Write an outline of the thesis is “Police brutality against minorities leads to a lack of trust in the police and harmful physiological effects for African Americans”

Write an outline of the thesis is “Police brutality against minorities leads to a lack of trust in the police and harmful physiological effects for African Americans” Your essay presents a clear argument and develops it through the synthesis of sources and the writers’ own informed opinion. You adequately incorporates sources into your writing. The organization of your essay is logical, coherent, and purposeful, building into a clear argument. The word choice and style are appropriate for an academic essay (avoiding “we” and “you” and unnecessary use of “I”).

Describe the method you used to prioritize the prospective projects.

In the PMC Corporation Case Study, the South Latin America (SLA) region has identified several goals, and the sales group has identified candidate projects that will meet some or all of these goals. Each of the projects has the potential to contribute to the goals, but they each present potential problems and risks. Your job is to evaluate and prioritize the candidate projects and make a recommendation about which projects should be chosen. For This Assignment read Parts 1 and 2 of the PMC Corporation Case Study. Review the data on prospective projects in the PMC SLA Prospective Project Register. Evaluate each of the prospective projects in the PMC SLA Prospective Project Register. Prioritize the prospective projects from the greatest to the lowest contribution potential for meeting strategic goals based on your evaluation. Record your evaluation results and priorities in the PMC SLA Prospective Project Evaluation Form. Prepare a ] paper that addresses these items: Describe the method you used to evaluate the prospective projects. Describe the method you used to prioritize the prospective projects. Recommend the top 10 projects that should be pursued, supporting your recommendation with data from the evaluation and prioritization process. Embed the completed PMC SLA Prospective Project Evaluation Form in your paper.

Explain how you would apply the phase-gates process to evaluate and select the projects.

Evaluating and selecting projects for a portfolio is a crucial step in project portfolio management. It is at this point that an organization is making the all-important decisions about which projects will be funded and executed and which ones wont. While managing the mix of projects in the portfolio is an on-going process and the components of the portfolio will likely change as business conditions change, choosing the wrong projects now will waste time, money, and resources. Using a structured, systematic approach with well-defined evaluation and selection criteria will help organizations make the best decisions. Kodukula (2014) describes two conceptual models for evaluating and selecting projects: funnel and filters and the phase-gates approach. The funnel represents the project candidates, projects, and products created by projects. Filters are the decision checkpoints for go/no go decisions related to the fate of project candidates and projects (Kodukula, 2014). Phase-gates are aligned with the phases of a project where go/no go decisions are made at some designated point between project phases. Both models require that the organization define the specific criteria against which the projects will be measured. For this Discussion, think about the organization you work for, one with which you are familiar, or one that is fictitious. Define one major strategic goal of the organization. Define at least two projects that would be candidates for inclusion in a project portfolio. Briefly describe the organizational goal and the candidate projects. Explain how you would apply the funnel and filter process to evaluate and select the projects. Explain how you would apply the phase-gates process to evaluate and select the projects. What specific criteria would you use to make the go/no go decision for each approach? Are they the same? Are they different? Explain. Which method would you recommend? Why? References Kodukula, P. (2014). Organizational project portfolio management: a practitioners guide. Plantation, FL: J. Ross Publishing. Chapter 4, Portfolio Model: Funnel and Filters The chapter introduces two conceptual models for managing candidate projects through the project portfolio system. Chapter 8, Design Portfolio This chapter provides a framework for the design of a project portfolio. The author suggests that the portfolio should be designed to meet the organizations requirements for the types and mix of projects desired. It should also indicate how the portfolio should be constructed and managed. Chapter 11, Project Evaluation This chapter presents multiple quantitative and qualitative methods for evaluating projects for inclusion in the portfolio based on the criteria established in the portfolio definition. Chapter 12, Project Prioritization This chapter provides a framework and the tools that can be used to rank projects for the purposes of resource allocation.

Write a summary paper on the health benefits of Vaping.

