DNP 801 Topic 3 DQ 2 Create a screen shot of the completed sample log and post it in the Individual Forum for faculty review and approval
DNP 801 Topic 3 DQ 2 Create a screen shot of the completed sample log and post it in the Individual Forum for faculty review and approval
DNP 801 Topic 3 DQ 2 Create a screen shot of the completed sample log and post it in the Individual Forum for faculty review and approval
Having Trouble Meeting Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on DNP 801 Topic 3 DQ 2 Create a screen shot of the completed sample log and post it in the Individual Forum for faculty review and approval completed on time. avoid delay and – ORDER NOW
The level of evidence having the highest weight is quantitative research, which is the systematic review of randomized control trials (RCT). It offers the best justification for what precipitated a situation and how it affected people when compared to other levels of evidence, which are based on descriptive and case studies, expert opinions. This is because it compiles information from several studies. The best research methodologies are those that produce consistent results over multiple studies (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2018).
The DPI project I’ve chosen has the goals of determining what causes repeated strokes and developing preventative measures. Many patients are readmitted to my facility after having another stroke. The first component is a prospective study to determine the clinical and neuroimaging factors that may be causing these people’s strokes to recur after treatment and medication (Hervella, et al., 2021). Because of the large number of participants and the researchers’ ongoing interaction and observation, the retrospective study they conducted was primary research (GCU, 2022).
Struggling to Meet Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on DNP 801 Topic 3 DQ 2 Create a screen shot of the completed sample log and post it in the Individual Forum for faculty review and approval done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!
The second section, which is a summary of research findings from a different study, is also primary research (GCU, 2022). Despite the fact that the method used was a randomized double-blind controlled experiment with a multicenter design, the goal of the article was to investigate the efficacy of aspirin and nicametate in preventing stroke recurrence and to identify what causes strokes to occur again (Wang, et al., 2021).
These articles show support for my DPI research to identify the factors contributing to stroke recurrence and the preventative measures that must be implemented.
Topic 3 DQ 2
Once you receive your Typhon access explore the website, create a sample case log with 1 minute of logged time (0:60). Create a screen shot of the completed sample log and post it in the Individual Forum for faculty review and approval. Along with your screenshot, briefly state any challenges you experienced.
Also Check Out: NURS 350 DQ Quantitative versus Qualitative Research Designs
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: DNP 801 Topic 3 DQ 2 Create a screen shot of the completed sample log and post it in the Individual Forum for faculty review and approval
Name: Discussion Rubric
| Excellent
90–100 |
Good
80–89 |
Fair
70–79 |
Poor
0–69 |
|||
| Main Posting:
Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three current credible sources. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible references. |
31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One to 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. Cited with fewer than two credible references. |
0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). 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 references. |
||
| Main Posting:
Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
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 Posting:
Timely and full participation |
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main Discussion by due date. |
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main Discussion by due date. |
||
| First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. |
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. |
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. |
||
| First Response:
Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully 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. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
||
| First Response:
Timely and full participation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date. |
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
||
| Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. |
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. |
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. |
||
| Second Response: Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully 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. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
||
| Second Response: Timely and full participation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date. |
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
||
| Total Points: 100 | ||||||
Name: Discussion Rubric