SWOT Analysis for healthcare product or service you have proposed
TO PREPARE
- Reflect on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with the healthcare product or service you have proposed.
- Reflect on the costs and potential revenue streams associated with the healthcare product or service you have proposed.
NOTE
In this Discussion, you will examine the use of these tools. You will reflect on your own proposal, and on the costs and potential revenue streams or other benefits associated with a healthcare product or service. You will also consider the environment in which your organization operates and potential relevant opportunities and threats.
a brief description of what you believe to be the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the healthcare product or service you have proposed. Also include a statement considering where costs and revenues fall in your SWOT analysis. Are their weaknesses associated with the costs? In other words, are the costs high enough to represent budgetary issues? Do potential revenue streams represent a strength? Consult with your internal finance counselor, as appropriate.
SWOT AND COST ANALYSIS
How well do you know your organization?
Many of us spend a great deal of time at our workplace, and this often leads us to feel that we know the organization very well. But when it comes to organizational familiarity, there are several levels of understanding. Leaders faced with decisions about investing resources often use tools such as SWOT and cost analyses to truly reflect on the company and on the appropriateness and potential of an investment.
In this Discussion, you will examine the use of these tools. You will reflect on your own proposal, and on the costs and potential revenue streams or other benefits associated with a healthcare product or service. You will also consider the environment in which your organization operates and potential relevant opportunities and threats.
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity. Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
TO PREPARE
· Reflect on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with the healthcare product or service you have proposed.
· Reflect on the costs and potential revenue streams associated with the healthcare product or service you have proposed.
BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 7
Post a brief description of what you believe to be the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the healthcare product or service you have proposed. Also include a statement considering where costs and revenues fall in your SWOT analysis. Are their weaknesses associated with the costs? In other words, are the costs high enough to represent budgetary issues? Do potential revenue streams represent a strength? Consult with your internal finance counselor, as appropriate.
BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 7
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days and critique their SWOT and cost analysis, offering supporting or contrary ideas regarding strengths, weaknesses, opportunities or threats to be considered or additional thoughts about the impact of their cost and/or revenue projections.
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!
image1.jpeg
,
SWOT: What’s it all about and how to use it?
David Stonehouse is a Lecturer in Children and Young People’s Nursing with the
School of Health and Society at the University of Salford, Manchester.
Abstract.
This article examines the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
analysis tool commonly known as SWOT and how support workers can utilise this in
decision making, problem-solving and in identifying where changes in clinical
practice are needed. The importance of this will be highlighted in the relevant
sections of The Code of Conduct for Healthcare Support Workers and Adult Social
Care Workers in England (Skills for Care and Skills for Health, 2013) and for nursing
associates in the recently amended NMC (2018) code. The article will start with an
overview of the SWOT analysis tool before examining the four separate parts. The
importance of the analysis stage will be highlighted.
Key Words: Analysis, Opportunities, Strengths, Support Workers, SWOT, Threats,
Weaknesses.
Introduction
Support workers are key to the delivery of high quality care to patients. They are
closest to patient care and therefore know the needs of their patient’s best and how
their organisations operate from the ground up. They are best placed to identify
where change is needed and where decisions need to be made. One way in which to
ensure that the right decisions and changes are being implemented is in utilising a
decision making tool such as SWOT. There are other tools available, for example
PESTLE (Taylor et al, 2015), or SPECTACLES (Pettinger, 2012), however SWOT
analysis has been chosen as being simpler, having only four components, and as
Marquis and Huston (2017) state, it is recognised as being both effective and
commonly used in healthcare organisations. The SWOT analysis tool can be used
for a whole range of applications. For managers “to scan their external environment
to identify opportunities and threats so that their internal strengths and weaknesses
are aligned accordingly” (Sola et al, 2018:136), to assisting support workers in
writing their Professional Development Plans by identifying “areas in which
development is required or desired” (Jackson & Thurgate, 2011:293) and by a
learner within the workplace to identify opportunities within their environment
(Wareing, 2016).
Code Words.
The Code of Conduct for Healthcare Support Workers and Adult Social Care
Workers in England (Skills for Care and Skills for Health, 2013), section 2.1 states
that you must “always act in the best interests of people who use health and care
services.” To act in your patients best interests means always delivering care which
is of the highest possible standard. To do this your care and practice must be
evidence based and be open to regular scrutiny. Evidence based practice is defined
as practice which is “based on the best available evidence, patient preferences and
clinical judgement” (Schmidt & Brown, 2015:4). Section 6 is focused upon striving to
“improve the quality of healthcare, care and support through continuing professional
development. This is achieved through, section 6.2, participating in “continuing
professional development to achieve competencies required for your role.” Section
6.4 urges you to “improve the quality and safety of the care you provide” and 6.6, to
“contribute to the learning and development of others as appropriate.” For nursing
associates, the NMC (2018) code also states in Section 25.1 that you must “identify
priorities, manage time, staff and resources effectively and deal with risk to make
sure that the quality of care or service you deliver is maintained and improved.
Through analysing proposed changes to working practices using tools such as the
SWOT analysis tool, support workers and nursing associates will be assisted to
make good, well founded decisions in how care and services can be improved.
Knowing the strengths of that decision and the opportunities it will present. They will
also be empowered to voice their concerns when a change is not in their patient’s
best interests, recognising the weaknesses, and by recognising the external threats
they will be better placed to overcome them.
Undertaking a SWOT Analysis
Before you start you need to identify what it is you are going to analyse. Sale (2005)
states that first of all you need to assess the current situation. What are the drivers
and levers for change? Has something occurred to prompt you or your department to
consider change or to make a decision? This may be a whole range of things, such
as incidents, complaints, new research, or a development in best practice.
The whole department, including support workers and nursing associates, should
meet to perform a SWOT analysis. This is done by examining the four categories,
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The order and positioning of the
four categories in the grid is deliberate (See fig. one). The top two categories of
strengths and weaknesses are directed internally at the individual, team, department
or organisation. Wherever, or whoever, the change or decision is aimed at. The
bottom two categories of opportunities and threats are aimed at the external
environment (Phillips, 2009). Together with this, the left hand two categories of
strengths and opportunities are positives whereas the right hand two of weaknesses
and threats are negatives. As Thompson (2012:216) states this is useful as it “helps
us to provide a balanced overview of the situation we are analysing,” and not just to
focus on the negatives.
Fig One. SWOT Analysis Tool.
Strengths
This is the first of the two positive areas and is looking internally. Strengths could be
the things that make you or your team stand out from other areas. What do you do
well and excel at? Are your skills, knowledge and experience you have a strength?
The training you have received to support you in fulfilling your role and in meeting
the organisations objectives. These strengths could be identified from good
evaluations received or patient feedback.
Weaknesses
The first negative area and again internally looking is weaknesses. Are there areas
of your organisation, team or even on the individual level which you can recognise as
being weak? Are there things missing? This could even be around reputation or
image, or deficiencies in accommodation or outdated technology (Mullins, 2013). It
could also be on a more practical level of staff shortages, positions not filled, work
load, morale of the team, or actual working conditions.
Opportunities
This is the second positive area but now is outward facing. What opportunities are
there outside of your team or organisation? Is there a need being generated by
patient expectations, or new guidelines which you could adopt? Is there something
new that you could start doing? Could new funding be accessed that has previously
been unavailable (Phillips, 2009)? This is your chance to identify a new direction, or
new service you could be delivering to meet a previously unmet need. Maybe a new
technique has been identified to provide care in an improved way? Opportunities
could also be experiences gained outside of the current team, which as yet have
been unused (Jackson & Thurgate, 2011). Have team member’s talents been
unrecognised and unused until now?
Threats
The last area is negative and outward facing. This is more serious. It is about
identifying things which could actually threaten your practice, service or organisation.
Are there things out there, external, which could impact negatively on how you
provide your service or care? Threats to the organisation or team could be a loss or
decrease in budget, or a change in political or societal drivers which may threaten
commissioning of the service in the future (Phillips, 2009). Is another organisation
providing care in a more productive way?
Analysis
This is the most important part of the process. For the analysis to be worthwhile, time
needs to be given to complete the four sections above as fully as possible. As
Pettinger (2012:24) states nothing should be off limits, only “once everything is in
front of people, evaluations and judgements can then be made.” Once recorded you
need to be able to tell what the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats are
telling you. If done too quickly or as a tick box exercise, there is a risk that SWOT
may have been performed, but without the analysis (Thompson, 2012), making the
exercise worthless. Thompson (2012) goes on to say that once words have been
inputted into the four areas, you are then able to see if there are any patterns or
themes emerging. Issues previously unrecognised can be acknowledged and
discussed, making the decision making process easier and highlighting the drivers
for change.
