Just Click on Below Link To Download This Course:
http://bit.ly/2NikHY3
DNP 820 Week 7 Case Report Translational Research GCU
DNP 820 Week 7 Case Report Translational Research and Evidence
Based Practice
Details:
In this assignment, learners are required to write a case
report addressing the personal knowledge and skills gained in the current
course and potentially solving an identified practice problem.
General
Requirements:
Use the following information to ensure successful
completion of the assignment:
- Use at least two additional
scholarly research sources published within the last 5 years. Provide
citations and references for all sources used.
- Doctoral learners are required to
use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is
located in the Student Success Center.
- This assignment uses a rubric.
Please Review the rubric prior to the beginning to become familiar with
the expectations for successful completion.
- You
are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Please refer to the
directions in the Student Success Center.
Directions:
For a specific focus of patient practice (e.g., acute
care hospital, clinic, primary care, long-term care, home health), select a
particular disease process. Chose a topic of concern such as providing elements
of care for a specific disease process or an administrative problem. This topic
must be in need of progression or process improvement. Once identified,
summarize the literature supporting proposed change. Identify an action plan to
introduce change and potential barriers to implementing change. Finally,
describe how you would propose evaluating the change.
Your case report must include the following:
- Introduction with a problem
statement.
- Brief synthesized review.
- Description of the
case/situation/conditions.
- Proposed solutions describing the
validity and reliability of the research you have read.
- Conclusion.
Portfolio
Practice Hours:
Practice immersion assignments are based on your current
course objectives, and are intended to be application-based learning using your
real-world practice setting. These assignments earn practice immersion hours,
and are indicated in the assignment by a Portfolio Practice Hours statement
which reminds you, the learner, to enter in a corresponding case log in Typhon.
Actual clock hours are entered, but the average hours associated with each
practice immersion assignment is 10.
You are required to complete your assignment using
real-world application. Real-world application requires the use of
evidence-based data, contemporary theories, and concepts presented in the
course. The culmination of your assignment must present a viable application in
a current practice setting. For more information on parameters for
practice immersion hours, please refer to DNP resources in the DC Network.
To earn portfolio practice hours, enter the following
after the references section of your paper:
Practice
Hours Completion Statement DNP-820
I,
(INSERT NAME), verify that I have completed (NUMBER OF) clock hours in
association with the goals and objectives for this assignment. I have also
tracked said practice hours in the Typhon Student Tracking System for
verification purposes and will be sure that all approvals are in place from my
faculty and practice mentor.
Case
Report – Translational Research and Evidence-Based Practice
|
|
1
Unsatisfactory 0.00% |
2
Less Than Satisfactory 74.00% |
3
Satisfactory 79.00% |
4
Good 87.00% |
5
Excellent 100.00% |
|
|
70.0 %Content
|
|
|||||
|
15.0 %Identification of Topic of Concern
|
Identification
and description of topic of concern are not present.
|
Identification
and description of topic of concern are present but incomplete.
|
Identification
and description of topic of concern are present but done at a perfunctory
level.
|
Identification
and description of topic of concern are clearly presented and in full.
Discussion is convincing. Information presented is from scholarly though
dated sources.
|
Identification
and description of topic of concern are clearly presented and in full.
Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from
current scholarly sources.
|
|
|
15.0 %Discussion of the progressions or process of
improvement
|
Discussion
of the progressions or process of improvement is not present.
|
Discussion
of the progressions or process of improvement is present but incomplete.
|
Discussion
of the progressions or process of improvement is present but done at a
perfunctory level.
|
Discussion
of the progressions or process of improvement is clearly present. Discussion
is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from
scholarly though dated sources.
|
Discussion
of the progressions or process of improvement is clearly present. Discussion
is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and
forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
|
|
|
5.0 %Introduction and Problem Statement
|
An
introduction with problem statement is not present.
|
An
introduction with problem statement is present but incomplete.
|
An
introduction with problem statement is present but rendered at a perfunctory
level.
|
An
introduction with problem statement is present, clear, and thorough.
Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented
is from scholarly though dated sources.
|
An
introduction with problem statement is clearly present. Discussion is
convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and
forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
|
|
|
5.0 %Brief Literature Review
|
A
brief literature review is not present.
|
A
brief literature review is present but incomplete.
|
A
brief literature review is present but rendered at a perfunctory level.
|
A
brief literature review is clearly present in full. Information presented is
from scholarly though dated sources.
|
A
brief literature review is clearly present in full. Discussion is convincing
and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking.
Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
|
|
|
5.0 %Description of the Case, Situation, or Conditions
|
A
description of the case, situation, or conditions is not present.
|
A
description of the case, situation, or conditions is present but incomplete.
|
A
description of the case, situation, or conditions is present but rendered at
a perfunctory level.
|
A
description of the case, situation, or conditions is convincing and defines
specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated
sources.
|
A
description of the case, situation, or conditions is clearly present.
Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is
insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current
scholarly sources.
|
|
|
5.0 %Detailed Explanation of the Synthesized Literature
Findings
|
A
detailed explanation of the synthesized literature findings is not present.
|
A
detailed explanation of the synthesized literature findings is present but
incomplete.
|
A
detailed explanation of the synthesized literature findings is present but
rendered at a perfunctory level.
|
A
detailed explanation of the synthesized literature findings is convincing and
defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though
dated sources.
|
A
detailed explanation of the synthesized literature findings is clearly
present. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion
is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current
scholarly sources.
|
|
|
5.0 %Case Summary
|
A
case summary is not present.
|
A
case summary is present but incomplete.
|
A
case summary is present but rendered at a perfunctory level.
|
A
case summary is convincing and defines specific elements. Information
presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
|
A
case summary is clearly present. Discussion is convincing and defines
specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information
presented is from current scholarly sources.
|
|
|
10.0 %Proposed Solutions to Remedy Identified
Technology Gaps, Inefficiencies, or Other Issues
|
Proposed
solutions are not presented.
|
Proposed
solutions are presented but are incomplete.
|
Proposed
solutions are presented but are rendered at a perfunctory level.
|
Proposed
solutions are clearly presented and thorough. Discussion is convincing and
defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though
dated sources.
|
Proposed
solutions are clearly presented and thorough. Discussion is insightful,
forward-thinking, and detailed. Information presented is from current scholarly
sources.
|
|
|
5.0 %Conclusion
|
A
conclusion is not presented.
|
A
conclusion is presented but is incomplete.
|
A
conclusion is presented but is rendered at a perfunctory level.
|
A
conclusion is clearly presented and thorough. Discussion is convincing and defines
specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated
sources.
|
A
conclusion is clearly presented and thorough. Discussion is insightful,
forward-thinking, and detailed. Information presented is from current
scholarly sources.
|
|
|
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
|
|
|||||
|
7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose
|
Paper
lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
|
Thesis
is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
|
Thesis
is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
|
Thesis
is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive
and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
|
Thesis
is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement
makes the purpose of the paper clear.
|
|
|
8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction
|
Statement
of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not
support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
|
Sufficient
justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There
are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
|
Argument
is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal
justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the
purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the
thesis.
|
Argument
shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is
a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources
are authoritative.
|
Clear
and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and
compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
|
|
|
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling,
punctuation, grammar, language use)
|
Surface
errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.
Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Writer
is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
|
|
|
10.0 %Format
|
|
|||||
|
5.0 %Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the
major and assignment)
|
Template
is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed
correctly.
|
Appropriate
template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of
control with formatting is apparent.
|
Appropriate
template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be
present.
|
Appropriate
template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
|
All
format elements are correct.
|
|
|
5.0 %Research Citations (In-text citations for
paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as
appropriate to assignment and style)
|
No
reference page is included. No citations are used.
|
Reference
page is present. Citations are inconsistently used.
|
Reference
page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are
appropriately documented, although some errors may be present.
|
Reference
page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is
appropriate and citation style is usually correct.
|
In-text
citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of
cited sources is free of error.
|
|
|
100 %Total Weightage
|
|
|||||

No comments:
Post a Comment