PICO and Evidence Appraisal Guidelines
Chamberlain College of Nursing NR451 RN Capstone Course
Capstone Project Milestone #1:
PICO and Evidence Appraisal Guidelines
Purpose
Clear identification of the problem or opportunity is the first step in evidence-based nursing. This first milestone offers two tools to assist in the identification and gathering of evidence to link the problem, proposed intervention, and desired outcomes. Completion of the milestone will include identification of the problem or concern using the PICO format and an evidence appraisal to find evidence to support an intervention that will change the outcomes.
Course Outcomes
This assignment enables the student to meet the following Course Outcomes.
CO4: Develops and outlines a scientific, systematic decision-making process to integrate critical thinking with clinical judgment to assure safe and effective outcomes. (PO #4)
CO8: Selects evidence for best practice when planning professional nursing care for individuals, families, aggregates, and communities. (PO #8)
Due Date
Milestone #1 consists of the completion of one worksheet that contains two parts (i.e., the PICO worksheet and the evidence appraisal worksheet). Submit the file with the two worksheets completed to the Dropbox by Sunday, 11:59 p.m. MT at the end of Week 2.
Points
Milestone #1 is worth 175 points (75 points for the PICO worksheet and 100 points for the evidence appraisal worksheet).
Directions
1. Read this document including the grading rubrics below.
2. Download the PICO/Evidence Appraisal worksheets form from Doc Sharing. Consider what is the nursing problem or issue that you have uncovered. Make sure it is related to nursing, i.e., one that a nurse can solve independently. Do not select a medical problem that is dependent upon a medical professional to resolve. Completion of PICO worksheet will offer a tool for your literature search.
3. For the evidence appraisal worksheet, find AT LEAST FOUR sources to support the need for change and the potential intervention you have selected to solve the problem. Three of these sources must be peer-reviewed articles while one can be a reliable professional source.
4. Submit the completed PICO/Evidence Appraisal worksheet to the Week 2 Dropbox.
Grading Criteria: PICO
|
Category |
Points |
% |
Description |
|
Practice issue and scope of the problem |
20 |
27% |
Practice issue/problem is thoroughly described. The need for change is evident. Practice area is identified. Identification of the practice issue is clear. Scope of the problem is identified. |
|
PICO question and components |
40 |
53% |
Question or nursing problem is identified and is an independent nursing decision. PICO elements are correctly identified. Outcomes are measurable. |
|
Evidence and search terms |
15 |
20% |
Appropriately identifies the types of evidences that should be gathered (must include literature search). Uses manageable search terms and ways in which the search can be narrowed if discussed. |
|
Total |
75 points |
100% |
Grading Rubric: PICO
|
Assignment Criteria |
Outstanding or Highest Level of Performance A (92–100%) |
Very Good or High Level of Performance B (84–91%) |
Competent or Satisfactory Level of Performance C (76–83%) |
Poor or Failing or Unsatisfactory Level of Performance F (0–75%) |
Total |
|
Practice issue and scope of the problem 20 points |
*Practice issue/problem is thoroughly described. The need for change is evident. *Practice area is identified. *Identification of the practice issue is clear. *Scope of the problem is identified. 19–20 points |
*Practice issue/problem is vaguely described. The need for change is evident. *Practice area is identified. *Identification of the practice issue is clear. *Scope of the problem is identified. 17–18 points |
*Practice issue/problem is vaguely described. The need for change is not obvious. *Practice area is identified. *Identification of the practice issue is clear. *Scope of the problem is identified. 15–16 points |
*Practice issue/problem is vaguely described. Need for change is not obvious. *Practice issues or scope of the problem are not addressed and/or not accurate. 0–14 points |
/20 |
|
PICO question and components 40 points |
Question or nursing problem is identified and is an independent nursing decision. PICO elements are correctly identified. Outcomes are measurable. 37–40 points |
Question or nursing problem is identified and is an independent nursing decision. PICO elements are correctly identified. Outcomes but are not measurable. 34–36 points |
Question or nursing problem is identified and is an independent nursing decision. One PICO element is not correctly identified. Outcomes but are not measurable. 30–33 points |