Title: Health Effects of Vaping: What Do We Really Know? Are they safer than conventional cigarette smoking? You are required to conduct a comprehensive literature that examines the health effects of vaping.State the need for this type of study or review? Why is it necessary? 2. The Review You must examine 15 peer-reviewed articles,10 of which much be empirical rather theoretical/non-empirical studies. When reviewing the empirical research studies, you must pay close attention to study sample, sample size, methods, analysis and results. 3. Summarize and Conclusion Summarize your findings and draw a conclusion. Note: a) Your work should be at level in terms of organization and clarity of expression; it must be devoid of grammatical error and plagiarism.

Explain how you would disseminate the results of your project to an audience.

Module 6: Changing the World Through Evidence-Based Practice (Weeks 10-11) ASSIGNMENT
PLEASE DONT FORGET AN PURPOSE STATEMENT AND CONCLUSION. THANKS
Learning Resources
Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

ASSIGNMENT
Assignment: Evidence-Based Capstone Project, Part 6: Disseminating Results
The dissemination of EBP results serves multiple important roles. Sharing results makes the case for your decisions. It also adds to the body of knowledge, which creates opportunities for future practitioners. By presenting results, you also become an advocate for EBP, creating a culture within your organization or beyond that informs, educates, and promotes the effective use of EBP.

To Prepare:

Review the final PowerPoint presentation you submitted in Module 5, and make any necessary changes based on the feedback you have received and on lessons you have learned throughout the course.
Consider the best method of disseminating the results of your presentation to an audience.
To Complete:

Create a 5-minute, 5- to 6-slide narrated PowerPoint presentation of your Evidence-Based Project———————.

Be sure to incorporate any feedback or changes from your presentation submission in Module 5.
Explain how you would disseminate the results of your project to an audience. Provide a rationale for why you selected this dissemination strategy.

Rubric Detail

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

Name: NURS_6052_Module06_Week11_Assignment_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Part 6: Disseminating Results

Create a 5-minute, 5- to 6-slide narrated PowerPoint presentation of your Evidence-Based Project:

· Be sure to incorporate any feedback or changes from your presentation submission in Module 5.
· Explain how you would disseminate the results of your project to an audience. Provide a rationale for why you selected this dissemination strategy.
81 (81%) – 90 (90%)
The narrated presentation accurately and completely summarizes the evidence-based project. The narrated presentation is professional in nature and thoroughly addresses all components of the evidence-based project.

The narrated presentation accurately and clearly explains in detail how to disseminate the results of the project to an audience, citing specific and relevant examples.

The narrated presentation accurately and clearly provides a justification that details the selection of this dissemination strategy that is fully supported by specific and relevant examples.

The narrated presentation provides a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources related to the dissemination strategy explained. The narrated presentation fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the presentation.
72 (72%) – 80 (80%)
The narrated presentation adequately summarizes the evidence-based project. The narrated presentation is professional in nature and adequately addresses the components of the evidence-based project.

The narrated presentation accurately explains how to disseminate the results of the project to an audience; some specific examples may be provided.

The narrated presentation accurately provides a justification for the selection of this dissemination strategy and may be supported by specific examples.

The narrated presentation provides an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource related to the dissemination strategy explained. The narrated presentation integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the presentation.
63 (63%) – 71 (71%)
The narrated presentation vaguely, inaccurately, or incompletely summarizes the evidence-based project. The narrated presentation may be professional in nature and somewhat addresses the components of the evidence-based project.

The narrated presentation inaccurately or vaguely explains how to disseminate the results of the project to an audience; inaccurate or vague examples may be provided.

The narrated presentation inaccurately or vaguely provides a justification for the selection of this dissemination strategy and may be supported by inaccurate or vague examples.

The narrated presentation provides a vague or inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed related to the dissemination strategy explained. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the presentation.
0 (0%) – 62 (62%)
The narrated presentation vaguely and inaccurately summarizes the evidence-based project or is missing. The narrated presentation is not professional in nature and inaccurately and incompletely addresses the components of the evidence-based project or is missing.

The narrated presentation vaguely and inaccurately explains how to disseminate the results of the project to an audience, no examples are provided, or it is missing.

The narrated presentation vaguely and inaccurately provides a justification for the selection of this dissemination strategy, no examples are provided, or it is missing.

The narrated presentation provides a vague and inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed related to the dissemination strategy explained or is missing. The presentation fails to integrate any resources to support the presentation.
Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization:

Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated yet is brief and not descriptive.
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time.

No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.
Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards:

Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6052_Module06_Week11_Assignment_Rubric

Thanks, Nikki, im not sure how many power points i should order because i have to wait for fed back on modue 5 so i will go ahead and order 4 slides, if i need more , i will upgrade. Thanks.

By Day 5 of Week 11
Submit Part 6, your revised PowerPoint presentation of your Evidence-Based Project.

Submission and Grading Information
To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK11Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
Click the Week 11 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
Click the Week 11 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.

Required Readings
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.

Chapter 10, “The Role of Outcomes on Evidence-based Quality Improvement and enhancing and Evaluating Practice Changes” (pp. 293–312)
Chapter 12, “Leadership Strategies for Creating and Sustaining Evidence-based Practice Organizations” (pp. 328–343)
Chapter 14, “Models to Guide Implementation and Sustainability of Evidence-based Practice” (pp. 378–427)
Gallagher-Ford, L., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Stillwell, S. B. (2011). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Implementing an evidence-based practice change. American Journal of Nursing, 111(3), 54–60. doi:10.1097/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000395243.14347.7e. Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/ajnonline/Fulltext/2011/03000/Evidence_Based_Practice,_Step_by_Step_.31.aspx

Newhouse, R. P., Dearholt, S., Poe, S., Pugh, L. C., & White, K. M. (2007). Organizational change strategies for evidence-based practice. Journal of Nursing Administration, 37(12), 552–557. doi:0.1097/01.NNA.0000302384.91366.8f

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M. (2012). Achieving a high-reliability organization through implementation of the ARCC model for systemwide sustainability of evidence-based practice. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 127–135. doi:10.1097/NAQ.0b013e318249fb6a

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Gallagher-Ford, L., & Stillwell, S. B. (2011). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Sustaining evidence-based practice through organizational policies and an innovative model. American Journal of Nursing, 111(9), 57–60. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000405063.97774.0e

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Giggleman, M., & Choy, K. (2017). A test of the ARCC© model improves implementation of evidence-based practice, healthcare culture, and patient outcomes. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 14(1), 5–9. doi:10.1111/wvn.12188

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Gallagher-Ford, L., & Stillwell, S. B. (2011). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Sustaining evidence-based practice through organizational policies and an innovative model. American Journal of Nursing, 111(9), 57–60. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000405063.97774.0e

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Explain how you would disseminate the results of your project to an audience.

Module 6: Changing the World Through Evidence-Based Practice (Weeks 10-11) ASSIGNMENT
PLEASE DONT FORGET AN PURPOSE STATEMENT AND CONCLUSION. THANKS
Learning Resources
Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

ASSIGNMENT
Assignment: Evidence-Based Capstone Project, Part 6: Disseminating Results
The dissemination of EBP results serves multiple important roles. Sharing results makes the case for your decisions. It also adds to the body of knowledge, which creates opportunities for future practitioners. By presenting results, you also become an advocate for EBP, creating a culture within your organization or beyond that informs, educates, and promotes the effective use of EBP.

To Prepare:

Review the final PowerPoint presentation you submitted in Module 5, and make any necessary changes based on the feedback you have received and on lessons you have learned throughout the course.
Consider the best method of disseminating the results of your presentation to an audience.
To Complete:

Create a 5-minute, 5- to 6-slide narrated PowerPoint presentation of your Evidence-Based Project———————.

Be sure to incorporate any feedback or changes from your presentation submission in Module 5.
Explain how you would disseminate the results of your project to an audience. Provide a rationale for why you selected this dissemination strategy.

