Walden University – NURS 8114 Translation of Evidence and Application

Walden University – NURS 8114 Translation of Evidence and Application

Walden University – NURS 8114 Translation of Evidence and Application Essay

Based on your work in previous modules, you will wrap up the course with a Discussion on challenges in translating and applying evidence to implement a quality improvement initiative. Draw on your experience in your current or previous health care settings to consider specific barriers to address and opportunities to leverage in advocating for evidence-based practice quality improvement.

Read Also: DQ: Who would have the final say in terms of ethical decision-making and intervention in the event of a difficult situation?

To prepare Walden University – NURS 8114 Translation of Evidence and Application Paper:

• Review the readings in the White, Dudley-Brown, and Terhaar text. With your current health care organization, or an organization you are targeting for your DNP Project, in mind, consider the area(s) of greatest challenge with regard to translating and applying evidence for a practice change initiative, e.g., leadership, technology, collaboration, stakeholder buy-in. Focus on the relevant text chapter(s) in your Discussion preparation.
• Consider theories and best practice recommendations for addressing your identified challenges and barriers to translating and applying evidence that would support practice change initiatives.
• Reflect on the philosophy of nursing practice that you developed in Modules 1–2. Consider your role as a DNP in creating an organizational culture that embraces evidence-based practice and quality improvement.

With these thoughts in mind …

By Day 3 of Week 11

Post an explanation of the challenges and barriers to translating and applying evidence for practice change in your target health care organization. Briefly explain your issue(s) of concern and describe specific approaches for addressing these challenges. Explain how you view your role as a DNP in creating a health care culture that promotes translation of evidence for quality improvement and explain why. Then, recommend actions and activities you could model and lead, including through an EBP QI project, to advocate for quality improvement and social change in nursing. Be specific and provide examples.

Read a selection of your colleagues’ posts.

Respond to at least two colleagues on 2 different days by suggesting other theories, strategies, ideas, and/or best practices for addressing the challenges and barriers they identify. Also agree or disagree with their view of the DNP’s role in creating a culture that enables translation of evidence and support your reasoning, including with other actions that promote a culture that embraces translation of evidence. Cite sources to support your posts and to recommend to colleagues.

Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!

Walden University – NURS 8114 Translation of Evidence and Application Submission and Grading Information

Top nursing paper writers on hand to assist you with assignment : NURS 8114 Translation of Evidence and Application

Get a Custom Nursing Paper

Post by Day 3 of Week 11 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 11

To Participate in this Discussion:

Week 11 Discussion

What’s Coming Up?

Congratulations! After you have finished all of the assignments for this week, you have completed the course. Please submit your Course Evaluation by Day 7.

Week 11: Translation and Application of Evidence

Imagine approaching this genial group of professionals to discuss a practice change initiative in their health care setting. How do you anticipate they would respond? How many would quickly lose the smile? How many would be interested but uncertain? How many eager to get started?

Translating evidence into action for quality improvement can be a particular hurdle, depending on the people and problems involved. However, as a DNP promoting evidence-based practice to improve patient care and outcomes, it is part of the process to anticipate the barriers and be willing to address them. Consider your own experience with change-makers in health care or other areas of importance to you. Advocacy is not always appreciated or welcomed, which is why it is so necessary to be prepared for pushback and be armed with strong evidence.

In this final week, think ahead to the realities of promoting practice change and the DNP role in creating an organizational culture that embraces translation and application of evidence for quality improvement.

Learning Objectives

Students will:

• Analyze challenges and barriers to the translation of evidence in health care organizations
• Recommend approaches to increasing translation and application of evidence for quality improvement in health care organizations
• Justify the DNP role in creating an organizational culture that enables translation and application of evidence for quality improvement
• Recommend advocacy and social change efforts for nursing practice through evidence-based practice quality improvement projects

Walden University – NURS 8114 Translation of Evidence and Application Learning Resources

White, K. M., Dudley-Brown, S., & Terhaar, M. F. (Eds.). (2019). Translation of evidence into nursing and healthcare (3rd ed.). Springer.

• Chapter 15, “Interprofessional Collaboration and Teamwork for Translation” (pp. 299–314)
• Chapter 16, “Creating a Culture That Promotes Translation” (pp. 315–334)
• Chapter 17, “Best Practices in Translation: Challenges and Barriers in Translation” (pp. 337–346)

Note: Read one or more of the following chapters based on the focus of your Discussion post:

• Chapter 5, “Translation of Evidence for Improving Quality and Safety” (pp. 103–123) (Review from Week 10)
• Chapter 6, “Translation of Evidence for Leadership” (pp. 125–147)
• Chapter 14, “Information Technology: A Foundation for Translation” (pp. 287–298)

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: Walden University – NURS 8114 Translation of Evidence and Application Rubric Grading Criteria

		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%) 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%) 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%) 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%) 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