Literature Evaluation Table

Literature Evaluation Table

Literature Evaluation Table

View Rubric

Max Points: 75

Details:

In nursing practice, accurate identification and application of research is essential to achieving successful outcomes. Being able to articulate the information and successfully summarize relevant peer-reviewed articles in a scholarly fashion helps to support the student’s ability and confidence to further develop and synthesize the progressively more complex assignments that constitute the components of the course change proposal capstone project.

For this assignment, the student will provide a synopsis of eight peer-reviewed articles from nursing journals using an evaluation table that determines the level and strength of evidence for each of the eight articles. The articles should be current within the last 5 years and closely relate to the PICOT statement developed earlier in this course. The articles may include quantitative research, descriptive analyses, longitudinal studies, or meta-analysis articles. A systematic review may be used to provide background information for the purpose or problem identified in the proposed capstone project. Use the “Literature Evaluation Table” resource to complete this assignment.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and in-text citations and references should be presented using APA documentation guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are not required to submit this assignment to Turnitin.

NRS-490-RS-LiteratureEvaluationTable.docx

Apply Rubrics

Literature Evaluation Table 

1
Unsatisfactory 0-71%
0.00%
2
Less Than Satisfactory 72-75%
75.00%
3
Satisfactory 76-79%
79.00%
4
Good 80-89%
89.00%
5
Excellent 90-100%
100.00%
100.0 %Article Selection
5.0 %Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access ArticleAuthor, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is not included.Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is present.Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is clearly provided and well developed.Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
5.0 %Article Title and Year PublishedArticle title and year published section is not included.Article title and year published section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Article title and year published section is present.Article title and year published section is clearly provided and well developed.Article title and year published section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
10.0 %Research Questions (Qualitative) or Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes or Aim of StudyResearch questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is not included.Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is present.Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is clearly provided and well developed.Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
5.0 %Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is not included.Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present.Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is clearly provided and well developed.Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
5.0 %Setting or SampleSetting or sample section is not included.Setting or sample section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Setting or sample section is present.Setting or sample section is clearly provided and well developed.Setting or sample section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
5.0 %Methods: Intervention or InstrumentsMethods: Intervention or instruments section is not included.Methods: Intervention or instruments section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Methods: Intervention or instruments section is present.Methods: Intervention or instruments section is clearly provided and well developed.Methods: Intervention or instruments section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
10.0 %AnalysisAnalysis section is not included.Analysis section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Analysis section is present.Analysis section is clearly provided and well developed.Analysis section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
10.0 %Key FindingsKey findings section is not included.Key findings section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Key findings section is present.Key findings section is clearly provided and well developed.Key findings section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
10.0 %RecommendationsRecommendations section is not included.Recommendations section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Recommendations section is present.Recommendations section is clearly provided and well developed.Recommendations section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
10.0 %Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP or CapstoneExplanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is not included.Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is present.Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is clearly provided and well developed.Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
10.0 %PresentationThe piece is not neat or organized, and it does not include all required elements.The work is not neat and includes minor flaws or omissions of required elements.The overall appearance is general, and major elements are missing.The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor flaws or missing elements.The work is well presented and includes all required elements. The overall appearance is neat and professional.
10.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
5.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)Sources are not documented.Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

REQUIREMENTS

 nursing  literature evaluation table

Hi

I will send the changed PICOT question, answer, and references which I wrote. Please answer according to the changed subject and follow the rubric.

Thanking you

PICOT Statement related to the reduction of sepsis in Dialysis Patients

PICOT Question: In patients with kidney disease, what is the effectiveness of peritoneal dialysis as compared to hemodialysis in the reduction of sepsis.

The research question is important in the analysis of methods and that will assist in the reduction of kidney failure in patients. In this paper, the patient population is undergoing dialysis due to kidney failure. The intervention is the patient undergoing Peritoneal dialysis is less risk for sepsis comparing to Hemodialysis (PubMed Health). The essence of this paper is to compare the chance of infection in peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis and to establish the relative occurrence of sepsis is less in peritoneal dialysis patients. The outcome is peritoneal dialysis is better than hemodialysis in the elimination of sepsis, which creates the need to observe the mortality rates are important as it enhances in evaluating the systematic operation of the nurses in examining the performance of the procedures (Clckeroft & Najjar, 2015).

The definition of kidney disease is a condition characterized by the gradual loss of kidney’s ability to adequately filter toxins and waste products from the blood (National Guideline Clearing House, 2008). Peritoneal dialysis differs from hemodialysis by filtering and cleaning blood within the body rather than through an outside dialyzer. The hemodialysis patients are at a strikingly higher risk of septicemia/bacteremia than peritoneal dialysis patients (F.H. Bender et al., 2006). The evidence is in the application of peritoneal dialysis is an effective form of dialysis for reduction of sepsis, has been proven to be better than hemodialysis (National Kidney Foundation). The training that is required helps in focusing on the treatment methods and the stability that the patients require. The advancement of technology is important as it leads to the creation of solutions that help in the treatment of the patients eliminating the risks of sepsis that are likely to occur (Kieburtz, 2015).

