Prepare this assignment as a 1,500-1,750 word paper using the instructor feedback from the previous course assignments and the guidelines below.

PICOT Question 

Revise the PICOT question you wrote in the Topic 1 assignment using the feedback you received from your instructor.

The final PICOT question will provide a framework for your capstone project (the project students must complete during their final course in the RN-BSN program of study).

Research Critiques

In the Topic 2 and Topic 3 assignments, you completed a qualitative and quantitative research critique on two articles for each type of study (4 articles total). Use the feedback you received from your instructor on these assignments to finalize the critical analysis of each study by making appropriate revisions.

The completed analysis should connect to your identified practice problem of interest that is the basis for your PICOT question.

Refer to “Research Critiques and PICOT Guidelines – Final Draft.” Questions under each heading should be addressed as a narrative in the structure of a formal paper.

Proposed Evidence-Based Practice Change

Discuss the link between the PICOT question, the research articles, and the nursing practice problem you identified. Include relevant details and supporting explanation and use that information to propose evidence-based practice changes.

General Requirements

Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

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 required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance

Rubic_Print_Format

Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points
NRS-433V NRS-433V-O503 Research Critiques and PICOT Statement Final Draft 260.0
Criteria Percentage 1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%) 2: Less Than Satisfactory (75.00%) 3: Satisfactory (83.00%) 4: Good (94.00%) 5: Excellent (100.00%) Comments Points Earned
Content 60.0%
Evidence of Revision 10.0% Final paper does not demonstrate incorporation of feedback or evidence of revision on research critiques. Incorporation of research critique feedback or evidence of revision is incomplete. Incorporation of research critique feedback and evidence of revision are present. Evidence of incorporation of research critique feedback and revision is clearly provided. Evidence of incorporation of research critique feedback and revision is comprehensive and thoroughly developed.
Nursing Practice Problem and PICOT Question 5.0% A nursing practice problem is not clearly described or a PICOT question is not included. PICOT question describes a nursing practice problem but lacks reliable sources. PICOT question describes a nursing practice problem and includes a few reliable sources. PICOT question articulates a nursing practice problem using supporting information from reliable sources. PICOT question clearly articulates a nursing practice problem using substantial supporting information from numerous reliable sources.
Background of Studies 5.0% Background of studies, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is incomplete. Background of studies, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is included but lacks relevant details and explanation. Background of studies, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is partially complete and includes some relevant details and explanation. Background of studies, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is complete and includes relevant details and explanation. Background of studies, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is thorough with substantial relevant details and extensive explanation.
Method of Studies 5.0% Discussion of method of studies, including discussion of conceptual/theoretical framework, is incomplete. Discussion of method of studies, including discussion of conceptual/theoretical framework, is inclu

Rubic_Print_Format

Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points
NRS-433V NRS-433V-O503 Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations 190.0
Criteria Percentage 1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%) 2: Less Than Satisfactory (75.00%) 3: Satisfactory (83.00%) 4: Good (94.00%) : Excellent (100.00%) Comments Points Earned
Content 75.0%
Quantitative Studies 5.0% Only one article is presented. Neither of the articles presented use quantitative research. Two articles are presented. Of the articles presented, only one article is based on quantitative research. N/A N/A Two articles are presented. Both articles are based on quantitative research. 9.50/9.50
Background of Study 10.0% Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is incomplete. Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is included but lacks relevant details and explanation. Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is partially complete and includes some relevant details and explanation. Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is complete and includes relevant details and explanation. Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is thorough with substantial relevant details and extensive explanation. 19.00/19.00
Article Support of Nursing Practice 15.0% Discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is incomplete. A summary of how articles support the PICOT question is presented. It is unclear how the articles can be used to answer the proposed PICOT question. Significant information and detail is required. A general discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is presented. The articles demonstrate general support in answering the proposed PICOT question. It is unclear how the interventions and comparison groups in the articles compare to those identified in the PICOT question. Some rational or information is needed. A discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is presented. The articles demonstrate support in answering the proposed PICOT question. The interventions and comparison groups in the articles compare to those identified in the PICOT question. Minor detail or rational is needed for clarity or support.

Rubic_Print_Format

<

6

Essay

Ivis Perez Delgado

Grand Canyon University

NRS-433 V

11/23/2020

The safety of the patients is the major concern of healthcare providers. Patients have to be protected from the potential harm that might occur during the provision of healthcare services. Patient safety forms an important aspect of quality healthcare delivery to the patients. However, the aspect of patients’ safety is affected by the increasing cases of preventable medication errors. The effective way of handling medication errors requires a successful process of reporting these medications so that effective strategies can be designed to help in dealing with these healthcare challenges.

Poor reporting practices by the healthcare providers are interfering with the efforts being made towards addressing the issues of medication errors. Lack of reporting in the healthcare facilities is associated with fear of victimization, administrative barriers, and lack of support from the organization management. This discussion is therefore focused on offering critique to two qualitative studies. The discussion is guided by the PICOT question: Does effective reporting system helps in the reduction of medication errors in the medical-surgical units as compared to non during the admission of the patients?