Question or nursing problem is identified but is not an independent nursing decision. Several PICO elements are not correctly identified. Outcomes are not measurable or may not be present. 0–29 points |
/40 |
|
Evidence and search terms. 15 points |
Appropriately identifies the types of evidences that should be gathered (must include literature search). Uses manageable search terms and ways in which the search can be narrowed if discussed. 14–15 points |
Appropriately identifies the types of evidences that should be gathered (must include literature search). Uses manageable search terms. Ways in which the search can be narrowed is not included. 13 points |
Appropriately identifies the types of evidences that should be gathered (must include literature search). Search terms are not measurable. Ways in which the search can be narrowed is not included. 11–12 points |
Types of evidence that should be gathered is not noted or not correct, literature search not identified. Search terms are not measurable or absent. Ways in which the search can be narrowed is not included. 0–10 points |
/15 |
|
Total Points |
/75 |
Grading Criteria: Evidence Appraisal
|
Category |
Points |
% |
Description |
|
Article Selection |
30 |
30% |
Four articles used. At least three articles are peer-reviewed research. Other source is scholarly and appropriate for the change project. Type of source is properly identified. References are listed in APA format. |
|
Strength of Research |
20 |
20% |
Strength of the research is listed as High, Good, or Low/Major Flaw. Reasons why the rating was given is clearly discussed and logical. |
|
Description of Research |
50 |
50% |
Description of the research is thorough and detailed. Summary was given in own words. Results of the study were summarized with the application to the project noted. Recommendations for clinical practice were discussed. |
|
Total |
100 points |
100% |
Grading Rubric: Evidence Appraisal
|
Assignment Criteria |
Outstanding or Highest Level of Performance A (92–100%) |
Very Good or High Level of Performance B (84–91%) |
Competent or Satisfactory Level of Performance C (76–83%) |
Poor or Failing or Unsatisfactory Level of Performance F (0–75%) |
Total |
|
Article Selection 30 points |
Four articles used. At least three articles are peer-reviewed research. Other source is scholarly and appropriate for the change project. Type of source is properly identified. References are listed in APA format. 28–30 points |
Four articles used. At least three articles are peer-reviewed research. Other source is scholarly and appropriate for the change project. Type of source is not properly identified. References are listed in APA format. 25–27 points |
Four articles used. At least three articles are peer-reviewed research. Other source is scholarly and appropriate for the change project. Type of source is not properly identified. References some errors in APA format. 23–24 points |
Less than three articles are peer-reviewed research. Other source is not scholarly or appropriate for the change project. Type of source is not properly identified. References have multiple errors in APA format. 0–22 points |
/30 |
|
Strength of Research 20 points |
Strength of the research is listed as High, Good, or Low/Major Flaw. Reasons why the rating was given is clearly discussed and logical. 19–20 points |
Strength of the research is listed as High, Good, or Low/Major Flaw. Reason why the rating was given is documented but is not logical. 17–18 points |
Strength of the research is listed as High, Good, or Low/Major Flaw. Reason why the rating was given is vague or absent. 15–16 points |
Strength of the research is not listed as High, Good, or Low/Major Flaw. Reason why the rating was given is vague or absent. 0–14 points |
/20 |
|
Description of Research 50 points |
Description of the research is thorough and detailed. Summary was given in own words. Results of the study were summarized with the application to the project noted. Recommendations for clinical practice were discussed. 46–50 points |
Description of the research is thorough and detailed. Summary was given in own words. Results of the study were listed but no application or summary of results were given. Recommendations for clinical practice were discussed. 42–45 points |
Description of the research is vague. Summary was given in own words. Results of the study were listed but no application or summary of results were given. Recommendations for clinical practice were not discussed. 38–41 points |
Description of the research is vague. Summary was not in own words but rather quotes from the source. Results of the study may not be listed. Recommendations for clinical practice were not discussed. 0–37 points |
/50 |
|
Total Points |
/100 |
|
NR451_ Milestone1_Guidelines.docx Revised 3/24/14 mk |
1 |
