School of Nursing & MidwiferyAssessment 3ProjectPart B NSG3NCR – Nursing: Reflective Clinical...

Question

School of Nursing & MidwiferyAssessment 3ProjectPart B NSG3NCR – Nursing: Reflective Clinical Practice2018    Name:        Due Date:        Campus/Clinical School:    *PLEASE USE THIS TEMPLATE TO UPLOAD YOUR ASSIGNMENT *    Section 1.  Literature Review (1,000 words)(Type your literature review here)    Section 2.  Planning  (450 words)(Please Type Section 1 here)    Section 3.  Presenting your research  (600 words equivalent)(Students please note:  There is an attachment link in the assignment submission box for this assessment which allows you to upload your powerpoint, ochure, or E-portfolio as a separate file    Section 4.  Seeking Feedback  ( approximately 200 word)(Students please note:  There is an attachment link in the assignment submission box for this assessment which allows you to upload your evaluation tool as a separate file)    Reference List(Type your reference list here)NSG3NCR Project Part B Template: July 2018    Page 3 of 7NSG3NCR Project Part B Template July 2017    Page 4 of 7                                                                                                                   XXXXXXXXXXSchool of Nursing & Midwifery                                                XXXXXXXXXXNSG3NCR – Assessment Ruic – Part B    Criteria        Excellent (>80%)        Very Good (70 – 79%)    Good (60 – 69%)    Fair (50 – 59%)    Poor (    Mark    Section 1 – PlanningDevelopment of Project Plan(1 x 450 words)20 marks     16 + marks· Excellent identification of topic and objectives· Clearly identified audience· Excellent outline of content to be delivered to audience· Format for presentation identified and well supported by relevant and credible references. · Evaluation strategy identified and well supported by literature· Writing was coherent with logical development of key ideas.    14 – 15.5 marks· Very good identification of topic and objectives · Identified audience· Very good outline of content to be delivered to audience· Format for presentation identified and supported by relevant and credible references· Evaluation strategy identified and supported by literature · Writing was coherent with logical development of key ideas.    12 – 13.5 marks· Good identification of topic and objectives · Identified audience· Good outline of content to be delivered to audience· Format for presentation identified and supported by relevant and credible references· Evaluation strategy identified and supported by literature · Writing was mostly coherent with logical development of key ideas.    10 – 11.5 marks· Some identification of topic and objectives · Limited identification of audience· Some outline of content to be delivered· Format for presentation identified but not supported by literature· Evaluation strategy poorly identified and supported by literature· Writing had limited coherence and logical development of key ideas.    0 – 9.5 marks· Poor identification of topic and objectives· Limited identification of audience.· No outline of content to be delivered· Format for presentation not identified· No evaluation strategy presented· Poorly supported by relevant and credible references. · Writing lacked coherence and logical development of key ideas.    20    Section 2 – Presenting Your Research(1 x 600 words)30 marks    26  + marks· Excellent presentation of content· Detailed, concise description of area requiring change presented in the content · Clearly identified and presented session outcomes.· Clear and consistent evidence of improvement and changes to be implemented · Clear articulation of learning outcomes and application to future practice· Writing was coherent with logical development of key ideas.    24 – 25.5 marks· Very good presentation of content· Description of area requiring change presented in the content · Identified and presented session outcomes.· Clear and consistent evidence of improvement and changes to be implemented · Predominantly clear articulation of learning outcomes and application to future practice.· Writing was coherent with logical development of key ideas.    22 – 23.5 marks· Good presentation of content· Inconsistent detail in the area requiring change presented in the content · Identified and presented session outcomes.· Inconsistent evidence of improvement and changes to be implemented · Mostly clear articulation of learning outcomes and application to future practice.· Writing was mostly coherent with logical development of key ideas.     20 – 21.5 marks· Content not well presented· Description of area requiring change lacked depth and detail.· Session outcomes mostly identified. · Limited evidence of improvement and changes to be implemented· Poor articulation of learning outcomes and application to future practice.· Writing had limited coherence and logical development of key ideas.    0 – 19.5 marks· Poor presentation of content· Description of area requiring change was very superficial.