This assignment provides the opportunity for the graduate nurse practitioner student to become familiar with research processes which are specific to quality improvement.  The graduate nursing student will develop a State of the Science Evidence-Based Practice Project that is focused on quality improvement.    Note: The process began in Week 2 with the formation of a PICO question. Week 4 was Part 1 of the paper which laid the ground work for the project. Part 2 of the Project in Week 6 adds the following elements:  Abstract, Review of the Literature (State of the Science), strengths and limitations of current evidence, and development of a quality enhancement (improvement) plan that addresses limitations of current practice evidence.  Activity Learning Outcomes Integrate evidence-based practice and research to support advancement of holistic nursing care in diverse healthcare settings (CO1)  Integrate knowledge related to evidence-based practice and person-centered care to improve healthcare outcomes (CO2)  Develop knowledge related to research and evidence-based practice as a basis for designing and critiquing research studies (CO4)  Due Date:  Sunday by 11:59pm MT at the end of  WEEK 6 Part 1 and 2 should be submitted as the final paper  Students are expected to submit assignments by the time they are due. Assignments submitted after the due date and time will receive a deduction of 10% of the total points possible for that assignment for each day the assignment is late. Assignments will be accepted, with penalty as described, up to a maximum of three days late, after which point a zero will be recorded for the assignment. Quizzes and discussions are not considered assignments and are not part of the late assignment policy.  Total Points Possible:  200pts Requirements: Preparing the Assignment:  Part 2 Criteria for Content Abstract: The abstract should be succinct, comprehensive, and follow and include these APA components (accurate, non-evaluative, coherent, readable and concise).    A description of the problem under investigation (one sentence), participants, and essential features of the quality improvement project which include setting, supporting theory, stakeholders and outcome measurements that would be used to determine efficacy of quality improvement project are included.  (See APA 6th ed., for abstract examples and explanation; p. 25-26) State-of-the-Science Review of the Literature (ROL) :  See Polit & Beck, 2018, 9th ed., Ch. 7 for description of ROL.  This section will describe the state of the science related to the PICO question and problem statement, purpose of the quality project.    A minimum of  6  (six) appropriate  research-based scholarly references  (articles) must be used.  Required textbook for this course, dictionary and Chamberlain College of Nursing lesson information may be used but will  NOT  count as scholarly references for this assignment.  For additional assistance regard.

1. This assignment provides the opportunity for the graduate nurse
practitioner student to become familiar with research processes
which are specific to quality improvement. The graduate
nursing student will develop a State of the Science Evidence-
Based Practice Project that is focused on quality
improvement.
Note:
The process began in Week 2 with the formation of a PICO
question. Week 4 was Part 1 of the paper which laid the ground
work for the project. Part 2 of the Project in Week 6 adds the
following elements: Abstract, Review of the Literature (State
of the Science), strengths and limitations of current evidence,
and development of a quality enhancement (improvement) plan
that addresses limitations of current practice evidence.
Activity Learning Outcomes
Integrate evidence-based practice and research to support
advancement of holistic nursing care in diverse healthcare
settings (CO1)
Integrate knowledge related to evidence-based practice and
person-centered care to improve healthcare outcomes (CO2)
Develop knowledge related to research and evidence-based
practice as a basis for designing and critiquing research studies
(CO4)
Due Date:

2. Sunday by 11:59pm MT at the end of
WEEK 6
Part 1 and 2 should be submitted as the final paper
Students are expected to submit assignments by the time they
are due. Assignments submitted after the due date and time will
receive a deduction of 10% of the total points possible for that
assignment for each day the assignment is late. Assignments
will be accepted, with penalty as described, up to a maximum of
three days late, after which point a zero will be recorded for the
assignment. Quizzes and discussions are not considered
assignments and are not part of the late assignment policy.
Total Points Possible: 200pts
Requirements:
Preparing the Assignment: Part 2 Criteria for Content
Abstract:
The abstract should be succinct, comprehensive, and follow and
include these APA components (accurate, non-evaluative,
coherent, readable and concise).
A description of the problem under investigation (one sentence),
participants, and essential features of the quality improvement
project which include setting, supporting theory, stakeholders

3. and outcome measurements that would be used to determine
efficacy of quality improvement project are included.
(See APA 6th ed., for abstract examples and explanation; p. 25-
26)
State-of-the-Science Review of the Literature (ROL)
:
See Polit & Beck, 2018, 9th ed., Ch. 7 for description of ROL.
This section will describe the state of the science related to the
PICO question and problem statement, purpose of the quality
project.
A minimum of
6
(six) appropriate
research-based scholarly references
(articles) must be used. Required textbook for this course,
dictionary and Chamberlain College of Nursing lesson
information may be used but will
NOT
count as scholarly references for this assignment. For
additional assistance regarding scholarly nursing references,
please see “What is a scholarly source” from the Chamberlain
Library resources. Be aware that information from .com
websites may be incorrect and should be avoided. References
are current if within a 5-year time frame (3 years is best) unless
a valid rationale is provided and the instructor has approved
them prior to submission of the assignment.
The evidence should be critically reviewed and synthesized.