Rubric Detail

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

Name: NURS_6052_Module06_Week11_Assignment_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Part 6: Disseminating Results

Create a 5-minute, 5- to 6-slide narrated PowerPoint presentation of your Evidence-Based Project:

· Be sure to incorporate any feedback or changes from your presentation submission in Module 5.
· Explain how you would disseminate the results of your project to an audience. Provide a rationale for why you selected this dissemination strategy.
81 (81%) – 90 (90%)
The narrated presentation accurately and completely summarizes the evidence-based project. The narrated presentation is professional in nature and thoroughly addresses all components of the evidence-based project.

The narrated presentation accurately and clearly explains in detail how to disseminate the results of the project to an audience, citing specific and relevant examples.

The narrated presentation accurately and clearly provides a justification that details the selection of this dissemination strategy that is fully supported by specific and relevant examples.

The narrated presentation provides a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources related to the dissemination strategy explained. The narrated presentation fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the presentation.
72 (72%) – 80 (80%)
The narrated presentation adequately summarizes the evidence-based project. The narrated presentation is professional in nature and adequately addresses the components of the evidence-based project.

The narrated presentation accurately explains how to disseminate the results of the project to an audience; some specific examples may be provided.

The narrated presentation accurately provides a justification for the selection of this dissemination strategy and may be supported by specific examples.

The narrated presentation provides an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource related to the dissemination strategy explained. The narrated presentation integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the presentation.
63 (63%) – 71 (71%)
The narrated presentation vaguely, inaccurately, or incompletely summarizes the evidence-based project. The narrated presentation may be professional in nature and somewhat addresses the components of the evidence-based project.

The narrated presentation inaccurately or vaguely explains how to disseminate the results of the project to an audience; inaccurate or vague examples may be provided.

The narrated presentation inaccurately or vaguely provides a justification for the selection of this dissemination strategy and may be supported by inaccurate or vague examples.

The narrated presentation provides a vague or inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed related to the dissemination strategy explained. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the presentation.
0 (0%) – 62 (62%)
The narrated presentation vaguely and inaccurately summarizes the evidence-based project or is missing. The narrated presentation is not professional in nature and inaccurately and incompletely addresses the components of the evidence-based project or is missing.

The narrated presentation vaguely and inaccurately explains how to disseminate the results of the project to an audience, no examples are provided, or it is missing.

The narrated presentation vaguely and inaccurately provides a justification for the selection of this dissemination strategy, no examples are provided, or it is missing.

The narrated presentation provides a vague and inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed related to the dissemination strategy explained or is missing. The presentation fails to integrate any resources to support the presentation.
Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization:

Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated yet is brief and not descriptive.
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time.

No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.
Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards:

Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6052_Module06_Week11_Assignment_Rubric

Thanks, Nikki, im not sure how many power points i should order because i have to wait for fed back on modue 5 so i will go ahead and order 4 slides, if i need more , i will upgrade. Thanks.

By Day 5 of Week 11
Submit Part 6, your revised PowerPoint presentation of your Evidence-Based Project.

Submission and Grading Information
To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK11Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
Click the Week 11 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
Click the Week 11 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.

Required Readings
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.

Chapter 10, “The Role of Outcomes on Evidence-based Quality Improvement and enhancing and Evaluating Practice Changes” (pp. 293–312)
Chapter 12, “Leadership Strategies for Creating and Sustaining Evidence-based Practice Organizations” (pp. 328–343)
Chapter 14, “Models to Guide Implementation and Sustainability of Evidence-based Practice” (pp. 378–427)
Gallagher-Ford, L., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Stillwell, S. B. (2011). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Implementing an evidence-based practice change. American Journal of Nursing, 111(3), 54–60. doi:10.1097/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000395243.14347.7e. Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/ajnonline/Fulltext/2011/03000/Evidence_Based_Practice,_Step_by_Step_.31.aspx

Newhouse, R. P., Dearholt, S., Poe, S., Pugh, L. C., & White, K. M. (2007). Organizational change strategies for evidence-based practice. Journal of Nursing Administration, 37(12), 552–557. doi:0.1097/01.NNA.0000302384.91366.8f

