Hypothermia Stragedies in the Perioperative Patient Order Description Introduction- Topic is introduced, describes why it is important to nursing; PICO question is stated. Full background is presented to describe the topic and citations are used to support. Method for literature review-• Part two should describe the methodology of your literature review process; databases searched, key words and terms used, how you narrowed your search, etc. Findings and evidence appraisals- At least one paragraph for each of your sources discussing how relevant to your topic; the strength of the evidence and the quality of it. Conclusions and recommendations- a summation: based on the evidence reviewed and appraised- what should be done? Is a practice change warranted? If so, at what level- organization-wide? Departmental? Specialty-wide? All of nursing? etc. APA-Scholarly Writing is evident including, but not limited to correct grammar, spelling, sentence structure, APA format including title page, running head, pagination, separate abstract page; separate reference page, proper in-text citation and reference citations, formal writing style
15 September, 2015
Clinical practice improvement paper (Shared decision making) Order Description Assignment 2 This assignment builds on the work already undertaken for previous Assignment 1 (Investigation of a clinical governance and clinical practice improvement issue; Shared decision making). I have uploaded that assignment 1 paper. please read it prior to starting on this. You will be extra provided with: • resources relating to commonly used CPI(Clinical Practice improvement) tools • a CPI template that you must type your CPI paper into. You will be required to construct a CPI report using the supplied CPI template. In order to pass this assignment, you must successfully address each of the criteria outlined on the marking rubric ASSIGNMENT 2 Clinical Practice Improvement Project Report Project Title: Project Aim: Relevance of Clinical Governance to your project Evidence that the issue / problem is worth solving: Key Stakeholders: CPI Tool: Summary of proposed interventions: Barriers to implementation and sustaining change: Evaluation of the project: NURS2006 Assignment 3 - CPI paper Marking Rubric PERFORMANCE STANDARD CATEGORY & WEIGHTING Excellent Work Good Work Passing Work Unsatisfactory work Project Aim and Evidence the issue is worth solving 20% Aim succinct & clearly defined. All evidence relevant & rigorous. Shows a very high level of insight & relevance to the issue. (17-20) ? Aim well defined. Some irrelevant information but most evidence relevant & rigorous. Shows a very good level of insight & relevance to the issue. (13-16.5) ? Aim stated with some ambiguity. Some evidence relevant and rigorous, Acceptable level of insight. Quite a lot of irrelevant information is present. May be overlong/ too brief (10-12.5) ? Aim not clearly stated Most evidence is not relevant or rigorous. Poor level of insight & relevance to the issue. Significant amount of irrelevant/ missing information. (0–9.5) ? Relevance of Clinical Governance to your project 10% Succinct and highly relevant discussion of the relevant pillar of clinical governance related to the chosen clinical issue. (9-10) ? Succinct and mostly relevant discussion of the relevant pillar of clinical governance related to the chosen clinical issue. (7-8.5) ? Adequate discussion of the relevant pillar of clinical governance related to the chosen clinical issue. Some parts not relevant Overlong / too brief, may be missing relevant information. (5-6.5) ? Inadequate discussion of the relevant pillar of clinical governance related to the chosen clinical issue. Overlong / too brief, may be missing a significant amount of relevant information (0-4.5) ? Key Stakeholders 5% Identifies most relevant key stakeholders. Discusses clearly how they could be involved in the project. Succinctly and expertly written. Very high level of insight into the role of stakeholders. (4.5 - 5) ? Identifies some relevant key stakeholders and adequately discusses how they could be involved in the project. Very well written. Good level of insight into the role of stakeholders. (3.5-4.25) ? Identifies a few relevant key stakeholders. Mentions briefly how they could be involved. Quite well written but contains some irrelevant information, or minor information is missing. Adequate level of insight into the stakeholder role. (2.5 – 3.25- ) ? Contains irrelevant information, or major information is missing. Inappropriate or no key stakeholders are identified Poor insight into the stakeholder role. (0-2) ? Clinical Practice Improvement Tool 20% Describes a relevant CPI tool Very clearly discusses how it could be used to address the aim and implement the interventions. Succinctly and expertly written with no omissions of relevant information. (17-20) ? Describes a relevant CPI tool Discusses quite clearly how the tool could be used to address the aim and implement the interventions. Well written but may contain some irrelevant information, or some minor information is missing (13-16.5) ? Describes a relevant CPI tool and adequately discusses how the tool could be used to address the aim and implement the interventions. Not succinct, contains irrelevant information, significant information is missing (10-12.5) ? A relevant CPI tool is not identified. There is no adequate discussion of how the tool could be used to meet the aim or implement the interventions. Contains irrelevant information or some major information is missing. (0–9.5) ? Summary of proposed interventions 20% All relevant interventions are discussed very well. Project outline is very clear and the relevance to clinical practice is very high. (17-20) ? Most relevant interventions discussed quite well. Project outline is clear & relevance to clinical practice is good. Contains some irrelevant information, minor information may be missing. (13-16.5) ? Acceptable level of relevant interventions discussed. Project outline mostly clear, although it may be unclear how the project would actually be implemented in clinical practice due to irrelevant/missing info (10-12.5) ? Some elements missing or incomplete. May contain large amounts of irrelevant information. Project poorly described and it is unclear what the project actually entails or its relevance to clinical practice. (0–9.5) ? Barriers to Implementation 15% Identifies most potential barriers to implementation & clinical change. Discusses in depth how these barriers could be overcome or minimised. (13-15) ? Identifies some potential barriers to implementation & clinical change. Discusses how these barriers could be overcome or minimised. (10-12.5) ? Identifies a few potential barriers to implementation & clinical change. Discusses how barriers could be overcome or minimised. Minor omissions and/or some irrelevant information present (7.5-9.5) ? Relevant barriers not identified. Poor or no discussion about how they could be overcome or minimised. Major omissions, much of the information provided is irrelevant / unrelated to the CPI goal. (0-7) ? Evaluation of the project 10% Succinct discussion of an excellent and achievable plan for how the intervention/s could be evaluated. (9-10) ? Succinct discussion of a very good and mostly achievable plan for how the intervention/s could be evaluated. (7-8.5) ? Discussion of an adequate plan for how the intervention/s could be evaluated. Some parts not relevant or achievable Overlong / too brief, may be missing relevant information. (5-6.5) ? Plan absent or not well described. Most or all of the plan is not relevant or achievable Overlong / too brief, may be missing a significant amount of relevant information (0-4.5) ? Name of Marker Grade Overall Comments
14 September, 2015
Rhetorical Analysis Planning Sheet Order Description You will submit a Rhetorical Analysis Planning Sheet this week to the Dropbox for your professor to grade. The purpose of this assignment is to begin collecting information and putting it in writing as you prepare for the 3- to 4-page final Rhetorical Analysis you will submit in Week 4. First, read this week's lecture in the 2nd edition of Writing Todayand begin Chapter 8 in your text. Then go to the search engine of your choice and search for a print advertisement to use as the subject of your Rhetorical Analysis. You will need to provide a URL for your chosen ad, so be sure it is available online. Your chosen ad can be current or vintage. If you would like to analyze an ad from a different time period, type the phrase "vintage ads" into your browser. Choose an ad that you can analyze based on its rhetorical appeals (reasoning, character, and emotion), and be sure the ad you choose is intriguing to you. Please make sure that your chosen ad is appropriate for classroom use and the workplace. I have attached a template for this task. Locate the file “Week 3 Rhetorical Analysis Planning Sheet template” in Doc Sharing. Use this template and follow the format provided to create your planning sheet this week. You’ll need to identify and describe the ad, draft a thesis, identify the use of rhetorical appeals, and draft a conclusion. At the end of your extended draft outline, copy and paste the URL or website address for your ad (it will begin with https://) so that your readers can also view the ad. Successful assignments will: identify an advertisement, current or vintage, that’s appropriate for a college-level audience; include a draft of the introduction and conclusion (minimum of one paragraph each); include a tentative thesis statement at the end of the introduction; include details to establish the visual description and context of the ad; identify the various ways rhetorical appeals are used; and be typed and submitted as a Microsoft Word 2010 document (.docx) using 12-point font.
14 September, 2015
