Uncategorized
PICOT QUESTION PAPER AND Benchmark – Capstone Change Project Objectives
Benchmark – Capstone Change Project Objectives
In 250 words review your problem or issue and the cultural assessment. Consider how the findings connect to your topic and intervention for your capstone change project. Write a list of three to five objectives for your proposed intervention. Below each objective, provide a one or two sentence rationale.
After writing your objectives, provide a rationale for how your proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
PICOT Question Paper
Review your problem or issue and the study materials to formulate a PICOT question for your capstone project change proposal. A PICOT question starts with a designated patient population in a particular clinical area and identifies clinical problems or issues that arise from clinical care. The intervention used to address the problem must be a nursing practice intervention. Include a comparison of the nursing intervention to a patient population not currently receiving the nursing intervention, and specify the timeframe needed to implement the change process. Formulate a PICOT question using the PICOT format (provided in the assigned readings) that addresses the clinical nursing problem.
The PICOT question will provide a framework for your capstone project change proposal.
In a paper of 500-750 words, clearly identify the clinical problem and how it can result in a positive patient outcome.
Describe the problem in the PICOT question as it relates to the following:
1. Evidence-based solution
2. Nursing intervention
3. Patient care
4. Health care agency
5. Nursing practice
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide.
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.
Rubic_Print_Format
| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points | ||||||
| NRS-493 | NRS-493-OL191 | PICOT Question | 50.0 | ||||||
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less Than Satisfactory (75.00%) | Satisfactory (79.00%) | Good (89.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned | |
| Content | 80.0% | ||||||||
| 20.0% | A PICOT question is not presented. | An incomplete PICOT question is presented. The PICOT does not follow the correct format. | A PICOT question is presented. The PICOT generally follows the correct format. | A PICOT question is presented. Some detail is needed for clarity. | A PICOT question is presented and provides a clear framework for the capstone project change proposal. | ||||
| Nursing Intervention | The intervention and comparison are omitted | The intervention used to address the problem is not based on a nursing practice intervention. A comparison of the nursing intervention to a patient population not currently receiving the nursing intervention, and timeframe needed to implement the change process, are omitted. | A nursing intervention used to address the problem is presented. A comparison of the nursing intervention to a patient population not currently receiving the nursing intervention, and timeframe needed to implement the change process, are summarized. Some information is needed. There are minor inaccuracies. | A nursing intervention used to address the problem is presented. A comparison of the nursing intervention to a patient population not currently receiving the nursing intervention, and timeframe needed to implement the change process, are discussed. | A nursing intervention used to address the problem is clearly presented. A comparison of the nursing intervention to a patient population not currently receiving the nursing intervention, and timeframe needed to implement the change process, are thoroughly discussed. | ||||
| Clinical Problem and Patient Outcome | The clinical problem and how it can result in a positive patient outcome are omitted. | The clinical problem and how it can result in a positive patient outcome are incomplete. | The clinical problem and how it can result in a positive patient outcome are summarized. More information and rationale are needed. | The clinical problem and how it can result in a positive patient outcome are presented. Some minor detail is needed for clarity. | The clinical problem and how it can result in a positive patient outcome are thoroughly discussed. Strong rationale is offered for support. | ||||
| PICOT Problem | The PICOT problem as it relates to evidence-based solution, nursing intervention, patent care, health care agency, and nursing practice is omitted. | The PICOT problem as it relates to evidence-based solution, nursing intervention, patent care, health care agency, and nursing practice is incomplete. | The PICOT problem as it relates to evidence-based solution, nursing intervention, patent care, health care agency, and nursing practice is summarized. More information and rationale are needed. | The PICOT problem as it relates to evidence-based solution, nursing intervention, patent care, health care agency, and nursing practice is described. Some minor detail is needed for clarity. | |||||
| Organization, Effectiveness, and Format | |||||||||
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 5.0% | 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. | |||
| 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 progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. | ||||
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. | ||||
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | 2.0% | Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. | Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent. | Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. | Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style. | All format elements are correct. | |||
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 3.0% | Sources are not documented. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. | |||
| Total Weightage | 100% |
Rubic_Print_
Format
| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points | |||||||
| NRS-493 | NRS-493-OL191 | Benchmark – Capstone Change Project | Objectives | 5.0 | ||||||
| Criteria | Percentage | 1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | 2: Less Than Satisfactory (75.00%) | 3: Satisfactory (79.00%) | 4: Good (89.00%) | 5: Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned | ||
| Content | 80.0% | |||||||||
| 2 | 5.0% | A list of objectives for the proposed intervention is omitted. Fewer than three objectives are presented. | NA | Three to five objectives are presented. | ||||||
| Rationale for How Findings Relate to the Topic and Proposed Intervention | 30.0% | Rationale for each objective is omitted. | Rationale is incomplete. There are omissions. Rationale provided does not explain the relationship of findings to the topic and proposed intervention. | General rationale is provided for each objective and generally summarizes the relationship of most findings to the topic and proposed intervention. There are some inaccuracies or minor omissions. | Rationale is provided for each objective and explains the relationship of findings to the topic and proposed intervention. Some detail is needed for clarity. | Rationale is clearly provided for each objective and thoroughly explains the relationship of the findings to the topic and proposed intervention. | ||||
| Rationale for How Proposed Project and Objectives Advocate for Autonomy and Social Justice for Individuals and Diverse Populations (C1.5) | Rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is omitted. | Incomplete rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is presented. Advocacy is not established. | Rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is summarized. Some advocacy is established. | Rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is presented. Advocacy is generally established. | Well-supported rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is presented. Advocacy for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is clearly established. | |||||
| Organization and Effectiveness | 15.0% | |||||||||
| 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. | |||||
| 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. | |||||
| Criteria 3Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. | |||||
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | 2.0% | Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. | Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent. | Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. | Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style. | All format elements are correct. | ||||
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 3.0% | Sources are not documented. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. | ||||
| Total Weightage | 100% |