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M. (2012). Achieving a high-reliability organization through implementation of the ARCC model for systemwide sustainability of evidence-based practice. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 127–135. doi:10.1097/NAQ.0b013e318249fb6a

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Gallagher-Ford, L., & Stillwell, S. B. (2011). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Sustaining evidence-based practice through organizational policies and an innovative model. American Journal of Nursing, 111(9), 57–60. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000405063.97774.0e

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Giggleman, M., & Choy, K. (2017). A test of the ARCC© model improves implementation of evidence-based practice, healthcare culture, and patient outcomes. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 14(1), 5–9. doi:10.1111/wvn.12188

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Gallagher-Ford, L., & Stillwell, S. B. (2011). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Sustaining evidence-based practice through organizational policies and an innovative model. American Journal of Nursing, 111(9), 57–60. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000405063.97774.0e

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Write a discussion, explore strategies for disseminating EBP within your organization, community, or industry.

Module 6: Changing the World Through Evidence-Based Practice (Weeks 10-11)

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Evidence-based Practice and Outcomes [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
Evaluate dissemination strategies
Recommend strategies to overcome barriers to dissemination of evidence-based practice changes
Synthesize concepts of evidence-based practice
Justify dissemination strategies

Learning Resources
Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.

Chapter 10, “The Role of Outcomes on Evidence-based Quality Improvement and enhancing and Evaluating Practice Changes” (pp. 293–312)
Chapter 12, “Leadership Strategies for Creating and Sustaining Evidence-based Practice Organizations” (pp. 328–343)
Chapter 14, “Models to Guide Implementation and Sustainability of Evidence-based Practice” (pp. 378–427)
Gallagher-Ford, L., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Stillwell, S. B. (2011). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Implementing an evidence-based practice change. American Journal of Nursing, 111(3), 54–60. doi:10.1097/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000395243.14347.7e. Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/ajnonline/Fulltext/2011/03000/Evidence_Based_Practice,_Step_by_Step_.31.aspx

Newhouse, R. P., Dearholt, S., Poe, S., Pugh, L. C., & White, K. M. (2007). Organizational change strategies for evidence-based practice. Journal of Nursing Administration, 37(12), 552–557. doi:0.1097/01.NNA.0000302384.91366.8f

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M. (2012). Achieving a high-reliability organization through implementation of the ARCC model for systemwide sustainability of evidence-based practice. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 127–135. doi:10.1097/NAQ.0b013e318249fb6a

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Gallagher-Ford, L., & Stillwell, S. B. (2011). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Sustaining evidence-based practice through organizational policies and an innovative model. American Journal of Nursing, 111(9), 57–60. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000405063.97774.0e

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Giggleman, M., & Choy, K. (2017). A test of the ARCC© model improves implementation of evidence-based practice, healthcare culture, and patient outcomes. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 14(1), 5–9. doi:10.1111/wvn.12188

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Gallagher-Ford, L., & Stillwell, S. B. (2011). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Sustaining evidence-based practice through organizational policies and an innovative model. American Journal of Nursing, 111(9), 57–60. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000405063.97774.0e

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

DISCUSSION DUE AUG 4

DISCUSSION 10

DISCUSSION 10

Discussion:

Developing a Culture of Evidence-Based Practice
As your EBP skills grow, you may be called upon to share your expertise with others. While EBP practice is often conducted with unique outcomes in mind, EBP practitioners who share their results can both add to the general body of knowledge and serve as an advocate for the application of EBP.

Write a discussion, explore strategies for disseminating EBP within your organization, community, or industry.

To Prepare:

Review the Resources and reflect on the various strategies presented throughout the course that may be helpful in disseminating effective and widely cited EBP.
This may include: unit-level or organizational-level presentations, poster presentations, and podium presentations at organizational, local, regional, state, and national levels, as well as publication in peer-reviewed journals.
Reflect on which type of dissemination strategy you might use to communicate EBP.
By Day 3 of Week 10
Post at least two dissemination strategies you would be most inclined to use and explain why. Explain which dissemination strategies you would be least inclined to use and explain why. Identify at least two barriers you might encounter when using the dissemination strategies you are most inclined to use. Be specific and provide examples. Explain how you might overcome the barriers you identified.