· Session outcomes not identified· Very poor articulation of learning outcomes and application to future practice.· Writing lacked coherence and logical development of key ideas.    30        ·     ·     ·     ·             Section 3 -  Seeking FeedbackDevelopment of Evaluation tool (200 words)10 marks    8 + marks· Clear, concise & well developed evaluation tool · Consistently well supported by relevant and credible references.· Writing was coherent with logical development of key ideas.    7 – 7.5 marks· Predominantly clear, concise & well  developed evaluation tool · Predominantly well supported by relevant and credible references.· Writing was coherent with logical development of key ideas.    6 – 6.5 marks· Mostly clear but may not be concise evaluation tool· Inconsistently supported by relevant and credible references.· Writing was mostly coherent with logical development of key ideas.    5 – 5.5 marks· Superficially developed evaluation tool· Poorly supported by relevant and credible references.· Writing had limited coherence and logical development of key ideas.     0 – 4.5 marks· Poorly developed evaluation tool.· Poorly supported by relevant and credible references.· Writing lacked coherence and logical development of key ideas.    10    Section 4 – Literature ReviewAnalysis of Literature (1 x 1000 words)40 marks*identified baiers and facilitators to change –and discussed the impact of these on future practice** primary source, professionally-oriented, peer-reviewed    32 + marks· Introduction succinctly identifies the relevance, scope and focus of the analysis of literature to be reviewed.· Body well structured, with coherent & logical development of ideas*.· Conclusion identifies what has been written on the topic and what needs to be done.· Sources are relevant and credible to the topic**.· Majority of sources within past 5-7 years.· Demonstrated an excellent understanding of links between the necessary concepts.· Demonstrated clear and consistent evidence of critical appraisal of reference material.· Reflects focus of the topic- appropriately weighted.· Notes ambiguities in the literature; synthesises and presents a new perspective of the literature                                              28  – 31.5 marks· Introduction identifies the relevance, scope and focus of the critical analysis of literature but may not be succinct.· Body well structured, with predominantly coherent & logical development of ideas*.· Conclusion predominantly identifies what has been written on the topic and what needs to be done.· Sources are predominantly relevant and credible to the topic**.· Majority of sources within past 5-7 years.· Demonstrated a very good understanding of links between the necessary concepts.· Demonstrated some evidence of critical appraisal of reference material.· Reflects focus of the topic- mostly appropriately weighted.· Notes ambiguities in the literature; mostly synthesises and presents a new perspective of the literature                                              24 – 27.5 marks· Introduction largely appropriate to the task but doesn’t clearly identify the relevance, scope and focus of the critical analysis of literature· Body mostly well structured, with predominantly coherent & logical development of ideas*.· Conclusion largely identifies what has been written on the topic and what needs to be done.· Majority of sources are predominantly relevant and credible to the topic**.· Majority of sources within past 5-7 years.· Demonstrated a good understanding of links between the necessary concepts.· Demonstrated inconsistent evidence of critical appraisal of reference material.· Reflects focus of the topic- may be inappropriately weighted.· Some ambiguities in the literature noted; limited synthesis of a new perspective of the literature.    20 – 23.5  marks· Introduction may not be appropriate to the task and doesn’t clearly identify the relevance, scope and focus of the critical analysis of literature.· Body may not be well structured, with limited coherent & logical development of ideas*.· Conclusion mostly identifies what has been written on the topic and what needs to be done.· Few of the sources are relevant and credible to the topic**.· Many sources not within past 5-7 years.· Demonstrated a limited understanding of links between the necessary concepts.· Demonstrated limited evidence of critical appraisal of reference material.· Limited focus on the topic- may be inappropriately weighted.· Few ambiguities in the literature noted; poor synthesis of a new perspective of the literature.                                       0 – 19.5 marks· Introduction inappropriate to the task and doesn’t clearly identify the relevance, scope and focus of the critical analysis of literature.· Body poorly structured, with limited coherent & logical development of ideas*.· Conclusion does not identify what has been written on the topic and what needs to be done.· Few of the sources are relevant and credible to the topic**.· Majority of sources not within

