Discussion: Developing A Culture Of Evidence-Based Practice

Discussion: Developing A Culture Of Evidence-Based Practice

PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AS INDICATED BELOW:
1). ZERO (0) PLAGIARISM
2). ATLEAST 5 REFERENCES, NO MORE THAN 5 YEARS
3).  PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT FOR RUBRIC DETAILS, 4 ARTICLES FORM SCHOOL RESOURCES (IF THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT HELPFUL OR GOOD ENOUGH, PLEASE FIND YOUR OWN)
Please carefully review the grading rubric, especially the first column that says, “Excellent”, and please include each component in the assignment requirements.
4). Please Include Introduction, purpose statement, conclusion, and reference page, (APA formatting) 
THANK YOU.
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.
In this Discussion, you will 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.

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.

Rubric Detail

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

Content

Name: NURS_6052_Module05_Week09_Discussion_Rubric

 

Novice Competent Proficient New Column4
Main Posting Points: Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) 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. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:
Main Post: Timeliness Points: Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3. Feedback:
First Response Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:
Second Response Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:
Participation Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. Feedback:

Show Descriptions Show Feedback

Main Posting–

Levels of Achievement: Novice 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) 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. Competent 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. Proficient 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. New Column4 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. Feedback:

Main Post: Timeliness–

Levels of Achievement: Novice 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3. Competent 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)   Proficient 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)   New Column4 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3. Feedback:

First Response–

Levels of Achievement: Novice 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. Competent 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. Proficient 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. New Column4 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. Feedback:

Second Response–

Levels of Achievement: Novice 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. Competent 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. Proficient 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. New Column4 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. Feedback:

Participation–

Levels of Achievement: Novice 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. Competent 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)   Proficient 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)   New Column4 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NURS_6052_Module05_Week09_Discussion_Rubric

 

Click here  to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: 

 

Get a 25 % discount on an order above $ 100
Use the following coupon code :
Nursing25