Conclusion.
So to conclude, this article has highlighted the usefulness of the SWOT analysis tool,
in supporting an individual, team or department to identify opportunities for change.
Support workers and nursing associates will often know more about how a team and
department is performing, being the key staff members delivering the most hands on
care. They are therefore well placed to contribute the most to a SWOT analysis of
the clinical area, suggesting how strengths can be maximised, weaknesses
improved upon, opportunities grasped and threats neutralised. All this will help to
deliver quality care and services to the patients and families that we serve and
support.
Key Points:
1. Support workers are key to identifying the strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats within their own working environments.
2. Time needs to be devoted to completing the four areas so that it does not
become a tick box exercise.
3. Thinking about an area using SWOT allows you to have a balanced view of
both the positives and negatives, looking both inward and outward.
4. The most important stage is the analysis of the four categories, without which
the tool is useless.
5. Once your analysis of the SWOT has taken place, you can then make better
decisions and changes to benefit both staff and patient care.
Reflective Questions For Your Continuing Professional Development
• In a small group of your peers, conduct a SWOT analysis of your team or
department.
• Identify possible changes you can make to build upon your strengths, or to
remove or diminish any weaknesses.
• As an individual perform a SWOT analysis examining your own personal
learning and development.
References:
Jackson C, Thurgate C. Personal Development Plans and Workplace Learning.
British Journal of Healthcare Assistants. 2011: 5(6):292-296. doi:
https://doi.org/10.12968/bjha.2011.5.6.292
Pettinger R. Management: A Concise Introduction. London: Palgrave Macmillan;
2012
Phillips K. Leading in Complex Environments (57-72). In: McKimm J, Phillips K, eds.
Leadership and Management in Integrated Services. Exeter: Learning Matters; 2009:
Marquis BL, Huston CJ. Leadership Roles and Management Functions in Nursing:
Theory and Application. 9th edn. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2017
Mullins LJ. Management and Organisational Behaviour. 10th edn. Harlow: Pearson
Education Ltd; 2013
Nursing and Midwifery Council. The Code: Professional Standards of Practice and
Behaviour for Nurses, Midwives and Nursing associates. 2018.
https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/nmc-publications/nmc-code.pdf
(accessed 21 November 2018)
Sale D. Understanding Clinical Governance and Quality Assurance: Making it
Happen. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005
Schmidt NA, Brown JM. Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses: Appraisal and
Application of Research. 3rd edn. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2015
Skills for Care and Skills for Health. Code of Conduct for Healthcare Support
Workers and Adult Social Care Workers in England. 2013.
http://www.skillsforhealth.org.uk/images/services/code-of-
conduct/Code%20of%20Conduct%20Healthcare%20Support.pdf (accessed 21
November 2018)
Sola D, Borioli GS, Quaglia R. Predicting GPs’ Engagement With Artificial
Intelligence. British Journal of Healthcare Management. 2018: 24(3):134-140. doi:
https://doi.org/10.12968/bjhc.2018.24.3.134
Taylor V, Scott H, Walter M. Organization and Management of Health and
Healthcare (334-376). In: Naidoo J, Wills J, eds. Heath Studies: An Introduction. 3rd
ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015
Thompson N. The People Solutions Sourcebook. 2nd edn. London: Palgrave
Macmillan; 2012
Wareing M. Being a Worker and a Learner. British Journal of Healthcare Assistants.
2016: 10(11):554-561. doi: https://doi.org/10.12968/bjha.2016.10.11.554
,
UC Irvine Western Journal of Emergency Medicine: Integrating Emergency Care with Population Health
Title Decreased Nursing Staffing Adversely Affects Emergency Department Throughput Metrics
Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4811645s
Journal Western Journal of Emergency Medicine: Integrating Emergency Care with Population Health, 19(3)
ISSN 1936-900X
Authors Ramsey, Zachariah Palter, Joseph S. Hardwick, John et al.
