Pressure injury prevention in hospitalized adults

Submission Type: Table Create a body of evidence (Evaluation Table) to compare the three studies you appraised in weeks 4 and 5. See the evaluation table templates D1 and D2 (linked below) for examples. In weeks 4 and 5, you completed the critical appraisal of three studies. This week, you will meld these studies into a synthesis upon which to base practice and standards of care. To create this synthesis, youll compare the three studies using an Evaluation Table that includes the following: Citation: Author, Date of Publication, & Title Purpose of Study Conceptual Framework Design/ Method Sample/Setting Major Variables Studied and Their Definitions Measurement of Major Variables Data Analysis Study Findings Worth to Practice: Level of Evidence Strengths/Weaknesses Feasibility Conclusion Your PICOT question is the driver for the evaluation table and synthesis tables. For example, with data analysis, while many statistics may be reported in a study, only those statistics that assist you in answering your clinical question should be placed in the table. Also, only the findings relevant to the clinical question should be placed in the table. Keeping the order of information placed in the table clear and simple is imperative for comparisons across studies for synthesis. Some suggestions to make the table user-friendly are to: (a) use abbreviations (e.g., RCT) with a legend for interpretation, (b) keep the order of the information the same in each study, and (c) place similar statistics in the same order in each study for easy comparison. MSNC 505 Week 6 Evaluation Table Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCitation: Author, Date of Publication, & Title 3 pts Meets Expectations Complete and accurate citations for all three studies. Citations are in the correct format with no errors. 2 pts Approaches Expectations Citations for all three studies are included but may have minor formatting errors. 1 pts Needs Improvement Citations are mostly complete; some studies might have missing or incorrect details. 0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Citations are missing or incorrectly formatted for one or more studies. 3 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePurpose of Study 3 pts Meets Expectations Clearly and accurately describes the purpose of each study, directly relating it to the PICOT question. 2 pts Approaches Expectations Purpose of each study described with minor relevance issues or slight inaccuracies. 1 pts Needs Improvement Purpose described but lacks clarity or direct relevance to the PICOT question. 0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Purpose is incorrectly described or missing for one or more studies. 3 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConceptual Framework 6 pts Meets Expectations Frameworks are clearly defined for all studies and well related to their respective purposes and designs. 5 pts Approaching Expectations Frameworks are defined with minor errors or are somewhat loosely connected to study purposes/designs. 3 pts Needs Improvement Frameworks mentioned but definitions or connections are weak. 0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Frameworks are missing, incorrectly defined, or irrelevant. 6 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDesign/Method 6 pts Meets Expectations All study designs and methods are accurately described and appropriate for the PICOT question. 5 pts Approaching Expectations Study designs and methods are described with minor inaccuracies or relevance issues. 3 pts Needs Improvement Some descriptions of designs/methods are vague or partially incorrect. 0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Major errors or omissions in describing the designs/methods of the studies. 6 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSample/Setting 6 pts Meets Expectations Sample and setting are thoroughly described for each study, showing clear relevance to the research question. 5 pts Approaching Expectations Sample and setting are described with minor errors or omissions. 3 pts Needs Improvement Sample/setting description lacks detail or has some inaccuracies. 0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Significant details about sample or setting are missing or incorrect. 6 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMajor Variables Studied and their Definitions 6 pts Meets Expectations Variables and their definitions are clearly listed and relevant to the PICOT question for all studies. 5 pts Approaching Expectations Variables and definitions are mostly clear but may include minor irrelevant details. 3 pts Needs Improvement Some variables are undefined or incorrectly defined; relevance to PICOT question is questionable. 0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Missing or incorrect definitions for major variables in one or more studies. 6 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMeasurement of Major Variables 6 pts Meets Expectations Measurements are accurately described and clearly relevant to the PICOT question in all studies. 5 pts Approaching Expectations Measurements are generally accurate but may include minor errors or relevance issues. 3 pts Needs Improvement Some measurements are inaccurately described or their relevance is unclear. 0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Significant inaccuracies or omissions in how variables are measured in one or more studies. 6 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeData Analysis 9 pts Meets Expectations Analysis methods are correctly described and clearly justified in their ability to address the PICOT question. 7 pts Approaching Expectations Analysis methods are described with slight inaccuracies but are generally appropriate for the PICOT question. 5 pts Needs Improvement Data analysis is described but lacks justification or clear relevance to the PICOT question. 0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Major errors or omissions in the description of data analysis methods. 9 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStudy Findings 9 pts Meets Expectations Findings are thoroughly and accurately reported, directly addressing the PICOT question. 7 pts Approaching Expectations Findings are accurately reported but may include some irrelevant data. 5 pts Needs Improvement Findings are reported but with some inaccuracies or irrelevance to the PICOT question. 0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Findings are poorly reported, largely irrelevant, or missing critical information. 9 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWorth to Practice: (1) Level of Evidence (2) Strengths/Weaknesses (3) Feasibility (4) Conclusion 21 to >17.0 pts Meets Expectations (1) Correct identification and justification of evidence level. (2) Insightful analysis of strengths and weaknesses. (3) Realistic feasibility assessment. (4) Insightful conclusions directly derived from data. 17 to >12.0 pts Approaching Expectations (1) Evidence level identified with minor errors. (2) Strengths and weaknesses analysis with minor omissions. (3) Feasibility somewhat realistic. (4) Logical conclusions. 12 to >0.0 pts Needs Improvement (1) Evidence level identified with weak justification. (2) Limited or partial assessment of strengths/weaknesses. (3) Feasibility assessment is somewhat realistic but lacks depth. (4) Generic conclusions. 0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations (1) Evidence level not identified or unjustified. (2) Poor or missing analysis of strengths/weaknesses. (3) Unrealistic or irrelevant feasibility assessment. (4) Conclusion is missing or not relevant. 21 pts Total Points: 75