GPs) in everyday practice in order to identify facilitators and barriers to its implementation in daily practice. The main objective of the article is to determine the effectiveness of home-based care in the management of patients. The article is significant to nursing because it provides appropriate strategies in the management of high blood pressure among different patients. The main research question in the article is: What are the effects of perception of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) by general practitioners (GPs) in everyday practice?

The two quantitative articles considered in the study include article III “Economic evaluation of the home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist case management to control hypertension (Hyperlink) trial” by Dehmer et al. (2018) and article IV “Factors influencing home blood pressure monitor ownership in a large clinical trial” by Anbarasan et al. (2022). Article III examines the economic evaluation of home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist case management in adults with uncontrolled hypertension. The article is significant to nursing because determines cost-effectiveness involved in home-based blood pressure monitoring system. The purpose of the study is to analyze the economic outcomes of the Home Blood Pressure Telemonitoring and Case Management to Control Hypertension (Dehmer et al., 2018). The main objective is to determine cost-effectiveness in the management of blood pressure among patients suffering from hypertension. The main research question in the study is: Can home blood pressure monitoring and pharmacist case management improve hypertension care? According to article IV, there is the provision of useful information about factors that influence whether or not people purchase home blood pressure monitors. The article is significant to nursing because it provides effective approaches in the management of high blood pressure among patients. The purpose of the study was to investigate factors influencing home blood pressure monitor ownership in a large clinical trial. The main objective of the article is to determine effective home-based approaches in the management of high blood pressure. The main research question is: What are some of the factors influencing home blood pressure monitor ownership in a large clinical trial?

How The Four Articles Support the Nurse Practice Issue Chosen

The four articles provide useful information about factors that influence whether or not people purchase home blood pressure monitors. This information can be applied to support and answer different aspects of PICOT question. Also, the findings from the articles can be applied in answering different aspects of the PICOT question. The information on the implementation of home blood pressure monitoring is significant to nursing practices and solution to the PICOT question.

The interventions and comparison groups in the articles compare to those identified in the PICOT question. Each article provides information on how the intervention or comparison group differed from those identified in the PICOT question. The comparison groups in the research variables typically compare different interventions to each other or to a control group (receiving no treatment). Overall, the interventions and comparison groups in the articles compare to those identified in your PICOT question.

Methods of Study

Article I and II involved interviews through the use of questionnaires to collect information. For article III, generalized estimating equation models were mainly applied in the study to determine the differences between the groups involved in the study over time. Also, questionnaires were used to record responses from the study participants. Finally, the prospective analysis was used to compare differences in medical costs and encounters in the Hyperlink telemonitoring approaches. Article IV involved the application of randomized approach methodology in the collection and analysis of information.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to using interviews and questionnaires in research. Interviews provide a more personal way to gather information, while questionnaires can be used to gather data from a large number of people quickly and efficiently. Interviews have the advantage of allowing researchers to get detailed, first-hand information from respondents. This type of data can be very helpful in understanding complex phenomena. However, interviews are also time-consuming and expensive to conduct, and they require skilled interviewers. Furthermore, because interviews are s face-to-face interactions, respondents may feel pressured to respond in certain ways or may withhold information. Questionnaires have the advantage of being able to reach a large number of people quickly and cheaply, however, they are expensive to design and use.

A randomized approach methodology is a research design in which study participants are randomly assigned to one of two or more groups. This type of study is used to reduce bias and confounding factors and to increase the validity of the results. There are several advantages to using a randomized approach methodology. First, it helps to eliminate bias by ensuring that all study participants are treated in the same way. Second, it helps to control for confounding factors, which can distort the results of a study. Third, it increases the validity of the results because it reduces the chances that differences between groups are due to chance alone. There are also a few disadvantages to using a randomized approach methodology. It can be difficult to implement in some studies.

