question archive EBP107_Assessment Brief 3_Journal Evaluation Page 1 of 6 ASSESSMENT 3 BRIEF Subject Code and Title EBP107 Evidence-Based Practice Assessment Assessment 3: Journal Article Evaluation: Using a critical appraisal tool Individual/Group Individual Length Learning Outcomes This assessment addresses the Subject Learning Outcomes outlined at the bottom of this document
EBP107_Assessment Brief 3_Journal Evaluation Page 1 of 6 ASSESSMENT 3 BRIEF Subject Code and Title EBP107 Evidence-Based Practice Assessment Assessment 3: Journal Article Evaluation: Using a critical appraisal tool Individual/Group Individual Length Learning Outcomes This assessment addresses the Subject Learning Outcomes outlined at the bottom of this document
Subject:Health SciencePrice:3.87 Bought7
EBP107_Assessment Brief 3_Journal Evaluation Page 1 of 6 ASSESSMENT 3 BRIEF Subject Code and Title EBP107 Evidence-Based Practice Assessment Assessment 3: Journal Article Evaluation: Using a critical appraisal tool Individual/Group Individual Length Learning Outcomes This assessment addresses the Subject Learning Outcomes outlined at the bottom of this document. Submission By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday of Module 5.2 (week 10) Weighting 45% Total Marks 100 marks EBP107_Assessment Brief 3_Journal Evaluation Page 2 of 6 Context: This assessment enables students to demonstrate their ability to evaluate and appraise evidence in healthcare research, an essential component of evidence-based practice and the exercise of clinical judgement in the delivery of quality healthcare. Students will use a critical appraisal tool and other supporting references to appraise and interpret the sections and methodological quality of a research article including how well the evidence may be applied in evidence-based practice. Instructions: Students are required to conduct an evaluation of one journal article in an essay format. The article may be the selected one used in Assessment 2 Article Summary task. Alternatively, you may choose to select an article of your choice from the range of research articles supplied for the previous Assessment 2 assignment. This task requires using one of the critical appraisal tools supplied from a link below. Choose an appraisal tool that fits the chosen article to evaluation. ? CASP. (n.d.). CASP Checklists. Retrieved from https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/ ? Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM). (2014). Critical Appraisal Tools. Retrieved from https://www.cebm.net/2014/06/critical-appraisal/ ? Equator Network.(n.d.). Reporting guidelines for main study types. Retrieved from http://www.equator-network.org/ ? Joanna Briggs Institute (n.d). Critical appraisal tools. Retrieved from http://joannabriggs.org/research/critical-appraisal-tools.html Essay Format: The article evaluation must be presented in an essay format, with an introduction, body and conclusion. Introduction: The introduction must introduce the article, including proper referencing of the article, and a discussion about why you chose that article to evaluate. Body: In the body of your essay you must: 1. Use the critical appraisal tool you have chosen to evaluate all the sections of the research study, including the title, abstract and declarations. 2. Throughout the body of your essay you are to refer to the chosen critical appraisal tool and use additional references to support your evaluation. Subheadings may be used. 3.. Provide a referenced definition of Evidence Based Practice (EBP), and a recommendation as to how well the findings from this study may be incorporated into EBP. Give reasons and offer evidence to support your evaluation. EBP107_Assessment Brief 3_Journal Evaluation Page 3 of 6 Conclusion: A brief discussion of the overall quality of the study with reference to the strengths and weaknesses as outlined in the body of the essay. Referencing: Refer to Library Academic and Referencing Guidelines. Word count: Please include the word count - excluding in?text citations and reference list at the end of the assessment. Please adhere to the word count, if you exceed (+10%), the excess may not be graded. Appendix: Include a copy of the completed critical appraisal tool as an appendix. Submission Instructions: Submit via the Assessment 3: Journal Article Evaluation link in the main navigation menu in EBP107 Evidence-Based Practice. The Learning Facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the LMS portal. Feedback can be viewed in My Grades. EBP107_Assessment Brief 3_Journal Evaluation Page 4 of 6 Learning Rubric: Assessment 3 Journal Article Evaluation: using a critical appraisal tool Assessment Attributes Fail (Unacceptable) 0-49% Pass (Functional) 50-64% Credit (Proficient) 65-74% Distinction (Advanced) 75 -84% High Distinction (Exceptional) 85-100% Knowledge and understanding Review and introduction provided for a chosen article. Percentage for this criterion: 20% The chosen article being reviewed has not been clearly identified, information is disjointed or irrelevant comments are present. The article being reviewed has been identified, however, appropriate referencing is not included and introduction provided is limited. The article being reviewed is identified, referenced and clear introduction is provided. The article being reviewed is identified, referenced and a succinct introduction is provided. The article being reviewed is identified, referenced and thorough and succinct introduction is provided. Application of new knowledge. Evaluation of journal article and adherence to the critical appraisal tool. Percentage for this criterion: 30% Lack of application of new knowledge is evident. No reference to the critical appraisal tool. Demonstrated application of new knowledge in evaluating a chosen journal article. Lacks reference to the critical appraisal tool. Well-developed application of new knowledge and evaluation of chosen article with reference to the critical appraisal tool. Thoroughly developed evaluation of chosen article with clear reference to the critical appraisal tool. Highly sophisticated and creative evaluation of chosen article with thorough application of the critical appraisal tool. Excellent description and critique of each section. Reasoning and presentation of argument and/or position. Limited understanding of key concepts required to support discussion. Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas. Often conflates/confuses assertion of personal opinion with information Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course Clearly discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and Information that is substantiated by robust evidence from the EBP107_Assessment Brief 3_Journal Evaluation Page 5 of 6 Key concepts of discussion presented. Discriminates between personal opinion and substantiated information. Percentage for this criterion: 25% Confuses logic and emotion. Information taken from reliable sources but without comments to support. substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts, with a good description of the overall quality of research. Clear definition of Evidence Based Practice provided. materials and extended reading. Well demonstrated capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts, with a very good description and critique of the overall quality of research. Relevant and thorough definition of Evidence Based Practice. research/course materials and extended reading. Information is taken from sources with a high level of interpretation/evaluatio n to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis. An excellent description of overall quality of research, including succinct and thorough definition of Evidence Based Practice provided. Structure and writing style. Clarity of expression, planning and flow of work 15% No evidence of planning. Inappropriate writing style. Needs work on structure, flow and order. Report missing structure of introduction, body and conclusion. Adequate academic writing style. Basic structure, some areas may lack flow or order. Some aspects of report structure missing, lacking complete introduction, body and conclusion. Good academic writing style. Logical sequence with clear structure. Report structure includes flow of introduction, body and conclusion. Well-developed academic writing style. Clear expression with logical sequencing, flow and structure. Report structure includes clear presentation of introduction, body and conclusion. Highly developed academic writing style. Clear and concise. Structure and sequencing effectively supports discussion, drawing concepts together. Report structure includes succinct presentation of introduction, body and conclusion. EBP107_Assessment Brief 3_Journal Evaluation Page 6 of 6 Correct citation of key resources and evidence 10% Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas. Demonstrates use of credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed. Demonstrates use of credible resources to support and develop ideas. Demonstrates use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and position statements. Shows evidence of wide scope within the organisation for sourcing evidence. Demonstrates use of high-quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and position statements. Show evidence of wide scope within and without the organisation for sourcing evidence. The following Subject Learning Outcomes are addressed in this assessment SLO a) Describe the different forms of knowledge acquisition and the sources of evidence in health. SLO b) Explain the rationale and purpose of scientific research, evaluation and the evidence-based approach and ethical considerations in the context of healthcare. SLO c) Describe and interpret the hierarchy of evidence. SLO d) Retrieve and evaluate health information from databases, internet and library sources in order to inform and improve healthcare practice. SLO e) Identify and appraise the quality of the key components of an evidence- based, health science research article SLO f) Describe quantitative, qualitative and mixed research methodologies, research processes, data management and analysis.
Purchase A New Answer
Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts
GET A QUOTE
Answer Preview
Answer:
Evidence Based Practice is important because it aims to provide the most effective care that is available with the aim of improving patient outcomes. Patient expect to receive the most effective care based on the best available evidence. As as health professionals , part of providing a professional service is ensuring that our practice is informed by the best available evidence.
Knowledge acquisition
Acquisition implies creating aspect knowledge base and putting continuous efforts in its expansion. An Evidence based knowledge can consist of multiple parts, that is separate tabs in knowledge management system ,for example, scientific researches and studies, clinical cases, news and regulation updates. Health specialists would mostly work on with this two tab-Clinical cases and scientific researches. Clinical cases allow professional to see all notable patient disease histories and treatment applied within the hospital. Not every patient;s health record should be turned into a new case, only those that contain new knowledge. Only authorized health specialists will be able to create new cases.
The scientific research and studies tab is one of the main knowledge expanding tools. Health specialists would search for new articles and materials daily, find the most relevant best practices and upload them to the knowledge base. If the specialists could not find a problem solving answer in the Knowledge base or during their daily self education process, providers can initiate their own research , it can be held in two ways.