Publication Date 2018
DOI 10.5811/westjem.2018.1.36327
Copyright Information Copyright 2018 by the author(s).This work is made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution License, available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Peer reviewed
eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine 496 Volume 19, no. 3: May 2018
*
†
‡
Brief research report
Decreased Nursing Staffing Adversely Affects Emergency Department Throughput Metrics
Zachariah Ramsey, MD* Joseph S. Palter, MD*†
John Hardwick, MD* Jordan Moskoff, MD*†
Errick L. Christian, MS* John Bailitz, MD‡
Section Editor: David C. Lee, MD Submission history: Submitted September 5, 2017; Revision received November 30, 2017; Accepted January 16, 2018 Electronically published April 5, 2018 Full text available through open access at http://escholarship.org/uc/uciem_westjem DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2018.1.36327
Introduction: The effect of nurse staffing on emergency department (ED) efficiency remains a significant area of interest to administrators, physicians, and nurses. We believe that decreased nursing staffing adversely affects key ED throughput metrics.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational review of our electronic medical record database from 1/1/2015 to 12/31/2015 at a high-volume, urban public hospital. We report nursing hours, door-to-discharge length of stay (LOS) and door-to-admit LOS, and percentage of patients who left without being seen (LWBS). ED nursing hours per day was examined across quartiles with the effect evaluated using analysis of covariance and controlled for total daily ED volume, hospital occupancy and ED admission rate.
Results: From 1/1/15-12/31/15, 105,887 patients presented to the ED with a range of 336 to 580 nursing hours per day with a median of 464.7. Independent of daily ED volume, hospital occupancy and ED admission rate, days in the lowest quartile of nursing hours experienced a 28.2-minute increase per patient in door-to-discharge LOS compared to days in the highest quartile of nursing hours. Door-to-admit LOS showed no significant change across quartiles. There was also an increase of nine patients per day who left without being seen by a provider in the lowest quartile of nursing hours compared to the highest quartile.
Conclusion: Lower nursing hours contribute to a statistically significant increase in door-to- discharge LOS and number of LWBS patients, independent of daily ED volume, hospital occupancy and ED admission rate. Consideration of the impact of nursing staffing is needed to optimize throughput metrics for our urban, safety-net hospital. [West J Emerg Med. 2018;19(3)496-500.]
INTRODUCTION Emergency department (ED) efficiency remains a vital
aspect of delivering safe, quality care. ED utilization has risen considerably without a corresponding rise in available emergency services.1,2 To respond to the increased demand, it is imperative to identify factors that contribute to delays in care. Researchers have identified several hospital
John H. Stroger Hospital of Cook County, Department of Emergency Medicine, Chicago, Illinois Rush Medical College, Department of Emergency Medicine, Chicago, Illinois Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
characteristics associated with worse ED throughput or ED time on ambulance diversion including ED crowding,3 percentage of ED patients admitted,4,5,6 number of elective surgical admissions,5 hospital occupancy,5,6,7 training level of the treating physician,3 access to expedited diagnostic testing,8 socioeconomic status of the surrounding neighborhood,9 and decreased nurse staffing.10
Volume 19, no. 3: May 2018 497 Western Journal of Emergency Medicine
Ramsey et al. Decreased Nursing Staffing Adversely Affects ED Throughput Metrics
Prior studies identified that increased nurse-to-patient ratios correlate with improved patient outcomes11,12 and that lower staffing is associated with increased left without being seen (LWBS) rates13 and increased ED care times.10 Our urban, tertiary care, safety-net, teaching hospital suffered a nursing shortage during 2015 due to an administrative initiative to decrease costs by limiting nurse overtime hours. Without a concomitant increase in hiring, this change caused significant gaps in ED nurse staffing. These gaps led to unpredictable closures of sections of the ED and increased average nurse-to- patient ratios. Our goal was to evaluate the impact of decreased nurse staffing on ED throughput metrics. We believe decreased nurse staffing adversely affects these metrics.
METHODS Our hospital is an urban, tertiary care, safety-net hospital
with 254 medical/surgical inpatient beds and 80 ED beds. The ED is staffed by full-time, board-certified attending emergency physicians who supervise emergency medicine residents, residents from other specialties, and physician assistants. Hospital-stipulated maximum nurse-to-patient ratios were not changed or exceeded during the study period. Nurses work a mix of 8- and 12-hour shifts. The ED is also staffed by patient care technicians and patient transporters.
We conducted a retrospective observational review using Cerner First Net electronic medical record (EMR) database. All EMRs of 105,887 ED visits from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015, were queried after institutional review board approval. We included in the analysis all patients discharged or admitted to the medical/surgical inpatient beds in the analysis regardless of inpatient or observational status. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit or the ED observation unit were excluded as the admission protocol to these units varies significantly from general admission; therefore, we could not accurately capture the length of stay (LOS) of these patients from EMR review. A total of 6,602 patients were excluded.
The unit of measure was a 24-hour period starting at midnight. Daily number of patients admitted, discharged, and LWBS as well as the total daily volume in the ED was recorded. Daily nursing hours were determined from nursing staff records for each shift and summed for each day. We measured door-to- discharge LOS in minutes as the interval from the time of presentation to the ED to when the provider discharged the patient. We captured the time of initial presentation by the time the patient was registered at the front desk. The time of discharge was captured by a physician order for discharge placed in the EMR. Door-to-admit LOS was measured in minutes as the interval from the time of ED presentation to when the nurse placed an electronic order that the patient was ready to be transported to the ward. We defined hospital occupancy as the sum of the number of patients in a hospital bed at midnight and the number of patients discharged in the
preceding 24 hours divided by the total number of hospital beds. This method was used previously by Forster,7 which helps capture the true use of inpatient beds during a 24-hour period.
We evaluated the effect of ED nursing hours on throughput metrics using analysis of covariance and controlled for total daily ED volume, hospital occupancy and admission rate. Daily nursing hours were compared across quartiles as a fixed factor. We used daily door-to-discharge LOS, door-to- admit LOS, and the number of patients who LWBS as the dependent variables in each model. SPSS Univariate GLM procedure was used for all analyses.
RESULTS The mean number of visits per day was 290 with a range
of 129 – 425. Nursing hours ranged from 336 – 580 nursing hours per day with a median of 464.7. The daily mean LOS for discharged patients was 249.8 minutes, and the range was 155 – 389. The daily mean LOS for admitted patients was 441.5 minutes, and the range w
EVIDENCE-BASED PROJECT, PART 3: CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF RESEARCH
EVIDENCE-BASED PROJECT, PART 3: CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF RESEARCH
Realtors rely on detailed property appraisals—conducted using appraisal tools—to assign market values to houses and other properties. These values are then presented to buyers and sellers to set prices and initiate offers.
Research appraisal is not that different. The critical appraisal process utilizes formal appraisal tools to assess the results of research to determine value to the context at hand. Evidence-based practitioners often present these findings to make the case for specific courses of action.
In this Assignment, you will use an appraisal tool to conduct a critical appraisal of published research. You will then present the results of your efforts.
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
To Prepare:
- Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and the four systematic reviews (or other filtered high- level evidence) you selected in Module 3.
- Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and analyzed in Module 3.
- Review and download the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template provided in the Resources.
The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)
Part 3A: Critical Appraisal of Research
Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected by completing the Evaluation Table within the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Choose a total of four peer- reviewed articles that you selected related to your clinical topic of interest in Module 2 and Module 3.
Note: You can choose any combination of articles from Modules 2 and 3 for your Critical Appraisal. For example, you may choose two unfiltered research articles from Module 2 and two filtered research articles (systematic reviews) from Module 3 or one article from Module 2 and three articles from Module 3. You can choose any combination of articles from the prior Module Assignments as long as both modules and types of studies are represented.
Part 3B: Critical Appraisal of Research
Based on your appraisal, in a 1-2-page critical appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research.
BY DAY 7 OF WEEK 7
Submit Part 3A and 3B of your Evidence-Based Project.
EVIDENCE-BASED PROJECT, PART 3: CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF RESEARCH
Realtors rely on detailed property appraisals—conducted using appraisal tools—to assign market values to houses and other properties. These values are then presented to buyers and sellers to set prices and initiate offers.
Research appraisal is not that different. The critical appraisal process utilizes formal appraisal tools to assess the results of research to determine value to the context at hand. Evidence-based practitioners often present these findings to make the case for specific courses of action.
In this Assignment, you will use an appraisal tool to conduct a critical appraisal of published research. You will then present the results of your efforts.
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity. Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
To Prepare:
· Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and the four systematic reviews (or other filtered high- level evidence) you selected in Module 3.
· Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and analyzed in Module 3.
· Review and download the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template provided in the Resources.
The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)
Part 3A: Critical Appraisal of Research
Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected by completing the Evaluation Table within the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Choose a total of four peer- reviewed articles that you selected related to your clinical topic of interest in Module 2 and Module 3.
Note: You can choose any combination of articles from Modules 2 and 3 for your Critical Appraisal. For example, you may choose two unfiltered research articles from Module 2 and two filtered research articles (systematic reviews) from Module 3 or one article from Module 2 and three articles from Module 3. You can choose any combination of articles from the prior Module Assignments as long as both modules and types of studies are represented.