4. The strengths and limitations of the current evidence and
current practice are described which provide evidence for
practice change clearly supported
The identified area of issue or gap in practice is made clear
using evidence and is compelling and significant.
No more than three (3) direct quotes are used.
Quality Change Plan:
In this section the writer will create an inter-disciplinary quality
improvement plan for their future practice area. The JH Action
Planning Tool may be used as a guide but is not required to be
submitted along with the project. This section should be
supported by scholarly in-text citations and include the
following sections:
Feasible plan for implementation: Select a model for use, such
as the Plan/Do/Study/Act Model.
Identification of key stakeholders with rationale for
identification.
Identification of appropriate interdisciplinary team members to
assemble with rationale.
A plan for outcome analysis (this should include independent
and dependent variables as well as an overview of a method of
statistical analysis (which statistics or outcome measures).
Ethical considerations: Protection of Human Subjects.

5. Criteria for Format and Special Instructions:
Page length: Part 2 of the paper (excluding the title page and
reference page) should be
10 pages maximum
.
Title page, running head, body of paper, and reference page
must follow APA guidelines as found in the 6th edition of the
manual. This includes the use of headings for each section of
the paper except for the introduction where no heading is used.
Ideas and information from scholarly, peer reviewed, nursing
sources must be cited and referenced correctly.
Rules of grammar, spelling, word usage, and punctuation are
followed and consistent with formal, scientific, scholarly
writing. First person writing should not be utilized.
Remember: All sections should have scholarly resources
integrated as in-text citations that support the content. APA
current edition is required for all elements of the paper.
Rubric Glossary of Achievement Terms
Comprehensive:
Of Large Scope, Covering or Involving Much; Inclusive

6. Comprehending or thoroughly understanding with one’s mind;
having an extensive mental range or grasp of aparticular
subject.
Thorough:
Detailed, accurate, careful
Attentive to detail, accurate, but less than comprehensive in
scope, depth or inclusivity
Superficial:
Not thorough, on the surface
Of little substance, lacking thoroughness
Ill-Prepared / Un-structured:
Inadequately prepared, lack of care for detail
Lacking organization, disorganized
Succinct

7. Expressed in few words, verbal brevity
Compressed expression
Webster’s Online Dictionary: Retrieved
from https://www.dictionary.com/
ASSIGNMENT CONTENT
Category
Points
%
Description
Abstract
40
20%
Abstract is succinct and comprehensive, follows and includes
the APA (accurate, non-evaluative, coherent, readable and
concise).

8. A description of the problem under investigation (one sentence),
participants, and essential features of the quality improvement
project which include setting, supporting theory, stakeholders
and outcome measurements that would be used to determine
efficacy of quality improvement project are included.
(See APA 6th ed., for abstract examples and explanation; p. 25-
26)
State of the Science ROL
50
25%
Review of the Literature
A minimum of
6
(six) appropriate
research-based scholarly references
(articles) must be used.
The evidence should be critically reviewed, compared and
contrasted, and synthesized.
The strengths and limitations of the current evidence and
current practice are described which provide evidence for
practice change clearly supported

9. The identified area of issue or gap in practice is made clear
using evidence and is compelling and significant.
No more than 3 direct quotes are used
Quality Change Plan
70
35%
Quality Change Plan
Inter-disciplinary Quality Plan Supported by Scholarly In-text
Citations and include the following sections:
Feasible plan for implementation: Select a model for use, such
as the Plan/Do/Study/Act Model.
Identification of key stakeholders with rationale for
identification.
Identification of appropriate interdisciplinary team members to
assemble with rationale.
A plan for outcome analysis (this should include independent
and dependent variables as well as an overview of a method of
statistical analysis (which statistics or outcome measures).

