Purpose  The purpose of this assignment is to document sources of research evidence that address a national practice problem, including the level and quality of each source of research evidence. A synthesis of the evidence is conducted to determine the overall strength and quality of the evidence. The development of an evidence table and synthesis are foundational to inform actions and decisions to improve healthcare outcomes. Construction of an evidence table and synthesis supports professional formation of the DNP practice scholar. Preparing The Assignment Follow these guidelines when completing each component of this assignment. The assignment will include the following componen a. Title Page b. Introduction a. Purpose Statement b. Practice Problem Identification (identified in Weeks 1, 2, and 3 Discussion) (cited) c. Sources of Research Evidence Identification (identified in Weeks 1, 2, and 3 Discussion) (cited) c. Implications of the Practice Problem at the National Level and Local Level (1–2 paragraphs) a. Significance b. Prevalence c. Economic Ramifications d. Synthesis of Evidence to Address the Selected Practice Problem, Including 2 Qualitative Research Studies, 2 Quantitative Research Studies, and 2 Systemactic Reviews (identified in Weeks 1, 2, and 3 Discussions) (2 paragraphs) a. Main Points/Salient Messages That Emerge From the Sources (Cited) b. Compare and Contrast Main Points From All Sources (Cited) c. Objective Discussion of Facts e. Appraisal of the Evidence to Address the Selected Practice Problem (1–2 paragraphs) a. Level of Evidence b. Quality Rating of Evidence c. Suitability of the Evidence to Address the Practice Problem f. Summary Tables of Evidence to Address the Selected Practice Problem Using the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Evidence Summary Tool (Links to an external site.) a. 2 Qualitative Research Studies (identified in Week 1 Discussion) b. 2 Quantitative Research Studies (identified in Week 2 Discussion) c. 2 Systematic Reviews (identified in Week 3 Discussion) g. Conclusion a. Summation of the Impact of the Practice Problem at the National Level and Local Level b. Summation of the Appraisal of Evidence to Address the Practice Problem c. Summation of the Evidence Synthesis h. References a. Reference Page With Complete References for the 6 Sources of Research Evidence 1. APA Style and Organization 9. APA Standards for Scholarly Papers 9. Grammar and Mechanics 9. Level I Headings are included All Chamberlain University policies related to plagiarism must be observed. This written assignment will be screened for originality by Turnitin. Rubric Week 6—Evidence Synthesis Grading Rubric Week 6—Evidence Synthesis Grading Rubric Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction Requirements 1. Includes a focused purpose statement 2. Identifies selected practice problem 3. Identifies sources of research evidence 30.0 pts Includes no fewer than 3 requirements. 26.0 pts Inc ...

1. Purpose
The purpose of this assignment is to document sources of
research evidence that address a national practice problem,
including the level and quality of each source of research
evidence. A synthesis of the evidence is conducted to determine
the overall strength and quality of the evidence. The
development of an evidence table and synthesis are foundational
to inform actions and decisions to improve healthcare outcomes.
Construction of an evidence table and synthesis supports
professional formation of the DNP practice scholar.
Preparing The Assignment
Follow these guidelines when completing each component of
this assignment. The assignment will include the following
componen
a. Title Page
b. Introduction
a. Purpose Statement
b. Practice Problem Identification (identified in Weeks 1, 2, and
3 Discussion) (cited)
c. Sources of Research Evidence Identification (identified in
Weeks 1, 2, and 3 Discussion) (cited)
c. Implications of the Practice Problem at the National Level
and Local Level (1–2 paragraphs)
a. Significance
b. Prevalence
c. Economic Ramifications
d. Synthesis of Evidence to Address the Selected Practice
Problem, Including 2 Qualitative Research Studies, 2
Quantitative Research Studies, and 2 Systemactic Reviews
(identified in Weeks 1, 2, and 3 Discussions) (2 paragraphs)
a. Main Points/Salient Messages That Emerge From the Sources
(Cited)

2. b. Compare and Contrast Main Points From All Sources (Cited)
c. Objective Discussion of Facts
e. Appraisal of the Evidence to Address the Selected Practice
Problem (1–2 paragraphs)
a. Level of Evidence
b. Quality Rating of Evidence
c. Suitability of the Evidence to Address the Practice Problem
f. Summary Tables of Evidence to Address the Selected Practice
Problem Using the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based
Practice Evidence Summary Tool (Links to an external site.)
a. 2 Qualitative Research Studies (identified in Week 1
Discussion)
b. 2 Quantitative Research Studies (identified in Week 2
Discussion)
c. 2 Systematic Reviews (identified in Week 3 Discussion)
g. Conclusion
a. Summation of the Impact of the Practice Problem at the
National Level and Local Level
b. Summation of the Appraisal of Evidence to Address the
Practice Problem
c. Summation of the Evidence Synthesis
h. References
a. Reference Page With Complete References for the 6 Sources
of Research Evidence
1. APA Style and Organization
9. APA Standards for Scholarly Papers
9. Grammar and Mechanics
9. Level I Headings are included
All Chamberlain University policies related to plagiarism must
be observed. This written assignment will be screened for
originality by Turnitin.
Rubric
Week 6—Evidence Synthesis Grading Rubric
Week 6—Evidence Synthesis Grading Rubric
Criteria
Ratings

3. Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction
Requirements 1. Includes a focused purpose statement 2.
Identifies selected practice problem 3. Identifies sources of
research evidence
30.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 3 requirements.
26.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 2 requirements
23.0 pts
Includes no less than 1 requirements.
0.0 pts
No requirements for this section presented.
30.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeImplications of
the Practice Problem at the National Level and Local Level
Requirements 1. Describes the significance of the practice
problem at the national level and local level 2. Discusses the
prevalence of the practice problem at the national level and
local level 3. Discusses the economic ramifications of the
practice problem at the national level and local level
40.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 3 requirements
35.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 2 requirements
31.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 1 requirement
0.0 pts
No requirements for this section presented
40.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvidence
Synthesis
Requirements 1. Describes scope of the evidence synthesis 2.
Discusses the main points of sources (sources are cited) 3.

4. Describes the relationship of sources to other selected sources
(sources are cited) 4. Discusses facts objectively 5. Presents
ideas and claims (sources are cited)
50.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 5 requirements
43.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 4 requirements
38.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 2 requirements
0.0 pts
No requirements for this section presented
50.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvidence
Appraisal
Requirements 1. Describes the levels of evidence 2. Discusses
the quality of evidence 3. Discusses the suitability of the
evidence to address the practice problem
50.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 3 requirements
43.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 2 requirements
38.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 1 requirement
0.0 pts
No requirements for this section presented
50.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvidence
Summary Tool
Requirements 1 Provides complete summary for first qualitative
research study 2 Provides complete summary for second
qualitative research study 3 Provides complete summary for
first quantitative research study 4 Provides complete summary
for second quantitative research study 5 Provides complete
summary for first systematic review 6 Provides complete

5. summary for second systematic review
40.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 6 requirements
35.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 5 requirements
31.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 4 requirements
0.0 pts
No requirements for this section presented
40.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConclusion
Requirements 1. Includes a summation of the impact of the
practice problem at the national level 2. Includes a summation
of the evidence appraisal 3. Includes a summation of the
evidence synthesis
30.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 3 requirements
26.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 2 requirements
23.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 1 requirement
0.0 pts
No requirements for this section presented
30.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReferences
Requirements 1. Cites and references for 6 selected sources of
evidence
30.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 6 complete references
26.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 5 complete references
23.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 4 complete references
0.0 pts

6. No requirements for this section presented
30.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA Style and
Organization
Requirements 1. Uses APA standards for scholarly papers 2.
Grammar and mechanics are free of errors 3. Uses required
evidence summary table 4. Uses required Level I Headings
30.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 4 requirements
26.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 3 requirements
23.0 pts
Includes no fewer than 1 requirement
0.0 pts
No requirements for this section presented
30.0 pts
Total Points: 300.0
PreviousNext
In this week’s discussion board post I will answer four
questions comparing two qualitative research articles addressing
heart failure readmission rates. I will also appraise the two
articles using John Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Individual Evidence Summary Tool.
Does the research design answer the research question? Explain
your rationale.
In article number one (Orlowski et al., 2018 p. 45) uses a
qualitative study to assess the value and usability of a novel
machine learning technology to predict and explain the risk of
30-day hospital readmission in patients with heart failure. The
authors chose semi-structured interviews from 27 participants
and three targeted observations. Qualitative studies focus on the
how and why research questions, participants in these type

7. studies contribute their own personal experience and values to
the study according to Dang & Dearholt, 2018.
In article number two Sousa & Santos (2019) use a framework
of complex interventions proposed by the Medical Research
Council which involves 4 phases, this article is phase one of
four, to answer the research question. Phase one of the study
utilized responses from face to face interviews of participants to
develop themes, the themes in turn will be used in the following
phases of the study to ensure the newly created intervention will
not take into account researcher’s opinion, but rather
participants needs.
Was the study sample participant’s representative? Why or why
not?
In article number one data was collected a total of 27 nurses,
hospital administration, non-clinical support staff, nurses and
physicians all key stakeholders concerning heart failure
readmission. Participants were representative as, the findings in
the article found no new knowledge. I, however, do not feel that
the participant’s characteristics were described well. Years or
experience as a clinician, and ease of use in
computer/technology may have also played a role in data
collected.
In article number two a sample size of five patients, 2
doctors(cardiologist), and 3 nurses (experienced) were
representative due to no new knowledge was found at
conclusion of the interviews from the five patients interviewed.
Compare and contrast the study limitations in these two studies.
In both article one and article two I feel that generalizability
and the small sample size would be a limitation. Heart failure
affects millions of patients annually in industrialized countries
and according to Sousa & Santos nearly 50% are readmitted
within 6 months. In article number two an increase in sample
size of patients and healthcare professionals would increase the
reliability of the study, with millions of patients being
readmitted for heart failure a sample of five participants is
reliable.

