Research In Solving Practice Standard Disparities Discussion

Research In Solving Practice Standard Disparities Discussion

Professional standards provide a framework for a competent level of care for nurses in practice. They are used as a comparison measure of actual nurse performances as they reflect the desired and achievable level of performance for nurses in practice. The main goal of professional standards is to improve safety and competency in nursing by providing a competency checklist for nurses (Poorchangizi et al., 2019). However, it should be noted that though professional standards and clinical guidelines may be used interchangeably, they are different. The clinical guidelines are used in the nursing process and incorporate standards and competencies that can be used as an evaluation framework to ensure compliance with nursing standards Research In Solving Practice Standard Disparities Discussion.

PLACE YOUR ORDER HERE

Research is crucial in healthcare as results can be used to solve issues that may present themselves during actual practice. More so, it can be used to solve disparities that may arise between professional standards and actual practice. This includes implementing evidence-based practice into clinical standards and practice to resolve a disparity. Evidence-based practice involves utilizing research data and results that guide policy and decision-making to improve patient outcomes. Additionally, knowledge from EBP can be used as a basis to change policy and standards (Lehane et al., 2018). For example, evidence-based practice has been used to change practice standards addressing sudden infant death syndrome. Previous recommendations require that babies sleep on their stomachs in case of choking while sleeping, but research recommends that they sleep on their backs.

Several approaches can aid in adopting research/evidence-based practice into professional standards. This includes the Stetler Model, which provides a framework for nursing practitioners to integrate research into practice. The model helps identify the need to implement change in certain practices and clinical standards. Therefore, organizations should implement clinical practice and standard changes based on proven research.

References

Lehane, E., Leahy-Warren, P., O’Riordan, C., Savage, E., Drennan, J., & O’Tuathaigh, C. et al. (2018). Evidence-based practice education for healthcare professions: an expert view. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 24(3), 103-108. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111019

Poorchangizi, B., Borhani, F., Abbaszadeh, A., Mirzaee, M., & Farokhzadian, J. (2019). The importance of professional values from nursing students’ perspective. BMC Nursing, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-019-0351-1 Research In Solving Practice Standard Disparities Discussion

Discussion Board Rubric 30 pts

Discussion Board Rubric 30 pts
Criteria	Ratings	Pts
Initial Responses view longer description	14 to >12.18 pts Proficient The initial post applies course content sufficiently by expanding on the main points of the prompt; responses exhibit critical thinking and analysis. 12.18 to >10.5 pts Acceptable Content knowledge is exhibited by identification of the main topics; there is some evidence of critical thinking and analysis, but responses may be insufficient or lacking in detail. 10.5 to >8.26 pts Needs Improvement Understanding of content knowledge is poorly exhibited and insufficient in critical thinking, analysis, and detail. Some main discussion topics are not covered or significantly digress from the topic at hand Research In Solving Practice Standard Disparities Discussion. 8.26 to >0 pts Unsatisfactory Initial response is missing or provides no indication of understanding. Main topics are not covered.	/ 14 pts
Reponses to Peers view longer description	10 to >8.7 pts Proficient Replies to peers or instructors are well developed and insightful, and provide an opportunity for response. Responses promote a discussion either by sharing prior knowledge and experiences, making meaningful connections with course content, asking meaningful questions, or challenging viewpoints. 8.7 to >7.5 pts Acceptable Replies to peers or instructors are mostly developed and provide an opportunity for response. Responses contribute to the discussion either by sharing prior knowledge and experiences, making connections with course content, or asking questions. 7.5 to >5.9 pts Needs Improvement Some replies to peers or instructors are missing or poorly developed and provide little or no opportunity for response. Responses do little to contribute to the discussion. 5.9 to >0 pts Unsatisfactory No responses to peers or instructors are presented AND/OR one word responses are provided.	/ 10 pts
Mechanics view longer description	2 to >1.74 pts Proficient Written in a clear, concise, formal, and organized manner. Responses are mostly error free. Information from sources is paraphrased appropriately and accurately referenced and cited in APA when applicable. 1.74 to >1.5 pts Acceptable Writing is generally clear and organized but is not concise or formal in language. Multiple errors exist in spelling and grammar with minor interference with readability or comprehension. Most information from sources is paraphrased, referenced, and cited correctly in APA Research In Solving Practice Standard Disparities Discussion. 1.5 to >1.18 pts Needs Improvement Writing is generally unclear and unorganized. Several errors in spelling and grammar. Information from sources is missing or improperly cited. 1.18 to >0 pts Unsatisfactory Errors in spelling and grammar detract from readability and comprehension, AND/OR writing includes slang or is inappropriate for academic discourse.	/ 2 pts
Participation view longer description	4 to >3.48 pts Proficient Meets or exceeds the minimum number of initial postings and replies to peers or instructors. 3.48 to >3 pts Acceptable Provided slightly less than the minimum amount of initial posts and replies to peers or instructors. 3 to >2.36 pts Needs Improvement Provided significantly less than the minimum amount of initial posts and replies to peers or instructors. 2.36 to >0 pts Unsatisfactory There was little to no evidence of active participation in the discussion board, initial postings and/or replies to peers or instructors Research In Solving Practice Standard Disparities Discussion.	/ 4 pts
Total Points: 0