There Are Two Parts To The Assignment In The First Part You

There Are 2 Parts To The Assignmentin The First Part You Will Complet

There Are 2 Parts To The Assignmentin The First Part You Will Complet

There are two parts to this assignment. In the first part, you will complete a matrix using the Critical Appraisal Tool Template, which involves analyzing the research efforts of authors of studies relevant to your chosen Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) problem. If prior articles are deemed not relevant to your PICOT question, you are instructed to search for new articles. The critique must encompass all elements of a rigorous research study, requiring careful reading and an understanding of good research practices.

Since filling out the template involves small spaces, there is no strict requirement for APA formatting such as double spacing or indentation. You may cite your sources at the top of the template and list references below it. The sole requirement for Part A is the completed matrix.

Part B involves writing a brief paper (1-2 pages excluding the title and references) formatted according to APA guidelines. The paper should include a title page, introduction, the purpose of the paper, and a conclusion. It must explicitly state the EBP practice that has emerged from completing the matrix, providing justification grounded in the research articles reviewed. You are also required to cite outside resources and 2-3 course resources, such as:

  • Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Wolters Kluwer. (Chapters 5 & 6)
  • Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010). Evidence-based practice step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part I. American Journal of Nursing, 110(7), 47–52.
  • Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010). Evidence-based practice step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part II. American Journal of Nursing, 110(7), 47–52.
  • Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B., Stillwell, S., & Williamson, K. (2010). Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part III the process of synthesis. American Journal of Nursing, 43-51.
  • Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Critical appraisal of qualitative evidence. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 15(3), 202–207.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) is a critical component of contemporary healthcare, integrating the best available research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values to optimize care outcomes. The process of EBP relies heavily on scrutinizing research articles through rigorous appraisal methods to determine their validity, reliability, and applicability to specific clinical problems. This paper discusses how constructing a research critique matrix informs the development of an EBP practice change, highlighting the importance of systematic appraisal in translating research into clinical practice.

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how the critical appraisal of research articles supports the emergence of an evidence-based practice, justified through specific findings from the reviewed literature. This aligns with the overarching goal of fostering effective, research-informed clinical decisions that improve patient care quality and safety.

Development of an EBP Practice Based on Literature

Following the completion of the research critique matrix, a pragmatic EBP practice has emerged that emphasizes the implementation of validated interventions for improving patient outcomes—in particular, addressing the management of pressure ulcers among hospitalized patients. The literature reviewed indicates that evidence supports specific prevention strategies such as regular repositioning, use of advanced compression devices, and nutritional support, all of which significantly decrease pressure ulcer incidence (Moore & Cowman, 2019; Dealey et al., 2018).

One robust study by Moore and Cowman (2019) utilized a randomized controlled trial design demonstrating that repositioning every two hours combined with proper nutritional assessment led to a measurable decrease in pressure ulcer development. Similarly, Dealey et al. (2018) provided qualitative insights into staff adherence to prevention protocols, emphasizing the importance of institutional support for consistent implementation.

Critically appraising these studies revealed strong methodological rigor, including adequate sample sizes, clear inclusion criteria, and reproducible intervention protocols. Such findings justify establishing protocols that mandate regular repositioning and nutritional evaluation as standard nursing procedures. The synthesis of these studies facilitates an evidence-based change in practice, promoting adherence to prevention strategies supported by high-quality research.

Justification and Application of Evidence

The justification for adopting these practices stems from consistent findings across high-quality research articles indicating reduced pressure ulcer incidence. Implementing protocols that incorporate repositioning schedules and nutritional assessments aligns with guidelines set forth by professional nursing organizations, including the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP, 2016). Moreover, these strategies are cost-effective and feasible within hospital settings, making them practical for widespread adoption.

Furthermore, integrating staff education and accountability measures based on evidence promotes sustainability of practice change. For example, ongoing training programs reinforce compliance with repositioning schedules, and audits assess adherence, thereby ensuring that evidence-based interventions translate into improved patient outcomes (Schmidt et al., 2017). The convergence of empirical evidence and clinical practice guidelines underscores the value of systematic research appraisal in shaping effective EBP initiatives.

Conclusion

In conclusion, critical appraisal of research articles is essential for identifying valid, reliable, and applicable evidence that informs clinical practice. The development of a practice aimed at reducing pressure ulcers illustrates how systematic evaluation of research supports EBP and facilitates meaningful improvements in patient care. Incorporating high-quality evidence into practice not only enhances patient outcomes but also promotes a culture of continual improvement rooted in scientific inquiry.

References

  • Dealey, C., Stone, P., Robertson, J., & Clark, M. (2018). Pressure ulcer prevention and management: An evidence-based approach. British Journal of Nursing, 27(22), 1304–1310.
  • Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
  • Moore, Z., & Cowman, S. (2019). Repositioning and nutritional intervention to prevent pressure ulcers: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 28(3-4), 417–429.
  • National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP). (2016). NPUAP pressure injury prevention and management guidelines. Wound Practice & Research, 24(2), 37–53.
  • Schmidt, B., Andersson, S., & Hallberg, I. (2017). Implementing evidence-based pressure ulcer prevention strategies: Staff attitudes and adherence. Journal of Wound Care, 26(12), 738–745.
  • Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Critical appraisal of qualitative evidence. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 15(3), 202–207.

Related Assignments