8. Based on this evidence summary, would you consider either or
both of these qualitative research studies as support for your
selected practice problem? Explain your rationale.
I consider both articles as evidence for my selected practice
problem. In my project I plan to show that nurses have
resistance to change especially when faced with a lack of
resources. My project will show how interventions must work
efficient and quickly to be usable as stated in article number
one.
From article two I will use the data from “results” that
reinforces that healthcare education is very important in the
management of heart failure and readmission.
Refernces
Dang, D., & Dearholt, S. (2018). Johns Hopkins nursing
evidence-based practice model and guidelines (3rd ed.).
Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau International.
Orlowski, S., Bane, S., Hirschey, J., Kakarmath, S., Felsted, J.,
Brown, J., … Jethwani, K. (2018). Value and Acceptability of a
Novel Machine Learning Technology for Heart Failure
Readmission Reduction: Qualitative Analysis of Clinical Roles
and Workflows. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(9),
45. https://doi-
org.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.2196/11895
Sousa, J. P., & Santos, M. (2019). Symptom Management and
Hospital Readmission in Heart Failure Patients: A Qualitative
Study From Portugal. Critical Care Nursing Quarterly, 42(1),
81–88. https://doi-
org.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.1097/CNQ.00000000
00000241

9. Article number one
https://eds-a-ebscohost-
com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=3
&sid=66c042c1-e9bf-47e8-8f9c-bc24d7c4d47a%40sdc-v-
sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0
ZQ%3d%3d#AN=132198455&db=lih (Links to an external site.)
Article number two
https://ovidsp-dc2-ovid-
com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/sp-
4.02.0b/ovidweb.cgi?QS2=434f4e1a73d37e8c3b61fcc465cfeaf2
1d5f6b48266e1f269964c07e03f85490d1ea8abfdf5a071d5522d70
228343eeb0e42c0aa88a3054484971b5a51e8b3598c22e372052d0
b8123fdce162fade397df02519571d77795f854a05a9a8131ce1993
26e3a4e9be947c187279373ac0d62b0e165ee254d7789b700e8a3b
c1137fc90e58b0f81b1bbda2a5ecfa660dbac682b19cb8eca5b5ca8
6cba67f40d4c47c5017acefda99f6ef5efe91fa9933bac521076d7b8
b16a2accb2c6b39cc24510316a7ef77b06394d6d1e21a7b0b25b56
081f67f4cc9442dd7073b5337cd214703043d5868497caadc829cc
2f50f7c6712d5abf343bb10d4e133e6167e9b0dec28bc8046e78e5
7558584dea8e24da3178ee59686f1a461b4ce721dd1e870356efe
Does the systematic review answer the research question?
Explain your rationale.
Yes the research question is answered in first study. In article
number one care of patients with heart failure (HF), would use
of inter professional care teams result in fewer hospital
readmission compared to routine care? In the conclusion section
of the first article it states that a reduction in readmission is
directly proportional to healthcare savings, improved patient-
provider relationship, and patient satisfaction (Shan, 2018).
In the second article the question is listed as an objective which
states that after completing this learning activity, the learner

10. will be able to identify a role for teach-back method in patient
education to reduce readmission in patients with heart failure. I
feel as though the research question was not answered in the
second article as it concludes that more initiatives should be
added in conjunction with the teach back method.
2. Was the search comprehensive and reproducible?
Yes the first article was comprehensive and reproducible,
however, the second was not.
3.Did each systematic review include a section addressing
limitations and how they were addressed?
In the first article limitation were listed under a section clearly
identified as the limitations. The limitation included the fact
that the article was only published in the English language,
some studies had small sample sizes, generalizability. In the
second article the limitation was found within the reading of the
article no section to clearly identify limitations were used but
the verbiage “limitation” was found in the article to discuss the
limitations. Limitations were identified as small sample size and
an inability to control the study groups.
4.Based on this evidence summary, would you consider either or
both of these systematic reviews as support for your selected
practice problem? Explain your rationale.
Yes I would consider each of these pieces in my data collection
for my practice problem. Part of my interventions to decrease
readmission in my project is educating staff and patients on the
important facts to know to decrease readmission, also I plan to
show how use of multidisciplinary teams are beneficial to
decrease readmission.
Article #1
https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://sea
rch.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=13039
7402&site=eds-live&scope=siteArticle#1

11. Shah, B. (2018). Effectiveness of Interprofessional Care Teams
on Reducing Hospital Readmissions in Patients with Heart
Failure: A Systematic Review. MEDSURG Nursing, 27(3), 177–
185. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-
com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true
&db=ccm&AN=130397402&site=eds-live&scope=site
Article #2
https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://sea
rch.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=12583
3259&site=eds-live&scope=site
Almkuist, K. D. (2017). Using Teach-Back Method to Prevent
30-Day Readmissions in Patients with Heart Failure: A
Systematic Review. MEDSURG Nursing, 26(5), 309–351.
Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-
com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true
&db=ccm&AN=125833259&site=eds-live&scope=site