NR 505 Chamberlain University Prevention of Infections Discussion Over the course of the next eight weeks, we will be examining concepts related to nursing

NR 505 Chamberlain University Prevention of Infections Discussion Over the course of the next eight weeks, we will be examining concepts related to nursing research and the translation of evidence to practice. To help you better understand the process, you will be identifying a practice issue for nurse practitioners. You will develop a PICOT question associated with the issue, find evidence to support a change in practice, and present your recommendations for change to your peers. This week, we will work on helping you refine your area of interest so that you will be able to develop a concise question for next week’s assignment. You are encouraged to use the area of interest you chose for the project in NR500NP and/or NR501NP; however, you may choose a different area if you wish.Select an issue in nurse practitioner (NP) practice that is of interest to you and in which you would like to see a practice change occur. Conduct a review of literature to see what is currently known about the topic. In 1-2 paragraphs, describe the scope and relevance of the issue and your recommended change. Provide reference support from at least two outside scholarly sources to support your ideas. References no older than 5 years.NR505NP Scholarly Discussion Rubric You’ve already rated students with this rubric. Any major changes could affect their assessment results. NR505NP Scholarly Discussion Rubric Criteria Ratings Pts Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Application of Course Knowledge _5946 Answers the initial discussion question(s)/topic(s), demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the concepts for the week. view longer descriptionAnswers the initial discussion question(s)/topic(s), demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the concepts for the week. Range threshold: pts Edit ratingDelete rating 15.0 to >14.0 pts Excellent Addresses all aspects of the initial discussion question(s) applying experiences, knowledge, and understanding. blank Edit ratingDelete rating 14.0 to >12.0 pts Very Good Addresses most aspects of the initial discussion question(s) applying experiences, knowledge, and understanding _6391 Edit ratingDelete rating 12.0 to >8.0 pts Satisfactory Addresses some aspects of the initial discussion question(s) applying experiences, knowledge, and understanding. _9772 Edit ratingDelete rating 8.0 to >0.0 pts Needs Improvement Addresses some aspects of the initial discussion question with little depth and lack of application of experiences, knowledge, or understanding. _254 Edit ratingDelete rating 0.0 to >0 pts Unsatisfactory Does not address the initial question(s). blank_2 This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion. pts / 15.0 pts — Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEngagement in Meaningful Dialogue With Peers and Faculty _9902 The student responds to a student peer and course faculty to further dialogue. view longer descriptionThe student responds to a student peer and course faculty to further dialogue. Range threshold: pts Edit ratingDelete rating 10.0 to >9.0 pts Excellent Responds to a student peer AND course faculty furthering the dialogue by providing more information and clarification, thereby adding much depth to the discussion. _2051 Edit ratingDelete rating 9.0 to >8.0 pts Very Good Responds to a student peer AND course faculty furthering the dialogue by adding some depth to the discussion. _1790 Edit ratingDelete rating 8.0 to >5.0 pts Satisfactory Responds to a student peer and/or course faculty, adding minimal depth to the discussion. _2272 Edit ratingDelete rating 5.0 to >0.0 pts Needs Improvement Responds to a student peer or course faculty, adding minimal depth to the discussion. _5659 Edit ratingDelete rating 0.0 to >0 pts Unsatisfactory No response post to another student or course faculty. _5169 This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion. pts / 10.0 pts Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntegration of Evidence _3605 Assigned readings OR online lesson AND at least one outside scholarly source are included. The scholarly source is: 1) evidence-based, 2) scholarly in nature, 3) published within the last 5 years. view longer descriptionAssigned readings OR online lesson AND at least one outside scholarly source are included. The scholarly source is:
1) evidence-based, 2) scholarly in nature, 3) published within the last 5 years. Range threshold: pts Edit ratingDelete rating 15.0 to >14.0 pts Excellent Integrates evidence from: • assigned readings OR online lessons AND • at least one outside scholarly source. Sources are credited.* _8035 Edit ratingDelete rating 14.0 to >12.0 pts Very Good Integrates evidence from: • no assigned readings OR online lesson is included • at least one outside scholarly source is included. Sources are credited.* _1235 Edit ratingDelete rating 12.0 to >8.0 pts Satisfactory Integrates evidence from: • assigned readings OR online lesson • no outside scholarly source is included. Sources are credited.* _6547 Edit ratingDelete rating 8.0 to >0.0 pts Needs Improvement Integrates evidence from: • assigned readings OR online lesson • no outside scholarly source is included. Sources are not credited.* _3229 Edit ratingDelete rating 0.0 to >0 pts Unsatisfactory Does not integrate any evidence. _231 This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion. pts / 15.0 pts — Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar and Communication _4427 view longer description Range threshold: pts Edit ratingDelete rating 5.0 to >4.0 pts Excellent Presents information using clear and concise language in an organized manner (0–1 error in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation). _8976 Edit ratingDelete rating 4.0 to >3.0 pts Very Good Presents information using clear and concise language in an organized manner (2–3 errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation). _7976 Edit ratingDelete rating 3.0 to >2.0 pts Satisfactory Presents information using understandable language; information is not organized (3–4 errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation). _1214 Edit ratingDelete rating 2.0 to >0.0 pts Unsatisfactory Presents information using understandable language; information is not organized (5-6 errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation). _6128 Edit ratingDelete rating 0.0 to >0 pts Unsatisfactory Presents information that is not clear, logical, professional, or organized to the point that the reader has difficulty understanding the post (7 or more errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and/or punctuation). _5325 This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion. pts / 5.0 pts — Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReference Citation _2725 view longer description Range threshold: pts Edit ratingDelete rating 5.0 to >4.0 pts Excellent References have complete information as required by APA (0-1 errors). In-text citations included for all references, AND references are included for all in-text citations (0 errors). _4930 Edit ratingDelete rating 4.0 to >3.0 pts Very Good References have most information as required by APA (2 errors). In-text citations included for all references, AND references are included for all in-text citations (0 errors). _579 Edit ratingDelete rating 3.0 to >2.0 pts Satisfactory References have some information as required by APA (3 errors). In-text citations included for all references, AND references are included for all in-text citations (0 errors). _5548 Edit ratingDelete rating 2.0 to >0.0 pts Unsatisfactory References have some information as required by APA (4 errors). In-text citations included for all references AND references are included for all in-text citations (0 errors). _8749 Edit ratingDelete rating 0.0 to >0 pts Unsatisfactory References missing 5 or more elements AND/OR In-text citations missing OR final references not included for in-text citations. _8728 This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion. pts / 5.0 pts —