10. Ethical considerations: Protection of Human Subjects.
Summary/ Appendix
25
13%
The conclusion restates the main sections of the paper. It
should contain a few sentences from each section, sequentially
representing the flow of the paper. The last few sentences of
the summary section should pull the paper together by
addressing an overview for future projects or by stating the
projects importance and implications for practice.
The appendix includes the Johns Hopkins PICO question
formation and ROL tools.
185
93%
Total CONTENT Points= 185 pts
ASSIGNMENT FORMAT
Category

11. Points
%
Description
APA, Syntax, Grammar, Spelling
15
15
Page length: Part 2 of the paper (excluding the title page and
reference page) should be
10 pages maximum
.
Title page, running head, body of paper, and reference page
must follow APA guidelines as found in the current edition of
the manual. This includes the use of headings for each section
of the paper except for the introduction where no heading is
used.
Ideas and information from scholarly, peer reviewed, nursing
sources must be cited and referenced correctly.
Rules of grammar, spelling, word usage, and punctuation are
followed and consistent with formal, scientific, scholarly

12. writing. First person writing should not be utilized.
Remember: All sections should have scholarly resources
integrated as in-text citations that support the content. APA
current edition is required for all elements of the paper.
15
7%
Total FORMAT Points= 15 pts
100%
ASSIGNMENT TOTAL=200 points
Rubric
NR505NP SOS Part 2_SEPT19
NR505NP SOS Part 2_SEPT19CriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion
is linked to a Learning OutcomeAbstractAbstract is succinct and
comprehensive, follows and includes APA components:
Accurate, non-evaluative, coherent and readable, concise.
Describes the problem under investigation (one sentence),
participants, essential features of the quality improvement
project to include setting, supporting theory, stakeholders and
outcome measurements that would be used to determine efficacy
of quality improvement project.

13. 40.0
ptsExcellentAbstract is succinct and comprehensive, follows
and includes APA components: Accurate, non-evaluative,
coherent and readable, concise. Describes the problem under
investigation (one sentence), participants, essential features of
the quality improvement project to include setting, supporting
theory, stakeholders and outcome measurements that would be
used to determine efficacy of quality improvement project.36.0
ptsV. GoodAbstract is thorough but not comprehensive in in
general or in one or two areas: Accurate, non-evaluative,
coherent and readable, concise. Describes the problem under
investigation (one sentence), participants, essential features of
the quality improvement project to include setting, supporting
theory, stakeholders and outcome measurements that would be
used to determine efficacy of quality improvement project.33.0
ptsSatisfactoryAbstract superficially addresses all APA
components or may be missing two components (for example,
setting, theory or stakeholders).20.0
ptsNeeds ImprovementAbstract is ill-prepared, unstructured,
and is missing most of the major components per APA0.0
ptsUnsatisfactoryAbstract is missing completely or is ill-
prepared, does not address the APA abstract components.
40.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeState of the
Science: Review of the Literature (ROL)1. A minimum of 6
(six) appropriate research-based scholarly references (articles)
must be used.
2. The evidence should be critically reviewed, compared and
contrasted, and synthesized.

14. 3. The strengths and limitations of the current evidence and
current practice are described which provide evidence for
practice change clearly supported
4. The identified area of issue or gap in practice is made clear
using evidence and is compelling and significant.
5. No more than 3 direct quotes are used
50.0
ptsExcellentComplete, comprehensive, and scholarly analysis
that meets all elements of the requirements for the ROL Zero to
three (0-3) direct quotes are utilized.45.0
ptsV. GoodThorough, but not comprehensive, analysis,
scholarly, meets all elements of the requirements for the ROL
Zero to three (0-3) direct quotes are utilized.41.0
ptsSatisfactorySuperficially presented, scant analysis, meets all
or most elements of the requirements for the ROL or may be
thorough in 2-3 requirements but be missing depth or content in
other areas Zero to three (0-3) direct quotes are utilized.25.0
ptsNeeds ImprovementLimited analysis. Presents literature
without connecting to quality project. Does not utilize a critical
review to support project’s purpose. May also contain greater
than three (3) direct quotes.0.0
ptsUnsatisfactoryROL is missing completely or is ill-prepared,
does not address any of the ROL components or is limited to a
superficial discussion of 1-2 components of the Criteria for
Content for the ROL. May also contain greater than three (3)
direct quotes.
50.0 pts