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

One or 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.

Post is cited with two credible sources.

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

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 sources.

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 Post: Timeliness
10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response
17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are 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.
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.
Second Response
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are 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.
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.
Participation
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6052_Module06_Week10_Discussion_Rubric

Write a discussion, explore strategies for disseminating EBP within your organization, community, or industry.

Module 6: Changing the World Through Evidence-Based Practice (Weeks 10-11)

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Evidence-based Practice and Outcomes [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
Evaluate dissemination strategies
Recommend strategies to overcome barriers to dissemination of evidence-based practice changes
Synthesize concepts of evidence-based practice
Justify dissemination strategies

Learning Resources
Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.

Chapter 10, “The Role of Outcomes on Evidence-based Quality Improvement and enhancing and Evaluating Practice Changes” (pp. 293–312)
Chapter 12, “Leadership Strategies for Creating and Sustaining Evidence-based Practice Organizations” (pp. 328–343)
Chapter 14, “Models to Guide Implementation and Sustainability of Evidence-based Practice” (pp. 378–427)
Gallagher-Ford, L., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Stillwell, S. B. (2011). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Implementing an evidence-based practice change. American Journal of Nursing, 111(3), 54–60. doi:10.1097/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000395243.14347.7e. Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/ajnonline/Fulltext/2011/03000/Evidence_Based_Practice,_Step_by_Step_.31.aspx

Newhouse, R. P., Dearholt, S., Poe, S., Pugh, L. C., & White, K. M. (2007). Organizational change strategies for evidence-based practice. Journal of Nursing Administration, 37(12), 552–557. doi:0.1097/01.NNA.0000302384.91366.8f

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M. (2012). Achieving a high-reliability organization through implementation of the ARCC model for systemwide sustainability of evidence-based practice. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 127–135. doi:10.1097/NAQ.0b013e318249fb6a

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Gallagher-Ford, L., & Stillwell, S. B. (2011). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Sustaining evidence-based practice through organizational policies and an innovative model. American Journal of Nursing, 111(9), 57–60. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000405063.97774.0e

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Giggleman, M., & Choy, K. (2017). A test of the ARCC© model improves implementation of evidence-based practice, healthcare culture, and patient outcomes. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 14(1), 5–9. doi:10.1111/wvn.12188

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Gallagher-Ford, L., & Stillwell, S. B. (2011). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Sustaining evidence-based practice through organizational policies and an innovative model. American Journal of Nursing, 111(9), 57–60. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000405063.97774.0e

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

DISCUSSION DUE AUG 4

DISCUSSION 10

DISCUSSION 10

Discussion:

Developing a Culture of Evidence-Based Practice
As your EBP skills grow, you may be called upon to share your expertise with others. While EBP practice is often conducted with unique outcomes in mind, EBP practitioners who share their results can both add to the general body of knowledge and serve as an advocate for the application of EBP.

Write a discussion, explore strategies for disseminating EBP within your organization, community, or industry.

To Prepare:

Review the Resources and reflect on the various strategies presented throughout the course that may be helpful in disseminating effective and widely cited EBP.
This may include: unit-level or organizational-level presentations, poster presentations, and podium presentations at organizational, local, regional, state, and national levels, as well as publication in peer-reviewed journals.
Reflect on which type of dissemination strategy you might use to communicate EBP.
By Day 3 of Week 10
Post at least two dissemination strategies you would be most inclined to use and explain why. Explain which dissemination strategies you would be least inclined to use and explain why. Identify at least two barriers you might encounter when using the dissemination strategies you are most inclined to use. Be specific and provide examples. Explain how you might overcome the barriers you identified.

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

One or 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.

Post is cited with two credible sources.

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

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 sources.

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 Post: Timeliness
10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response
17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are 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.
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.
Second Response
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are 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.
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.
Participation
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6052_Module06_Week10_Discussion_Rubric