NURS 8502 Discussion Exploration of Sources of Evidence
Walden University NURS 8502 Discussion Exploration of Sources of Evidence-Step-By-Step Guide
This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Walden University NURS 8502 Discussion Exploration of Sources of Evidence 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 NURS 8502 Discussion Exploration of Sources of Evidence
Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Walden University NURS 8502 Discussion Exploration of Sources of Evidence 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 NURS 8502 Discussion Exploration of Sources of Evidence
The introduction for the Walden University NURS 8502 Discussion Exploration of Sources of Evidence 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 NURS 8502 Discussion Exploration of Sources of Evidence
After the introduction, move into the main part of the NURS 8502 Discussion Exploration of Sources of Evidence 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 NURS 8502 Discussion Exploration of Sources of Evidence
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 NURS 8502 Discussion Exploration of Sources of Evidence
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 NURS 8502 Discussion Exploration of Sources of Evidence 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.
Imagine it is the final week of the course, and you are ready to present your solution to address your indentified practice problem at your practicum site. You present your evidence and plan and recommend the implementation of your proposed solution. Upon hearing your presentation, a stakeholder raises questions about the implementation based on a similar practice problem affecting a business outside of nursing. Unfortunately, you had not explored sources outside of your field, and you neglected to incorporate this evidence into your plan and recommendations.
Photo Credit: Hero Images / Hero Images / Getty Images
Evidence is critical in understanding a problem and determining potential solutions to address a change. However, evidence is only as good as the exploration of sources used to gather this evidence. Flawed evidence generation can occur when sources are not carefully, thoughtfully, and thoroughly explored. Furthermore, flawed evidence generation occurs if evidence is outdated, ignored, or not considered within the context of the proposed solution or practice problem it is meant to address.
For this Discussion, you will explore the sources of evidence necessary for your identified practice problem. These sources of evidence may be derived from library databases related to nursing, or you may find sources necessary for your practice problem in the form of interviews or library databases related to other fields. Consider where you might explore sources of evidence for your practice problem. Where might you find these sources outside of your typical evidence locations? Consider why this exploration is important and meaningful for your proposed change.
To Prepare
Review the Learning Resources covering the exploration of evidence.
Consider the evidence necessary for your identified practice problem and consider what types of sources might need to be explored.
Explore sources beyond the Walden Library database, and consider where evidence might be found outside of “typical” avenues.
By Day 3 of Week 5
Post a response detailing your exploration of sources of evidence for your practice problem. Consider multiple sources of evidence, rather than simply resources from the library: formal and informal interviews, national organizations, internal/external to your organization and/or practice. Consider library sources of information outside of nursing literature (e.g., business journals). Consider the impact of not including resources from specific sources. How might this create a flaw in your ability to support a proposed practice change? Be specific and provide examples.
By Day 5 of Week 5
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days by supporting or expanding on their exploration of sources. Do you see any evidence they might be missing? Explain additional perspectives on the issue or exploration of sources described by your colleague.
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 5 Discussion Rubric
Post by Day 3 of Week 5 and Respond by Day 5 of Week 5
To Participate in this Discussion:
Week 5 Discussion
Sample Answer for NURS 8502 Discussion Exploration of Sources of Evidence
In nursing practice, the provision of healthcare is based on evidence-based practice. By description, evidence-based practice (EBP) is a problem-solving strategy to deliver health care that incorporates the best evidence from studies and patient care data. Applying evidence-based practice (EBP) also considers the clinician’s expertise, patient preferences, and values. In my practice problem identified in the week one discussion, I have pointed out that pressure ulcers among those in assisted living facility workshops are a problem. The data indicates that over 3 million adults worldwide are affected by pressure ulcers (Guzman, McClanahan & Vaughn, 2018). There are various interventions have been proposed to help curb pressure ulcers. However, there is still a gap to support for the implementation of the proposed interventions. Consequently, the proposed solutions still need to be backed up by the sources of pieces of evidence. In this discussion, I will explore multiple sources of evidence for the above practice problem.
Sources of Evidence
To support the evidence of interventions to reduce pressure ulcers, I would employ several sources of evidence to support the practice. The first source I would use is peer-reviewed journal articles. Peer-reviewed journal articles are scholarly sources written by experts in a particular field and by several other experts before the article is published in the journal, thus ensuring the article’s quality (Neilson, 2021). The second source I would consider for the identified practice problem is journals that contain articles written by professionals and academics. Examples of such journals include the American Journal of Critical Care, the American Journal of Public Health, and the Journal of Hospice and Palliative Nursing.
The third source I would use is scientific and reputable databases such as PubMed, CINAHL, and Clinical Key. These databases provide indexing for consumer health, nursing, allied health, and biomedical journals. These databases also include standards of practice that would support the practice problem identified. The fourth source of evidence I would include is the organizations that produce practice guidelines. Example of these organizations is the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American College of Physicians are made up of several institutes that conduct and support medical research and thus, guarantee the quality of the evidence (Jones, Brennan & Davis, 2020).
The Impact of not Including Resources
Failure to include evidence from scholarly articles means that the evidence is less likely to be scientifically valid in terms of providing reasonable conclusions. Databases such as PubMed provide supportive resources, including biomedical and life sciences literature, with the key objective of improving health–both globally and personally. These databased provide huge, up to date, reliable and authoritative resources, and thus, failure to include resources would mean insufficient evidence to support the practice problem (Hickey & Giardino, 2021)
Overall, deciding which sources of evidence to use for a practice problem depends on various factors. These factors include accessibility of the resource, search, and time available. However, it is important to use reliable sources (Hickey & Giardino, 2021). Such sources are not limited to selected websites and databases, peer-reviewed journal articles, and organizations that publish guidelines.
References
Guzman, J. L., McClanahan, R., & Vaughn, S. (2018). Development of guidelines for pressure ulcer prevention. Wounds International, 9, 4, 34-38.
Hickey, J. V., & Giardino, E. R. (Eds.). (2021). Evaluation of quality in health care for DNPs (3rd ed.). Springer Publishing.
Jones, E. P., Brennan, E. A., & Davis, A. (2020). Evaluation of literature searching and article selection skills of an evidence-based practice team. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 108(3), 487–493.
Neilson, C. J. (2021). Adoption of peer review of literature search strategies in knowledge synthesis from 2009 to 2018: An overview. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 38, 3, 160-171.
Name: NURS_8502_Week5_Discussion_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent
Point range: 90–100
Good
Point range: 80–89
Fair
Point range: 70–79
Poor
Point range: 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.
Points Range: 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.
Points Range: 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.
Points Range: 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.
Points Range: 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
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely.
Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely.
May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely.
May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors.
Points Range: 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
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts main Discussion by due date.
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts main Discussion by due date.
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main Discussion by due date.
Points Range: 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.
Points Range: 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.
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
First Response:
Writing
Points Range: 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.
Points Range: 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.
Points Range: 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.
Points Range: 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
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 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.
Points Range: 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.
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Second Response:
Writing
Points Range: 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.
Points Range: 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.
Points Range: 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.
Points Range: 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
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_8502_Week5_Discussion_Rubric