1 Gathering multiple articles are research papers, extracting needed knowledge items and combing them in a new material.
2. Interviewing a high level knowledge owner and transforming their tacit knowledge into explicit one by documenting the interview
Knowledge distribution and application.
Providers have two medical knowledge distribution modes to enable-Push and Pull dissemination. These ensure both knowledge distribution and application.
Pull dissemination involves
Knowledge base navigation through all the tabs with refining the results
Knowledge map tied to medical staff profiles
Collaboration sites with discussion hubs and forums
Online consulting and course
topic subscription to the latest updates across departments and disease
Push dissemination include
Medical communities of practice
Collaboration sites with discussion hubs and forums
group workshops and training sessions notifying collaborations site member on topic updates, new knowledge items added to knowledge base.
Knowledge review and update
Any knowledge gets outdated and eventually and using it as it is every other year can lead to preventable medical errors. Therefore providers need to continuously invest efforts into reviewing and updating knowledge items. To enable that , it is recommended to tag each scientific research, study and article in the knowledge management system with publishing and update date then health specialist will get automated notifications about their soon to be outdated materials and check an article or a study. If they find the knowledge item irrevelne t they can delete it and avoid useless and even harmful knowledge.
Sources of evidence
Evidence is published across a variety of sources including scientific or academic journal books conference proceedings ,websites and news reports. Academic publications in scientific journals are generally consider to be higher quality due to their independent peer, review process.
NHMRC evidence hierarchies
The National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia has developed an evidence hierarchy specifically for intervention studies.
Level- Systemic studuies
LevelII- Randomised controlled trial
LevelIII- Pseudo-randmomised controlled trial or comparative study with or without concurrent control group includes cohort study, case control study historical control study.
LevelIV- Case series
Academic data base
PubMed
Clinical Queries
CINAHL
Embase
PsvchiNFO
Free search engines
Google Scholar
other;
NICE Evidence Search
PDQ-Evidence
Trip database
PICO framework
Directory of Open Access Journals etc
Sources of evidence should be considered;
The scientific literature.
The organization.
Data facts and figures gathered from the organization.
Practitioners.
Stakeholders.
The values and concerns of people who may be affected by the decision.
The range of scientific research evaluation
This concept refers to many types of activities ranging from monitoring to systematically analysis as to whether the objectives set for activities have been reached or what extent activities have changed through the adoption of a policy or a measure.
Recent Developments in methods used for the evaluation of scientific researches activities.
Evaluation methods can be grouped into following major class
Peer review and its variants.
Interviewing and questionnaire methods.
Quantitative method
Case studies, case histories
Involvement of researches in evaluation
The peer and expert group procedure require that the researches to be assessed be willing to devote time to prepare material for the expert and to the interviews.
Interviews
Expert evaluations can be made more systemic by using standardized interviews and questionnaires, there by gathering the views of a wide group of experts and overcoming the restrictions involved in using a few experts only.
The growing popularity of the Internet has made finding health information easier and faster. Much of the information on the internet is valuable however the internet also allows rapid and widespread distribution of false and misleading information
Evaluating EHR implementation is a critical . Conducting a post implementation will enable your practice to continue improving workflows . During our post implementation evaluation , you should check the practice/ hospital/ is still intact and that workflows are running smoothly with few workarounds also to identify unresolved vendor issues, interface issues, and staff training needs we can use the findings of post implementation evaluation to target and implement initiatives that will enable your practices/hospital to continue quality improvement.
Evidence based practice is widely recognized concept in contemporary social work practice.
The McMaster Group of Canadian Physicians who developed the contemporary EBP. it has four compartments
1 The current clinical circumstances of the client
2 The best relevant research evidence
3 the clients;s values and preferences
4 The clinical expertise of the practitioner
Decision making process
Step 1 identification of a specific practice problem .
step 2 is locating the best available research knowledge addressing the problems .
step 3 involves critically reviewing the quality of the located researches and its relevance to the clients problem.
step 4 involve collaboratively and interactively discussing the best available and relevant research with the client.
step 5 involves finalizing a treatment plan based on this active collaborative discussions.
Step 6 involve implementing and evaluating the plan.
Research methods are split broadly into quantitative and qualitative methods
Qualitative research -which does not involve number or numerical data. almost any phenomenon can be examined in a qualitative way,Qualitative analysis results in rich data that gives an in depth picture and it is particularly useful for exploring theory and why things have happened.
-open ended questions.
-mainly expressed in words, analyzed by summarizing categorizing.
Quantitative research -the data produced are always numerical and they are analysed using mathematical and statistical methods. they are already available as numbers .
Required many responds
Closed questions, mainly expressed in numbers, graphs and tables.