15. This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuality Change
PlanInter-disciplinary Quality Plan Supported by Scholarly In-
text Citations and include the following sections:
1. Feasible plan for implementation: Select a model for use,
such as the Plan/Do/Study/Act Model.
2. Identification of key stakeholders with rationale for
identification.
3. Identification of appropriate interdisciplinary team members
to assemble with rationale.
4. A plan for outcome analysis (this should include independent
and dependent variables as well as an overview of a method of
statistical analysis (which statistics or outcome measures).
5. Ethical considerations: Protection of Human Subjects.
70.0
ptsExcellentThe quality change plan has comprehensive depth
that is evidence by integration of scholarly resources throughout
all required sections which are comprehensively included.
Content provides rationales for all sections with definitions,
explanations, for decisions, planning.64.0
ptsV. GoodThe quality change plan is thorough but not
comprehensive in depth that is evidence by either missing
integration of scholarly resources throughout all sections or,
two (2) sections (for example) may be vague. Content provides
rationales for most sections and includes definitions, as well as
explanations, for decisions, planning.58.0
ptsSatisfactoryThe quality change plan has superficial in depth
that is evidence by a consistent lack of integration of scholarly
resources throughout all sections. Content provides rationales

16. that are superficial and/or inconsistently with inconsistent
definitions, as well as explanations, for decisions, planning.35.0
ptsNeeds ImprovementThe quality change plan has limited
depth that is evidence by an overall lack of integration of
scholarly resources throughout all sections. Content does not
provide rationales for sections with definitions, explanations,
for decisions, or planning. Or, rationales, definitions,
explanations for planning are brief without focus or clear
connection to project question/aim.0.0
ptsUnsatisfactoryThe quality change plan lacks depth and focus
as evidence by an overall lack of representation in all sections.
70.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummary/
AppendixThe conclusion restates the main sections of the paper.
It should contain a few sentences from each section,
sequentially representing the flow of the paper. The last few
sentences of the summary section should pull the paper together
by addressing an overview for future projects or by stating the
projects importance and implications for practice.
The appendix includes the Johns Hopkins PICO question
formation and ROL tools.
25.0
ptsExcellentThe summary pulls the paper together
comprehensively, including elements of each part of the State of
the Science Quality Improvement Paper. The appendix contains
both the PICO Question Formation Tool and the ROL Table
which are complete23.0
ptsV. GoodThe summary is thorough, including elements of
each part of the State of the Science Quality Improvement
Paper. The appendix contains both the PICO Question

17. Formation tool and the ROL Table which are complete or
missing 1 or 2 components of the tool (for instance, one or two
components of the ROL table)21.0
ptsSatisfactoryThe summary is brief including elements of each
part of the State of the Science Quality Improvement Paper OR
the summary is thorough but does not address all elements of
each part of the SOS paper. The appendix contains both the
PICO Question Formation tool and the ROL Table which are
complete or missing 1 or 2 components of the tool (for instance,
one or two components of the ROL table)13.0
ptsNeeds ImprovementThe summary is quite limited in all
elements of each part of the State of the Science Quality
Improvement Paper. The appendix contains both the PICO
Question Formation tool and the ROL Table OR may be missing
one tool OR both tools are present but are incomplete or
unorganized.0.0
ptsUnsatisfactoryThe summary is missing or incoherent. The
appendix is missing.
25.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning
OutcomeAPA/Syntax/Grammar/ Spelling1. Page length: Part 2
of the paper (excluding the title page and reference page)
should be 10 pages maximum.
2. Title page, running head, body of paper, and reference page
must follow APA guidelines as found in the 6th edition of the
manual. This includes the use of headings for each section of
the paper except for the introduction where no heading is used.
3. Ideas and information from scholarly, peer reviewed, nursing
sources must be cited and referenced correctly.

18. 4. Rules of grammar, spelling, word usage, and punctuation are
followed and consistent with formal, scientific, scholarly
writing. First person writing should not be utilized.
Remember: All sections should have scholarly resources
integrated as in-text citations that support the content. APA 6th
edition is required for all elements of the paper.
15.0
ptsExcellent1 error total in any area.13.0
ptsV. Good2-4 errors total in any area.12.0
ptsSatisfactory5-7 errors total in any area.8.0
ptsNeeds Improvement8-10 errors total in any area.0.0
ptsUnsatisfactoryGreater than 10 errors total in any area.
15.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLate penalty
deductionsStudents are expected to submit assignments by the
time they are due. Assignments submitted after the due date and
time will receive a deduction of 10% of the total points possible
for that assignment for each day the assignment is late.
Assignments will be accepted, with penalty as described, up to a
maximum of three days late, after which point a zero will be
recorded for the assignment.
Quizzes and discussions are not considered assignments and are
not part of the late assignment policy.
0.0
ptsManual Deductions0.0
ptsManual Deductions

19. 0.0 pts