Results of Study

Article I found that patients were generally adherent to BP monitoring when it was done in the clinic, but that adherence was lower for ambulatory and home BP monitoring (Carter, et al., 2018). The study found that patient barriers and facilitators vary depending on whether the BP monitoring is done in the clinic or at home. On the other hand, Article II showed that

in order to improve HBPM implementation in everyday practice in France, it is necessary to focus on GP training and patient education. There is also the need to end “medical power” in hypertension management and turn to multidisciplinary (Dugelay et al., 2019). Article III showed that home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist case management were both cost-effective interventions for adults with uncontrolled hypertension (Dehmer et al., 2018). Total medical costs in the intervention group were lower compared with the usual care group by an average of $281 per person, but this difference was not statistically significant. The mean intervention cost was $7337 per person attaining hypertension control and $126 or $139 per mm Hg reduction in systolic or diastolic blood pressure, respectively. Finally, article IV found that the most common reasons for not owning a home blood pressure monitor were that respondents didn’t think they needed one (46 percent) or didn’t know how to use one (40 percent). Cost was also a factor, as 39 percent said they didn’t own one because of the expense. The mean age of all participants at enrolment was 67.7 ± 9.3 years, 12,134 (57.5%) were male, 8892 (42.1%) (Anbarasan et al., 2022).

The four studies have different implications in nursing practice have different implications for nursing practice. The four studies I chose in nursing practice have implications for nurses who are providing home-based blood pressure management. The first study showed that nurses can effectively manage hypertension in the home setting. The second study showed that self-monitoring of blood pressure by patients was effective in reducing blood pressure. The third study demonstrated that a collaborative effort between the nurse and patient was beneficial in achieving hypertension control, and the fourth study showed that nurse visits led to improved blood pressure control among high-risk patients. Based on these findings, nurses can be confident in providing hypertension management in the home setting and can encourage patients to self-monitor their blood pressure as needed.

Ethical Considerations

When conducting research, two primary ethical considerations must be taken into account: protecting the welfare of research participants and protecting the integrity of the research process. Protection of welfare includes ensuring that research participants are fully informed of all risks and benefits associated with participation in a study, that they understand those risks and benefits, and that they have freely given consent to participate in the study. Furthermore, researchers must take measures to ensure the safety and well-being of participants during the course of the study. Protection of integrity includes ensuring that data collected during a study are accurately and fairly attributed to the correct participants, that no data are falsified or manipulated, and that findings from a study are reported honestly and accurately.

The four articles adhered to the informed consent and confidentiality of information. The authors confirmed participant’s willingness to the take part in the study process. Also, the information given in the research remained confidential during and after the research process. Confidentiality is an ethical issue in qualitative research because researchers are often required to share data with other researchers.

Outcomes Comparison

The anticipated outcome for the PICOT question is that daily home blood pressure monitoring compared to blood pressure monitoring only during healthcare visits, improve medication compliance in six months among African American Adults diagnosed with hypertension. The outcomes of the four articles are comparable to the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT question. The outcomes from the four articles show that home blood pressure monitoring improves medication compliance and quality healthcare delivery processes.

Proposed Evidence-Based Practice Change

There is a strong link between the PICOT question, the research articles, and the nursing practice problem identified (hypertension). All the four articles discuss and provide information that can be applied in answering the PICOT question. The four article also addresses the nursing practice problem, hypertension among African American adults. Based on the information provided, the evidence-based practice change is incorporation of home visit plans to enhance treatment of patients suffering from hypertension. Also, for healthcare professionals managing hypertension among adults, we suggest considering dietary changes to reduce insulin levels as a means of treatment. We also suggest further research into the role of insulin and other growth factors in the development and progression of hypertension.

References

Anbarasan, T., Rogers, A., Rorie, D. A., Grieve, J. W., Flynn, R. W., MacDonald, T. M., & Mackenzie, I. S. (2022). Factors influencing home blood pressure monitor ownership in a large clinical trial. Journal of Human Hypertension, 36(3), 325-332.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41371-021-00511-w

Carter, E. J., Moise, N., Alcántara, C., Sullivan, A. M., &Kronish, I. M. (2018). Patient barriers and facilitators to ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring: a qualitative study. American journal of hypertension, 31(8), 919-927.https://academic.oup.com/ajh/article/31/8/919/4999720?login=true

Dehmer, S. P., Maciosek, M. V., Trower, N. K., Asche, S. E., Bergdall, A. R., Nyboer, R. A., … & Margolis, K. L. (2018). Economic evaluation of the home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist case management to control hypertension (Hyperlink) trial. Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 1(1), 21-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/jac5.1001

Dugelay, G., Kivits, J., Desse, L., & Boivin, J. M. (2019). Implementation of home blood pressure monitoring among French GPs: A long and winding road. PloS one, 14(9), e0220460. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0220460

The purpose of this assignment is to submit a final draft of your revised PICOT-D using the feedback from your instructor.
Make sure you have identified and incorporated all feedback from your instructor from your “PICOT-D Draft” assignment. In addition, list the primary quantitative research in APA format as indicated and include a working link for each article. Remember, at least two of the articles must support your proposed intervention.
General Requirements:
• Refer to the “PICOT-D Selection Guidelines,” located in the DC Network, for assistance in completing this assignment.
• Use the “PICOT-D Question Template,” located in the DC Network, to complete this assignment.
• A minimum of five primary quantitative research articles, published within 5 years of your anticipated graduation date, are required to complete this assignment.
• While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
• This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
• You are not required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.
• Learners will submit this assignment using the assignment dropbox in the digital classroom. In addition, learners must upload this deliverable to the Learner Dissertation Page (LDP) in the DNP PI Workspace for later use.
Directions:
Learners are required to submit the final draft of their PICOT-D to the instructor and the college reviewers. Please read the instructions carefully as there are a series of steps.
Step 1: Revise your PICOT-D using instructor feedback you received in Topics 6 and 7.
Step 2: Save your PICOT-D document by labeling it accordingly: Learner’s last name, first name, course number, PICOT-D, and date (e.g., Sally.DNP801A.PICOTD.03.06.2021)
Step 3: Submit a copy of the PICOT-D to your instructor using the dropbox in the digital classroom.
Step 4: Submit a copy of the PICOT-D to the college reviewers using these steps:
1. Submit to the college through this email address: PICOTDNP@gcu.edu
2. Use your my.gcu.edu email only.
3. Copy (CC) your current course faculty on the email.
4. In the subject line of your email, list the course number and your name (e.g., DNP-801A, Sally Black).

Submit the Completed Template *See Additional Instructions below for completing the Template on Page 2.

Sample Answer 2 for DNP 801 Topic 8 PICOT-D Final Draft GCU

PICOT-D Question Template
P	Population	Patients with type 2 diabetes
I	Intervention	Flash glucose monitoring
C	Comparison	Current practice
O	Outcome	Improved HbA1c levels
T	Timeline	12 weeks
D	Data	Electronic health records, , online medical database surveys, Cochrane database, PubMed, GCU student resources, GCU library, ERIC, and CINAHL
What is your licensure?	APRN RN Is this practice change within the scope of your nursing practice? YES No By submitting this form, I am attesting I have read my state’s Nurse Practice Act, and the project is within the scope of my practice.
PICOT	Among patients with type 2 diabetes in a nursing home, will the translation of Furler et al’s research on flash glucose monitoring increase the rate of practitioner’s ordering flash glucose monitoring to impact HgbA1C, compared to current in 12 weeks?
Problem Statement	It is not known if the implementation of flash glucose monitoring to improve the practitioner’s ordering rates of monitoring would impact HbA1c levels among patients with type 2 diabetes.
Purpose Statement	The purpose of this quality improvement project is to determine if the implementation of flash glucose monitoring to improve practitioner’s ordering rates of monitoring would impact HbA1c levels among patients with type 2 diabetes. The project was piloted over a twelve-week period in an urban nursing home.
Original Research articles: List all original research articles that support the intervention (Required) Ensure there is a permalink to the research articles.	MUST have 2 original research articles from the USA and/or Canada to support the intervention within seven years of your graduation date. The other research articles may be added from the US, Canada, UK, Denmark, India, New Zealand, Germany, Australia (preferred) or from the *International Compilation of Human Research Standards 2020 Edition* *by DNP-815A. *DO NOT MARK THIS AS “SEE BELOW”* Ajjan, R. A., Jackson, N., & Thomson, S. A. (2019). Reduction in HbA1c using professional flash glucose monitoring in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes patients managed in primary and secondary care settings: a pilot, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Diabetes and Vascular Disease Research, 16(4), 385-395. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1479164119827456. Furler, J., O’Neal, D., Speight, J., Blackberry, I., Manski-Nankervis, J. A., Thuraisingam, S., … & Best, J. (2020). Use of professional-mode flash glucose monitoring, at 3-month intervals, in adults with type 2 diabetes in general practice (GP-OSMOTIC): a pragmatic, open-label, 12-month, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 8(1), 17-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30385-7 Wada, E., Onoue, T., Kobayashi, T., Handa, T., Hayase, A., Ito, M., … & Arima, H. (2020). Flash glucose monitoring helps achieve better glycemic control than conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose in non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. BMJ Open Diabetes Research and Care, 8(1), e001115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-001115 Elliott, T., Beca, S., Beharry, R., Tsoukas, M. A., Zarruk, A., & Abitbol, A. (2021). The impact of flash glucose monitoring on glycated hemoglobin in type 2 diabetes managed with basal insulin in Canada: a retrospective real-world chart review study. Diabetes and Vascular Disease Research, 18(4), 14791641211021374. Grace, T., & Salyer, J. (2022). Use of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Improves Glycemic Control and Other Clinical Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Patients Treated with Less Intensive Therapy. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 24(1), 26-31. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2021.0212

References

Ajjan, R. A., Jackson, N., & Thomson, S. A. (2019). Reduction in HbA1c using professional flash glucose monitoring in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes patients managed in primary and secondary care settings: a pilot, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Diabetes and Vascular Disease Research, 16(4), 385-395. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1479164119827456.

Elliott, T., Beca, S., Beharry, R., Tsoukas, M. A., Zarruk, A., & Abitbol, A. (2021). The impact of flash glucose monitoring on glycated hemoglobin in type 2 diabetes managed with basal insulin in Canada: a retrospective real-world chart review study. Diabetes and Vascular Disease Research, 18(4), 14791641211021374.

Furler, J., O’Neal, D., Speight, J., Blackberry, I., Manski-Nankervis, J. A., Thuraisingam, S., … & Best, J. (2020). Use of professional-mode flash glucose monitoring, at 3-month intervals, in adults with type 2 diabetes in general practice (GP-OSMOTIC): a pragmatic, open-label, 12-month, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 8(1), 17-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30385-7

Grace, T., & Salyer, J. (2022). Use of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Improves Glycemic Control and Other Clinical Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Patients Treated with Less Intensive Therapy. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 24(1), 26-31. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2021.0212

Wada, E., Onoue, T., Kobayashi, T., Handa, T., Hayase, A., Ito, M., … & Arima, H. (2020). Flash glucose monitoring helps achieve better glycemic control than conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose in non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. BMJ Open Diabetes Research and Care, 8(1), e001115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-001115

5. PICOT-D: Final Draft – Rubric
6. Collapse All PICOT-D: Final Draft – RubricCollapse All
7. Population
8. 2.3 points
9. Criteria Description
10. Revision is incorporated. Patient population is appropriate.
11. 5. Target
12. 2.3 points
13. Revision is evident or was not required. All errors have been corrected and feedback has been accurately incorporated for the Population criteria. A description of an appropriate patient population being assessed can be linked to direct practice improvements and is extremely thorough with substantial supporting evidence.
14. 4. Acceptable
15. 2.12 points
16. NA
17. 3. Approaching
18. 2.02 points
19. Revision is generally evident. Feedback has been incorporated, but there are still some errors and inaccuracies. A description of an appropriate patient population being assessed is included but lacks a link to direct practice improvements that could be measured through patient and practice outcomes.
20. 2. Insufficient
21. 1.84 points
22. NA
23. 1. Unsatisfactory
24. 0 points
25. The population is not appropriate for the PICOT-D. Revisions were made but did not correct or improve errors and inaccuracies.
26. Intervention
27. 23 points
28. Criteria Description
29. Revision is incorporated. Evidence-based intervention is directly supported by primary quantitative research articles.
30. 5. Target
31. 23 points
32. Revision is evident or was not required. All errors have been corrected and feedback has been accurately incorporated for the Intervention criteria. A description of the evidence-based intervention is extremely thorough with substantial evidence and supporting literature. Two primary quantitative research article demonstrate support for the intervention.
33. 4. Acceptable
34. 21.16 points
35. NA
36. 3. Approaching
37. 20.24 points
38. Revision is generally evident. Feedback has been incorporated, but there are still some errors and inaccuracies. A description of the evidence-based intervention is presented with general supporting literature. One primary quantitative research article demonstrates support for the intervention. More evidence is needed.
39. 2. Insufficient
40. 18.4 points
41. NA
42. 1. Unsatisfactory
43. 0 points
44. A description of the intervention is included but lacks a sufficient amount of evidence. Revisions were made but did not correct or improve errors and inaccuracies.
45. Comparison
46. 2.3 points
47. Criteria Description
48. Revision is incorporated. Comparison of proposed intervention to current practice is presented.
49. 5. Target
50. 2.3 points
51. Revision is evident or was not required. All errors have been corrected and feedback has been accurately incorporated for the Comparison criteria. A description of the comparison information is extremely thorough with substantial evidence and measurable outcomes.
52. 4. Acceptable
53. 2.12 points
54. NA
55. 3. Approaching
56. 2.02 points
57. Revision is generally evident. Feedback has been incorporated, but there are still some errors and inaccuracies. A description of the comparison information is included but lacks evidence and measurable outcomes.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: DNP 801 Topic 8 PICOT-D Final Draft GCU

58. 2. Insufficient
59. 1.84 points
60. NA
61. 1. Unsatisfactory
62. 0 points
63. Revisions were made but did not correct or improve errors and inaccuracies. A description of the comparison information is not included.
64. Outcome
65. 23 points
66. Criteria Description
67. Revision is incorporated. Outcome is patient-focused, specific, and measurable. Supporting research demonstrates that evidence-based intervention impacts stated patient outcome.
68. 5. Target
69. 23 points
70. Revision is evident or was not required. All errors have been corrected and feedback has been accurately incorporated for the Outcome criteria. A description of the outcome is extremely thorough with substantial evidence pertaining to a measurable population or patient outcome.
71. 4. Acceptable
72. 21.16 points
73. NA
74. 3. Approaching
75. 20.24 points
76. Revision is generally evident. Feedback has been incorporated, but there are still some errors and inaccuracies. A description of the outcome is included but lacks evidence pertaining to a measurable population or patient outcome.
77. 2. Insufficient
78. 18.4 points
79. NA
80. 1. Unsatisfactory