Anju Lata · Accepted Answer

School of Nursing & Midwifery
Assessment 3
Project
Part B 
NSG3NCR – Nursing: Reflective Clinical Practice
2018
	Name:
	
	Due Date:
	
	Campus/Clinical School:
	
*PLEASE USE THIS TEMPLATE TO UPLOAD YOUR ASSIGNMENT *
	Section 1.  Literature Review (1,000 words)
Introduction
The NSQHS Standard 2 -Partnering with the Customer, aims to develop the clinical settings where the consumers are considered as partner in the design, planning, delivery and evaluation of the healthcare services in their own treatment (NSQHS Standards,2018). The patients and his family are provided clear information about the health issues, available alternatives of treatment, and the cost of the services to be provided. Involving the decisions of patients in their own treatment will undoubtedly make the services more appropriate and more accessible for the customers (NSQHS Standards,2018).
Barriers 
A cross sectional study by Fischer et al (2016) identified that the implementation of change relies on a number of barriers and the strategies to overcome those barriers. The most common barriers to change in any medical facility are criticism from colleagues, difficulties associated with changing the existing practices, and lack of trust in research and evidence. The barriers to change are perceived at different levels of patient, healthcare team, and at the organisation level (Lemire, Miles, & McCann,2016). The evidence-based practice encourages shared decision making which involves the patient’s preferences with the clinical judgement (Fischer et al, 2016). The needs of the patients are influenced by the awareness, accessibility and affordability of healthcare (Shefaza, Evans & Bradley, 2014). The healthcare organisations need to have clinical practice guidelines to bring a change towards shared decision making( Fischer et al, 2016). Lemire et al (2016) identified five main barrier categories as Communication, leadership, resources, time and change.
The barriers to change as reported by the people include lack of awareness in Physicians in developing the clinical guidelines, lack of facilities to apply these guidelines and inaccessibility of clinical guidelines (Seyed et al,2015). The main barriers as depicted by the healthcare Organisations are related to Practice environment, economic factors, regulations; evidence based healthcare system, individual professional context, political context, patient’s attitude and lack of innovation in clinical practice guidelines. The study shows there are no restrictions over the physicians, the medical errors are reported as complaints and not handled on the basis of clinical guidelines (Seyed et al, 2015). The financial factors also influence the quality of imparted care. The cultural aspects of the patient are generally ignored and the final decision of physicians is considered valid without any cross check with the guidelines (Shefaza, Evans & Bradley, 2014).
Generally the lack of awareness in the customers about the NSQHS standards also becomes a barrier to their participation in care (Fischer et al, 2016).
Facilitators 
Facilitators can be different ways to overcome the barriers to change in clinical practice. The study by Ginex, (2018) finds that the evidence based process for practice change may greatly help overcome the barriers. Engaging the appropriate stakeholders and management support encourage the development of Organization culture that supports Evidence based practice.  
As per the postulates of Lemire, Miles, & McCann (2016), there are five main facilitators of change: Documentation, communication, evaluation, leadership, change, resources and time. Changing the standard operating procedures is also considered effective facilitator. The study was aimed to implement nationwide standards for Video fluoroscopic swallowing. More than 80% of the participants in the study found that changing the standard VFSS operating procedures and organizing small group interactive sessions were effective facilitators (Lemire, Miles, & McCann,2016). Proper documentation of each step of the healthcare delivery facilitates easier transmission of information especially while changing shifts. Effective communication between senior management, the clinicians and the patients promotes patient centred care in a culturally compliant environment where the preferences of the patient are equally respected. The support, recognition and encouragement from the senior management acts as  a great facilitator for the staff (Shifaza, Evans & Bradley, 2014).
The main facilitators which drive the people to change include: standardized patient care, optimized patient outcomes, practical and accessible guidelines (Keiffer,2015). The increasing demand of patient safety and security facilitates the changes in guidelines. These facilitators can prove to be effective tool to change the patient outcomes (Shifaza, Evans & Bradley, 2014).
 Impact on Ysabel’s Care
Ysabel and her husband were not involved in the decisions of their treatment. The nursing team was also unable to provide the information about the treatment being given to her. The Nurses did not conduct any assessment to support her social and emotional condition, nor could they give her education about the wound management. Involving the patient in clinical decisions of his treatment makes the treatment patient centred (Ghabeesh, 2015). The approach cares about the cultural preferences and personal beliefs and values of the patient.

School of Nursing & Midwifery Assessment 3 Project Part B NSG3NCR – Nursing: Reflective Clinical Practice 2018 Name: Due Date: Campus/Clinical School: *PLEASE USE THIS TEMPLATE TO UPLOAD YOUR...

Solution

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

Submit New Assignment