Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

, ,

Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

  • Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

 

  • Clinical issue

Geriatric falls

  • Leading cause of morbidity and mortality related injuries (Guirguis-Blake et al., 2018).
  • Over 54 million of the US population is 65 years and above as at 2019
  • 1 of 4 geriatric adults fall yearly Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
  • Effects:

üHigh morbidity and mortality, injuries, increased care cost, deaths, poor quality of life, long hospital stays, disabilities, (Florence et al., 2018)

BUY A CUSTOM WRITTEN WRITTEN PAPER HERE

  • The new report provides analysis of the demographic, economic, social and health characteristics of the older African population.. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 40.3 million U.S. residents 65 years and older in the 2010 Census and more than 54 million on July 1, 2019(Hartholt, Lee, Burns & Van Beeck, 2019). Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

Every second of every day, an older adult (age 65+) suffers a fall in the U.S.—making falls the leading cause of injury and injury death in this age group. One out of four older adults will fall each year in the United States, making falls a public health concern, particularly among the aging population.

Exercise prevents falls (Sherrington et al., 2019)

Multifactorial and exercise interventions have fall-related benefit (Guirguis-Blake et al., 2018)

Geriatric population:

Adults of 65 years and above (Hartholt, Lee, Burns & Van Beeck, 2019).

More than 54 million of the US population as at 2019

1 out of 4 elderly adults fall annually

Falls are the causes of injury and death in the US geriatric population

Impacts:

Injuries, deaths, poor quality of life, increased care cost, long hospital stays, disabilities, high morbidity and mortality (Florence et al., 2018) Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

Risk factors:

Physical, mental, environmental and physiological factors (GR Neri et al., 2020)

 

 

  • PICOT Question Development
  • Among geriatric inpatients, does physical therapy programs compared to no exercise decrease fall rates within three months?
  • P-Identification of population:
  • I-determination of treatment considered
  • C- Identification of potential interventions
  • O-determination of intended results
  • T- determination of the time frame
  • Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

P (Patient, population or problem) Who or what is the patient, population or problem in question?: geriatric population

I (Intervention) What is the intervention (action or treatment) being considered?: physical therapy

C (Comparison or control) What other interventions should be considered?: none

O (Outcome or objective)-reduced fall rates Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

T (Time frame): 3 months

 

  • Research Databases
  • CINAHL
  • ProQuest
  • PubMed
  • Cochrane

They cover literature related to nursing and allied health

 

  • Articles
  • Sherrington, C., Fairhall, N., Wallbank, G., Tiedemann, A., Michaleff, Z. A., Howard, K., … & Lamb, S. (2020). Exercise for preventing falls in older people living in the community: an abridged Cochrane systematic review. British journal of sports medicine, 54(15), 885-891.
  • Level 1
  • Systematic review of RCTs
  • Naseri, C., Haines, T. P., Etherton-Beer, C., McPhail, S., Morris, M. E., Flicker, L., … & Hill, A. M. (2018). Reducing falls in older adults recently discharged from hospital: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age and ageing, 47(4), 512-519. Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
  • Level I
  • Quantitative Experimental study, Systematic review of RCTs, with meta-analysis

Level I

Experimental study, randomized controlled trial (RCT); Systematic review of RCTs, with or without meta-analysis

  • Cont’d

ØEagles, D., Yadav, K., Perry, J. J., Sirois, M. J., & Emond, M. (2018). Mobility assessments of geriatric emergency department patients: a systematic review. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 20(3), 353-361.

Level ll

üSystematic studies quasi-experimental

ØGR Neri, S., S Oliveira, J., B Dario, A., M Lima, R., & Tiedemann, A. (2020). Does obesity increase the risk and severity of falls in people aged 60 years and older? A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, 75(5), 952-960.

Level 1

üsystematic review and meta-analysis

Level II

Quasi-experimental Study

Systematic review of a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental, or quasi-experimental studies only, with or without meta-analysis. Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

Level II

Quasi-experimental Study

Systematic review of a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental, or quasi-experimental studies only, with or without meta-analysis.

  • Strengths of systematic reviews
  • No biases
  • Identify knowledge gaps
  • Relate findings with real life

give an idea of how well findings might apply to everyday practice.

identify knowledge gaps that call for more research.

reduce bias when drawing conclusions, as it takes in a range of views and findings.