81. 0 points
82. A description of the outcome is not included. Revisions were made but did not correct or improve errors and inaccuracies.
83. Timeline
84. 1.15 points
85. Criteria Description
86. Revision is incorporated. Timeline is 8 weeks. Supporting evidence is presented.
87. 5. Target
88. 1.15 points
89. Revision is evident or was not required. All errors have been corrected and feedback has been accurately incorporated for the Timeline criteria. The timeline is specified as 8 weeks.
90. 4. Acceptable
91. 1.06 points
92. NA
93. 3. Approaching
94. 1.01 points
95. NA
96. 2. Insufficient
97. 0.92 points
98. NA
99. 1. Unsatisfactory
100. 0 points
101. Revisions were made but did not correct or improve errors and inaccuracies. The timeline is not specified or is deviates from the 8-week requirement.
102. PICOT-D Question
103. 34.5 points
104. Criteria Description
105. Revision incorporated. PICOT-D question succinctly reflects PICOT-D criteria.
106. 5. Target
107. 34.5 points
108. Revision is evident or was not required. The PICOT-D elements are present in one statement.
109. 4. Acceptable
110. 31.74 points
111. NA
112. 3. Approaching
113. 30.36 points
114. NA
115. 2. Insufficient
116. 27.6 points
117. NA
118. 1. Unsatisfactory
119. 0 points
120. Revisions were made but did not correct or improve errors and inaccuracies. Not all of the PICOT-D elements are present in the statement.
121. References
122. 17.25 points
123. Criteria Description
124. Meets criteria for primary quantitative research; published within 5 years of anticipated graduation date; working links are provided for each article. Clinical practice guideline included, if applicable.
125. 5. Target
126. 17.25 points
127. Revision is evident or was not required. Incorrect articles have been removed or replaced as indicated. Five primary quantitative research articles, published within 5 years of the anticipated graduation date, are presented. All five articles meet the criteria for primary research on the Levels of Evidence chart. Any applicable clinical practice guideline is included.
128. 4. Acceptable
129. 15.87 points
130. Revision is evident; there are very minor errors. Incorrect articles have been removed or replaced as indicated. Five primary quantitative research articles published within 5 years of the anticipated graduation date meet the criteria for primary research on the Levels of Evidence chart. Any applicable clinical practice guideline is included.
131. 3. Approaching
132. 15.18 points
133. Revision is generally evident. Incorrect articles have been removed as indicated, but one of the new articles does not meet the required criteria. Four primary quantitative research articles, published within 5 years of the anticipated graduation date, meet the criteria for primary research on the Levels of Evidence chart. Any applicable clinical practice guideline is included.
134. 2. Insufficient
135. 13.8 points
136. Revision is only sometimes evident. Incorrect articles have been removed as indicated, but two of the new articles do not meet the required criteria. Three primary quantitative research articles, published within 5 years of the anticipated graduation date, are presented and meet the criteria for primary research on the Levels of Evidence chart.
137. 1. Unsatisfactory
138. 0 points
139. Revision is not evident; or, replacement articles do not meet the required criteria. Overall, fewer than three articles meet the specified criteria. A clinical practice guideline should be listed but is omitted.
140. Paper Format
141. 2.3 points
142. Criteria Description
143. Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment.
144. 5. Target
145. 2.3 points
146. All format elements are correct.
147. 4. Acceptable
148. 2.12 points
149. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
150. 3. Approaching
151. 2.02 points
152. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
153. 2. Insufficient
154. 1.84 points
155. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.
156. 1. Unsatisfactory
157. 0 points
158. Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
159. Mechanics of Writing
160. 3.45 points
161. Criteria Description
162. Includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use.
163. 5. Target
164. 3.45 points
165. The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
166. 4. Acceptable
167. 3.17 points
168. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.
169. 3. Approaching
170. 3.04 points
171. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.
172. 2. Insufficient
173. 2.76 points
174. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct, but not varied.
175. 1. Unsatisfactory
176. 0 points
177. Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.
178. Documentation of Sources
179. 5.75 points
180. Criteria Description
181. Includes citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style.
182. 5. Target
183. 5.75 points
184. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of errors.
185. 4. Acceptable
186. 5.29 points
187. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
188. 3. Approaching
189. 5.06 points
190. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
191. 2. Insufficient
192. 4.6 points
193. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
194. 1. Unsatisfactory
195. 0 points
196. Sources are not documented.
197. Total 115 points