Part 3B: Critical Appraisal of Research
Based on your appraisal, in a 1-2-page critical appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research.
BY DAY 7 OF WEEK 7
Submit Part 3A and 3B of your Evidence-Based Project.
SUBMISSION INFORMATION
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.
1. To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as MD4Assgn+last name+first initial.
2. Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
3. Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.
Rubric
NURS_6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment_Rubric
|
NURS_6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment_Rubric |
||
|
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 3A: Critical Appraisal of ResearchCritical Appraisal of Research Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected and analyzed by completing the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Be sure to include: · An Evaluation Table |
45 to >40.0 ptsExcellentThe critical appraisal accurately and clearly provides a detailed evaluation table. …The responses provide a detailed, specific, and accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected. 40 to >35.0 ptsGoodThe critical appraisal accurately provides an evaluation table. …The responses provide an accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected with some specificity. 35 to >31.0 ptsFairThe critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate or vague. …The responses provide an inaccurate or vague evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected. 31 to >0 ptsPoorThe critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate and vague or is missing. |
45 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 3B: Evidence-Based Best PracticesEvidence-Based Best Practices Based on your appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with the selected resources. |
35 to >31.0 ptsExcellentThe responses accurately and clearly suggest a detailed best practice that is fully aligned to the research reviewed. …The responses accurately and clearly explain in detail the best practice, with sufficient justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. …The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of the four peer reviewed articles. 31 to >27.0 ptsGoodThe responses accurately suggest a best practice that is adequately aligned to the research reviewed. …The responses accurately explain the best practice, with adequately justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. …The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource reviewed on the best practice explained. 27 to >24.0 ptsFairThe responses inaccurately or vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed. …The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate or vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field. …The responses provide a vague or inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained. 24 to >0 ptsPoorThe responses inaccurately and vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed or are missing. …The responses inaccurately and vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate and vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field or are missing. …A vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained is provided or is missing. |
35 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResource Synthesis |
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentThe response fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the responses provided. 4 to >3.0 ptsGoodThe response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the responses provided. 3 to >2.0 ptsFairThe response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided. 2 to >0 ptsPoorThe response fails to integrate any resources to support the responses provided. |
5 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten 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 to >4.0 ptsExcellentParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. …A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria. 4 to >3.0 ptsGoodParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. …Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated but are brief and not descriptive. 3 to >2.0 ptsFairParagraphs 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. 2 to >0 ptsPoorParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. …No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion is provided. |
5 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation. |
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentUses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 to >3.0 ptsGoodContains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 to >2.0 ptsFairContains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 2 to >0 ptsPoorContains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. |
5 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting:The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. |
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentUses correct APA format with no errors. 4 to >3.0 ptsGoodContains a few (one or two) APA format errors. 3 to >2.0 ptsFairContains several (three or four) APA format errors. 2 to >0 ptsPoorContains many (five or more) APA format errors. |
5 pts |
Total Points: 100
,
Top of Form
|
AJN, American Journal of Nursing Issue: Volume 110(11), November 2010, pp 43-51 Copyright: (C) 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc. Publication Type: [Feature Articles] DOI: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000390523.99066.b5 ISSN: 0002-936X Accession: 00000446-201011000-00027
[Feature Articles] « Previous Article Table of Contents Next Article » Evidence-Based Practice, Step by Step: Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Part III Fineout-Overholt, Ellen PhD, RN, FNAP, FAAN; Melnyk, Bernadette Mazurek PhD, RN, CPNP/PMHNP, FNAP, FAAN; Stillwell, Susan B. DNP, RN, CNE; Williamson, Kathleen M. PhD, RN Author Information
Ellen Fineout-Overholt is clinical professor and director of the Center for the Advancement of Evidence-Based Practice at Arizona State University in Phoenix, where Bernadette Mazurek Melnyk is dean and distinguished foundation professor of nursing, Susan B. Stillwell is clinical associate professor and program coordinator of the Nurse Educator Evidence-Based Practice Mentorship Program, and Kathleen M. Williamson is associate director of the Center for the Advancement of Evidence-Based Practice. Contact author: Ellen Fineout-Overholt, [email protected]. AI Article Summary BETA
|