Article I: Alqubasi, M., Tonna, A., Strath, A., & Stewart, D. (2016). Exploring behavioral determinants relating to health professional reporting of medication errors: a qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework. European journal of clinical pharmacology, 72 (7), 887-895. DOI: 10.1007/s00228-016-2054-9

Article II:

Ghezeljeh, T. N., Farahani, A. A., & Ladani, F. K. (2020). Factors affecting nursing error communication in intensive care units: A qualitative study. Nursing Ethics, 24(5). doi:org/10.1177/0969733020952100

Background of the Study

Article I

The purpose of the study was to classify the factors that are related to reporting of the nursing errors by observation of the clinical nurse and the nurse managers’ experiences. The research question was aimed at understanding some of the barriers that prevent nurses from providing a report on medication errors. The medication errors are affecting the safety of the patients and therefore, there is a need to have effective measures in place to assists in the reduction of these errors. The study is important in the nursing practice since it informs about the importance of early identification of the barriers to the provision of the reports on the medication errors thus assisting in the improvement of patient safety.

Article II

The study is aimed at exploring the factors that are affecting the communication of the error in the intensive care units. According to this study, comm

Running head: RESEARCH CRITIQUE GUIDELINE PART 2 1

RESEARCH CRITIQUE GUIDELINE PART 2 5

Research Critique Guideline Part 2

Ivis Perez Delgado

Grand Canyon University

Research Critique Guideline Part 2

Quantitative Articles

Article 1: Jansen, K. U., & Anderson, A. S. (2018). The role of vaccines in fighting antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 14(9), 2142–2149. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6183139/

Article 2: Lee, C.-R., Cho, I. H., Jeong, B. C., & Lee, S. H. (2013). Strategies to minimize antibiotic resistance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(9), 4274–4305. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3799537/

The article on“ The role of vaccines in fighting antimicrobial resistance (AMR)” by Jansen & Anderson (2018) majorly focuses on conducting an examination of the role of vaccines when it comes to fighting Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) issue. The authors of the article tend to utilize a descriptive tool to review the historical utilization of different approaches which has been employed in the management of AMR. The research study tends to conclude that different forms of vaccines such as viral vaccines may not be utilized to fight AMR. On the other end, the article “ Strategies to minimize antibiotic resistance” by Lee et al. (2013) tends to focus on developing a relationship between Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs include pharmacodynamics as well as pharmacokinetic as well as AMR. Both of the articles tend to focus on identifying the various aspects which contribute to causing AMR as well as the various programs which have been established to limit as well as curb the AMR.

The article by Jansen & Anderson (2018) also confirms that AMR is linked to a significant rate of mortality as well as morbidity. Thus, the need for offering a clinical solution to the AMR related issues is essential. The article by Lee at al. (2013) also tends to focus on how the AMR related issues contribute in limiting the effectiveness of antibiotic hence impact the health of the public. In regards to the research hypothesis, the study conducted by Jansen & Anderson (2018) tends to answer the research question on how vaccines tend to contribute to curbing the AMR battle. On the other hand, Lee et al.’s (2013) study tends to answer a research question on how antimicrobial Stewardships Programs contribute to combating AMR.

The article by Jansen & Anderson (2018) tends to answer the PICOT question by trying to offer solutions related to chronic issues that are influenced by AMR. Authors of the study tend to determine that different vaccines such as viral vaccines may be utilized to reduce the AM

Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points
NRS-433V NRS-433V-O503 Rough Draft Qualitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations 190.0
Criteria Percentage 1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%) 2: Less Than Satisfactory (75.00%) 3: Satisfactory (83.00%) 4: Good (94.00%) 5: Excellent (100.00%) Comments Points Earned
Content 75.0%
Qualitative Studies 5.0% Only one article is presented. Neither of the articles presented use qualitative research. Two articles are presented. Of the articles presented, only one article is based on qualitative research. N/A N/A Two articles are presented. Both articles are based on qualitative research. 9.50/9.50
Background of Study 10.0% Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is incomplete. Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is included but lacks relevant details and explanation. Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is partially complete and includes some relevant details and explanation. Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is complete and includes relevant details and explanation. Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is thorough with substantial relevant details and extensive explanation. 19.00/19.00
Article Support of Nursing Practice Issue 15.0% Discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is incomplete. A summary of how articles support the PICOT question is presented. It is unclear how the articles can be used to answer the proposed PICOT question. Significant information and detail are required. A general discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is presented. The articles demonstrate general support in answering the proposed PICOT question. It is unclear how the interventions and comparison groups in the articles compare to those identified in the PICOT question. Some rational or information is needed. A discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is presented. The articles demonstrate support in answering the proposed PICOT question. The interventions and comparison groups in the articles compare to those identified in the PICOT question. Minor detail or rational is needed for clarity or support.