Discussion: Using the Walden Library NURS 6003

Discussion: Using the Walden Library NURS 6003

Discussion: Using the Walden Library NURS 6003

Peer-Reviewed Article on Nurse Practitioner Care in a Nursing Home

The peer-reviewed article I will cite is “Effects of a Geriatric Nurse Practitioner on Process and Outcome of Nursing Home Care” (1989).   To find this article, I searched the Am J Public Health Journal library.  When determining the best type of article to use for this post, I referenced the web article “What Types of References are Appropriate?” (S.C. Pan. 2021).  This article includes information on peer-review journals, and determines that these are the best to use. An article in the National Library of Medicine (NLM. 2021) assisted me in understanding what a peer-reviewed article all entails.  The article I found discusses using doctors versus nurse practitioners to care for the elderly in nursing homes.  The main difficulty I found was to find an article that was both relevant to the topic as well as current.  This article is a little dated, however, I did feel that the findings in this peer-reviewed article are still relevant today.  The article discusses an improvement in activities of daily living, nursing and drug therapies.  Also, that the number of admissions to hospitals as well as the days in the nursing home were decreased with the use of a Nurse Practitioner in the nursing home setting.  This journal would be helpful to classmates of mine.  It did appear to have well-written and well-researched nursing topics.  This database will also be helpful to me going forward as I will need to reference more peer-cited information for class.

References

Kane, R & Garrard, J & Skay, C & Radosevich, D. (1989). Effects of a Geriatric Nurse Practitioner on Process and Outcome of Nursing Home Care.  ALPH. September 1989. Volume 79. No. 9.

National Library of Medicine staff. (2021).  Peer-reviewed literature. National Library of Medicine website.

S.C. Pan. (2021). What Types of References are Appropriate.  UCSD psychology website. 

Discussion: Using the Walden Library NURS 6003

Where can you find evidence to inform your thoughts and scholarly writing? Throughout your degree program, you will use research literature to explore ideas, guide your thinking, and gain new insights. As you search the research literature, it is important to use resources that are peer-reviewed and from scholarly journals. You may already have some favorite online resources and databases that you use or have found useful in the past. For this Discussion, you explore.

To Prepare:

Review the information presented in the Resources for using the Walden Library, searching the databases, and evaluating online resources.
Begin searching for a peer-reviewed article that pertains to your practice area and is of particular interest to you.
By Day 3

Post the following:
Using proper APA formatting, cite the peer-reviewed article you selected that pertains to your practice area and is of particular interest to you and identify the database that you used to search for the article. Explain any difficulties you experienced while searching for this article. Would this database be useful to your colleagues? Explain why or why not. Would you recommend this database? Explain why or why not

Support main post with 3 of more current, credible sources and cite source within content of posting and on a reference list in proper APA.

By Day 6

Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days, by offering suggestions/strategies for working with this database from your own experience, or offering ideas for use of alternative resources.

Be sure to offer support from at least 2 current, credible sources in each required response to classmates’ main post and cite per APA.

Submission and Grading Information

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 4 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6

To participate in this Discussion:

Week 4 Discussion

Discussion: Using the Walden Library

Where can you find evidence to inform your thoughts and scholarly writing? Throughout your degree program, you will use research literature to explore ideas, guide your thinking, and gain new insights. As you search the research literature, it is important to use resources that are peer-reviewed and from scholarly journals. You may already have some favorite online resources and databases that you use or have found useful in the past. For this Discussion, you explore databases available through the Walden Library.

Note: Unless otherwise noted, initial postings to Discussions are due on or before Day 3, and response postings are due on or before Day 6. You are required to participate in the Discussion on at least three different days (a different day for main post and each response). It is important to adhere to the weekly time frame to allow others ample time to respond to your posting. In addition, you are expected to respond to questions directed toward your own initial posting in a timely manner.

To Prepare:

• Review the information presented in the Learning Resources for using the Walden Library, searching the databases, and evaluating online resources.
• Begin searching for a peer-reviewed article that pertains to your practice area and interests you.

By Day 3 of Week 4

Post the following:

Using proper APA formatting, cite the peer-reviewed article you selected that pertains to your practice area and is of particular interest to you and identify the database that you used to search for the article. Explain any difficulties you experienced while searching for this article. Would this database be useful to your colleagues? Explain why or why not. Would you recommend this database? Explain why or why not.

By Day 6 of Week 6

Respond to at least two of your colleagues’ posts by offering suggestions/strategies for working with this database from your own experience, or offering ideas for using alternative resources.

Submission and Grading Information

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 4 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 4

To participate in this Discussion:

Week 4 Discussion

Module 3 (Weeks 4–5): Scholarship and Nursing Practice

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Your Toolbox for Success [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Scholarship [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). The Walden Journey to a Masters in Nursing: Scholarship [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Learning Objectives
Students will:

Analyze research databases for identifying peer-reviewed articles
Analyze peer-reviewed research
Justify the use of peer-reviewed research in professional practice
Analyze strategies for finding peer-reviewed research

Due By
Assignment
Week 4, Days 1–4
Read the Learning Resources.
Begin to compose Part 3 of your Assignment.
Week 4, Days 1–2
Read the Learning Resources.
Compose your initial Discussion post.
Week 4, Day 3
Deadline to post your initial Discussion post.
Begin to compose Part 3 of your Assignment.
Week 4, Days 4–5
Review peer Discussion posts.
Compose your peer Discussion responses. (Make sure to participate in the Discussion on three different days.)
Continue to compose Part 3 of your Assignment.
Week 4, Day 6
Last day to post Discussion responses.
Week 5, Days 1–6
Continue to compose Part 3 of your Assignment.
Week 5, Day 7
Deadline to submit Part 3 of your Assignment.

Learning Resources

Required Readings

Al-Jundi, A., & Sakka, S. (2017). Critical appraisal of clinical research. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research: JCDR, 11(5), JE01–JE05. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2017/26047.9942

Shellenbarger, T. (2016). Simplifying synthesis. Nurse Author & Editor, 26(3). Retrieved from http://naepub.com/reporting-research/2016-26-3-3/

Walden University Library. (n.d.). Databases A-Z: Nursing. Retrieved October 4, 2019 from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981

Walden University Library. (n.d.). Evaluating resources: Journals. Retrieved October 4, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/evaluating/resource-types/journals

Walden University Library. (n.d.). Instructional media: Fundamentals of library research. Retrieved October 4, 2019 from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/instructionalmedia/researchfundamentals

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Retrieved November 14, 2018, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/home

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Common assignments: Synthesizing your sources. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/assignments/literaturereview/synthesizing

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Scholarly writing: Overview. Retrieved November 14, 2018, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/scholarly

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Webinars: Technical information. Retrieved November 14, 2018, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/webinars/technical

Document: Academic Success and Professional Development Plan Template (Word document)

Document: Introduction to Scholarly Writing: Tips for success (PDF)

Required Media

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Introduction to Scholarly Writing: Purpose, Audience, and Evidence [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Introduction to Scholarly Writing: Tips for Success [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6003_Module03_Week04_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View
List View

Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting
Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Post is cited with two credible sources.

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Contains only one or no credible sources.

Not written clearly or concisely.

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Post: Timeliness
Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response
Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.
Second Response
Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.
Participation
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6003_Module03_Week04_Discussion_Rubric