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.

DNP 801 Topic 8 PICOT-D Final Draft GCU

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.

Save file as First.Last.PICOT_D Question.CLASS.mm.dd.yyyy

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