NURS 8201 Week 6 Discussion: Correlations

“Much of the clinical research relevant to nursing explores whether a relationship exists between two patient characteristics. Understanding potentially related characteristics helps nurses better identify which physical, psychological, or demographic factors are associated with reason for concern” (American Nurse, 2011).

In order to explore relationships among associated variables, a DNP-prepared nurse may utilize correlational research. This type of research allows for the exploration of connections and measuring of many variables. While not used to determine causality, this research can be integral in proving theory. So, when might an issue or topic need to be explored through relationships and associations?

For this Discussion, review the Learning Resources and reflect on a particular topic of interest that may benefit from a correlational study. Formulate a research question and consider your hypotheses and prediction. Reflect on the effectiveness of conducting correlational research.

_{Reference:

American Nurse. (2011). Understanding correlation analysis. https://www.myamericannurse.com/understanding-correlation-analysis/}

To Prepare:

Review this week’s Learning Resources and focus on the types of research questions that can be answered using a correlational statistic.
Brainstorm a number of healthcare delivery or nursing practice problems that could be explored using correlational statistics. Then, select one problem on which to focus for this Discussion.
Formulate a research question to address the problem and that would lead you to employ correlational statistics.
Develop a null hypothesis and alternate hypotheses.
Ask yourself: What is the expected direction of the relationship?

By Day 3 of Week 6

Post a brief description of the selected problem that you identified for the focus of this Discussion and include your research question. Be specific. Explain your null hypothesis and alternate hypotheses for your research question and identify the dependent and independent variables that you would recommend to best support the research study. Then, explain your prediction for the expected relationship (positive or negative) between the variables that you identified. Why do you think that sort of relationship will exist? What other factors might affect the outcome? Be specific and provide examples.

By Day 6 of Week 6

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days in one or more of the following ways:

Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.
NURS 8201 Week 6 Discussion Correlations
Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.
Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.
Suggest an alternative perspective based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.
Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.

Submission and Grading Information

Grading Criteria

Also Read: NURS 8201 Week 5 Discussion: t-Tests and ANOVA in Clinical Practice

To access your rubric:

Week 6 Discussion Rubric

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8201 Week 6 Discussion: Correlations

Post by Day 3 of Week 6 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 6

To Participate in this Discussion:

Week 6 Discussion

Change is inevitable as many would like to say and just like being a nurse, changes occur every day and new research is being done to create evidenced based practices that would encourage quality patient care. Being a nurse for about 6 years now, I have encountered many changes through policies that needed to occur to assist in quality patient care. Also, working on Guam with an expanding multicultural population and within a government hospital, it is advisable that we follow and implement updated healthcare policies. One of the main new practice problems that we are currently encountering is the idea that nurses who wish to transfer to the intensive care unit is not receiving the proper education and transitional bridge into the ICU setting.

The critical care unit is a specialty unit that requires advanced skills and educational training and essentials of critical care orientation in order to attain acute care assessment skills. Due to an increase in the heavy and acutely ill patient population our ICU is trying to implement is starting up an educational bridge program for nurses who wish to transition into the ICU setting. However, just like change is bound to happen, not many nurses are receptive to receiving changes afraid of punitive actions towards mistakes, and may be afraid to reach out to other management about competency. In order to prioritize patient safety, the complexity of patients’ condition and treatment process in the intensive care unit predisposes patients to more hazardous events. Therefore, correlation studies should be done to determine if there are positive outcomes when implementing an educational bridge to transition into the ICU setting.

Correlation research can be defined as research design that investigates relationships between variables without the researchers controlling or manipulating them (Bhandari, 2021). In a randomized control study done by Amiri, Khademian, & Nikandish (2018), with a randomized experimental and control groups consisting of distribution of pamphlets about culture of safety and hospital surveys with a pre- and post- test; empowering nurses and supervisors through educational programs on patient safety could improve patient care outcomes. The epidemiology of errors included medication doses, prescription, and transcription, poor communication lack of knowledge and inadequate training are the main causes of nursing errors in the ICU. As a result, high morbidity and mortality associated with medication errors indicate the importance of promoting safety through educational bridging to transition in the ICU. Significant improvements were observed in promoting organizational learning, continuous improvements, and promoting patient safety as a result of post-test from the control group that received the educational bridge of transition into the ICU with a positive correlative dimension (72.3% positive responses).

In the end, it all comes down to knowing the foundation of nursing and from there build clinical performance that is suitable for the ICU setting. In article done by Shogi et.al. (2019), the gap between educational and clinical practice continues to be a challenge for educational experts therefore, this qualitative interview analysis study was conducted among nurses and administrators there is a need to bridge the gap between theory and practice. The theory and practice gap has been a consistent nursing problem encountered by both new graduates and experienced nurses. Incompatibility of theoretical education with the performance of nurses in the clinical setting can lead to inappropriate use of scientific resource coupled with adherence to conventional traditional methods in the healthcare setting resulting in ineffective nursing practice. Evidence based practices are coupled with quality patient care therefore, the link between knowledge and practice is vital for supporting clinical decision making and development in the nursing profession. This theory gap not only reduces motivation but also lead to a decrease in quality patient care. Mentorship and preceptorship would aid in bridging this gap to work efficiently and meet the ever changing healthcare needs.

Our ICU management is now re-introducing current theories in practice patients and validate scientific evidence with the inclusion of other fundamental measures such as cultivating positive attitudes, re-orienting nursing studies, and education. Effective education is key to implantation of quality care. Nurses serve as the bridge to management in promoting educational clinical guidelines based on their local facilities to share expectations.

Reference(s):

Amir, M., Khademian, Z., & Kikandish, R. (2018). The effect of nurse empowerment

educational program on patient safety culture: A randomized control trial. BMC Medical Education. 18(158). Retrieved from https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-018-1255-6

Bhandari, R. (2021). An introduction to correlational research. Scribbr Statistics. Retrieved from

https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/correlational-research/

Shogi, M., Sajadi, M., Oskiue, F., Dehnad, A., & Borimnejad, L. (2019). Strategies for bridging

the theory-practice gap from the perspective of nursing expert. Science Direct. 5(9). Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844019361638

Name: NURS_8201_Week7_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

Name: NURS_8201_Week7_Discussion_Rubric