The nursing intervention focuses on the different modalities in the treatment process and this enhanced the need to focus on the stability of the patient. The role of the nurses is to focus on the different situations where the peritoneal dialysis is applied and the care that the patients require as compared to the use of hemodialysis (Gupta et al., 2017). The nursing intervention will help in focusing on the catheters to use in the reduction of sepsis and the insertion expertise. The patients with kidney dialysis are at risk for infection, fatigue, dehydration, constipation, and acute pain. There is a chance for exit site infection and peritonitis which can be controlled by examination by a peritoneal dialysis nurse which includes giving antibiotics, applying hypertonic saline or special cleaning solutions as the case may be (Mark H. Shapiro). It creates the need to observe the status of the patients and the feasibility of the different practices in helping to improve the health of the patients.

The care of the patient requires the need to identify the risks that they face in the usage of dialysis and this creates the uniqueness that the patients require in the dialysis process. The objective is to enhance the identification for the different risks in patient care and the comparison of the risks where the peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis treatment methods are applied (Gonzalez et al, 2014). The interest in the usage of peritoneal dialysis is to ensure there is standardization of the treatment methods and this enables the increase in efficiency in the management of the dialysis process and controlling of sepsis.

The healthcare agency assists in the development of the different clinical trials that help in the management of the characteristic of the process. There is a focus on the different patterns of treatment and the trends that help in outlining the different outcomes (Digre et al., 2015). The perspective in the management of the different trends in the treatment process enables the uniqueness of the techniques and this implies the focus on the analysis of the role of the patients in the treatment process.

The nursing practice is shaped by the PICOT question as there is the development of a culture that is influenced by the dialysis procedures. In the reduction of the sepsis, the assessment of the sensitivity of the different measures enables the elimination of the consequences of infection and this creates the need to narrow down on the treatment procedure to apply (Townsend et al., 2015). There is an analysis of the different factors that influence the perception of the changes in the diagnosis and this influence the treatment process through the creation of a culture that is based on increasing the results in the elimination of the rate of infection in dialysis (Yang et al., 2015).

References

Aaron Stern, Soumya Sachdeva, Rohi Kapoor, Jasjit Singh, and Sarthak Sachdeva, 2014. High

Blood Pressure in Dialysis Patients: Cause, Pathology, Influence on Morbidity, Mortality

and management. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/4129274.

Acute Kidney Injury. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0071513/

Chronic Kidney Disease Guidelines. Retrieved from

http://www.guideline.gov/content.aspx?id=46648

Digre, K.B., Bruce, B.B., McDermott, M.P., Galetta, K.M.,Balcer, L.J., Wall, M., & Kieburtz,

K. (2015). Quality of life in idiopathic intracranial hypertension at diagnosis IIH

Treatment Trial results. Neurology, 84(24), 2449-2456.

F.H. Bender, J. Bernardini, B. Piranio. Prevention of infectious complication in peritoneal

dialysis. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com

Gonzalez, J., Valls, N., Brito, R., & Rodrigo, R. (2014). Essential hypertension and oxidative

stress: New insights. World journal of cardiology, 6(6), 353.

Gupta, R., Kaur, M., Islam, S., Mohan, V., Mony, P., Kumar, R., & Antony, J. (2017).

Association of household wealth index, educational status, and social capital with

hypertension awareness, treatment, and control in South Asia. American Journal of

hypertension, 30 (4), 373-381.

Mark H. Shapiro. Preventing Catheter Infection on Peritoneal Dialysis. Retrieved from

https://www.davita.com

National Kidney Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.kidney.org/atoz/content/peritoneal

Townsend, R.R., Wilkinson, I.B., Schiffrin, E.L.,Avolio, A.P., Chirinos, J.A., Cockcroft, J.R., &

Najjar, S.S.(2015). American Heart Association Council on Hypertension.

Recommendations for improving and standardizing vascular research on arterial stiffness:

a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension,66(3),698-722.

Yang, T., Santisteban, M.M., Rodriguez, V.,Li, E., Ahmari, N., Carvajal, J.M., & Sahay, B. (2015). Gut microbiota dysbiosis is linked to hypertension. Hypertension,65(6), 1331.

Answer preview…………

Student Name:

Change Topic (2-3 sentences): A comparison of the effectiveness of peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis is required to understand the method for the reduction of sepsis within two weeks in patients with kidney disease. It is hypothesized that that likely occurrence of infection in PD units is lower than HD units………..

APA 1655 words

Share this paper
Open Whatsapp chat
1
Hello;
Can we help you?