  • References
  • GR Neri, S., S Oliveira, J., B Dario, A., M Lima, R., & Tiedemann, A. (2020). Does obesity increase the risk and severity of falls in people aged 60 years and older? A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, 75(5), 952-960.
  • Eagles, D., Yadav, K., Perry, J. J., Sirois, M. J., & Emond, M. (2018). Mobility assessments of geriatric emergency department patients: a systematic review. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 20(3), 353-361.
  • Sherrington, C., Fairhall, N., Wallbank, G., Tiedemann, A., Michaleff, Z. A., Howard, K., … & Lamb, S. (2020). Exercise for preventing falls in older people living in the community: an abridged Cochrane systematic review. British journal of sports medicine, 54(15), 885-891.
  • Naseri, C., Haines, T. P., Etherton-Beer, C., McPhail, S., Morris, M. E., Flicker, L., … & Hill, A. M. (2018). Reducing falls in older adults recently discharged from hospital: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age and ageing, 47(4), 512-519.

Ø

BUY A CUSTOM WRITTEN WRITTEN PAPER HERE

Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

Your quest to purchase a new car begins with an identification of the factors important to you. As you conduct a search of cars that rate high on those factors, you collect evidence and try to understand the extent of that evidence. A report that suggests a certain make and model of automobile has high mileage is encouraging. But who produced that report? How valid is it? How was the data collected, and what was the sample size?

In this Assignment, you will delve deeper into clinical inquiry by closely examining your PICO(T) question. You also begin to analyze the evidence you have collected. Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

To Prepare:

  • Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry.
  • Develop a PICO(T) question to address the clinical issue of interest you identified in Module 2 for the Assignment. This PICOT question will remain the same for the entire course.
  • Use the key words from the PICO(T) question you developed and search at least four different databases in the Walden Library. Identify at least four relevant systematic reviews or other filtered high-level evidence, which includes meta-analyses, critically-appraised topics (evidence syntheses), critically-appraised individual articles (article synopses). The evidence will not necessarily address all the elements of your PICO(T) question, so select the most important concepts to search and find the best evidence available. Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
  • Reflect on the process of creating a PICO(T) question and searching for peer-reviewed research.

The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)

Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

Create a 6- to 7-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:

  • Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest.
  • Describe how you developed a PICO(T) question focused on your chosen clinical issue of interest.
  • Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected.
  • Provide APA citations of the four relevant peer-reviewed articles at the systematic-reviews level related to your research question. If there are no systematic review level articles or meta-analysis on your topic, then use the highest level of evidence peer reviewed article.
  • Describe the levels of evidence in each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, including an explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. Be specific and provide examples. Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

By Day 7 of Week 5

Submit Part 2 of your Evidence-Based Project.

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

  • Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK5Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
  • Click the Week 5 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
  • Click the Week 5 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
  • Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK5Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
  • If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
  • Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.

NURS_6052_Module03_Week05_Assignment_Rubric

Excellent Good Fair Poor
Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews Create a 6- to 7-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following: · Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest. · Describe how you developed a PICO(T) question focused on your chosen clinical issue of interest. · Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected. · Provide APA citations of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected. · Describe the levels of evidence in each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, including an explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. Be specific and provide examples.
81 (81%) – 90 (90%)
The presentation clearly and accurately identifies and describes in detail the chosen clinical issue of interest.

The presentation clearly and accurately describes in detail the developed PICO(T) question.

The presentation clearly and accurately identifies four or more research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected.

The presentation clearly and accurately provides full APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including a thorough and detailed explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research.

The presentation includes specific and relevant examples that fully support the research.

The presentation provides a complete, detailed, and accurate synthesis of two outside resources related to the peer-reviewed articles selected, and fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the presentation.
72 (72%) – 80 (80%)
The presentation accurately identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest.

The presentation accurately describes the developed PICO(T) question focused on the chosen clinical issue of interest.

The presentation accurately identifies at least four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected.

The presentation accurately provides APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including an adequate explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

The presentation includes relevant examples that support the research presented.

The presentation provides an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource related to the peer-reviewed articles selected. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the presentation.
63 (63%) – 71 (71%)
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest. Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes the developed PICO(T) question focused on the chosen clinical issue of interest.

The presentation inaccurately or vaguely identifies at least four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected.

The presentation inaccurately or vaguely provides APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including an inaccurate or vague explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research.

The presentation includes inaccurate or vague examples to support the research presented.

The presentation provides a vague or inaccurate synthesis or outside resources related to the peer-reviewed articles selected. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the presentation.
0 (0%) – 62 (62%)
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes the developed PICO(T) question, or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies less than four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely provides APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including an inaccurate and vague explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research, or is missing.

The presentation includes inaccurate and vague examples to support the research presented or is missing.

The presentation provides a vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources related to the articles selected and fails to integrate any resources to support the presentation or is missing.
Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided, which delineates all required criteria.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated yet is brief and not descriptive.
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.

No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion are provided.
Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
Total Points: 100

Name: NURS_6052_Module03_Week05_Assignment_Rubric Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews